The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-05-02 City Council PacketOp E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council tnl. }nyo REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 2, 2023, 7:00 PM PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 THOSE COMMENTING USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. PRESENTATION 1. Multimodal Level of Service as part Transportation Plan Update (45 min) 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. Edmonds City Council Agenda May 2, 2023 Page 1 RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. Written Public Comments (0 min) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2023 2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Report on Construction Bids for Citywide Bicycle Improvements and Elm Way Walkway Projects (10 min) 2. Library Property Quit Claim Deed (10 min) 3. Sno-Isle Library District & City of Edmonds Interlocal Agreement (20 min) 4. Introduction to permanent code amendment for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) (45 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda May 2, 2023 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Multimodal Level of Service as part Transportation Plan Update Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation n/a Narrative Staff is preparing to begin the update to the City's Transportation Plan in coordination with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City should perform a major update to the Transportation Plan every six to eight years and the last update was completed in 2015. The main objective of the Plan is to identify short-range and long-range strategies that lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while addressing current and future transportation demand and land use. In order to provide concurrency throughout our transportation system (based on GMA requirements), the infrastructure must kept up with and be adequate to serve the planned growth The proposed update includes a significant change since the addition of a new multimodal level of service (MMLOS) is being considered in place of the previous vehicle Level of Service at only signalized and stop -controlled intersections. The development of a multimodal level of service requires evaluation of different strategies, policies, and programs to build the framework to implement the new level of service standard. Based on PSRC's expectations, the multimodal concurrency and LOS programs (in order to order to meet GMA requirements and VISION 2050's multicounty planning policies) should include the following: 1. Methodology to evaluate LOS for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; 2. Adopt LOS standard(s) based on the methodology; 3. Identification of existing and future deficiencies to maintain LOS; and 4. Measures for addressing existing and future deficiencies - to maintain LOS. MMLOS is currently being used or will soon be used in various local jurisdictions in the region (such as Bellingham, Bellevue, and Shoreline). Following this discussion, the next Council action item scheduled for May 161" is the approval of the Professional Services Agreement with our selected consultant from Transpo Group. Packet Pg. 3 4.1 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Presentation Packet Pg. 4 �°F EDP 0 I� Inc. 1890 Transportation Concurrency and Issues to Consider in Adopting Multimodal LOS Performance Measures May 2, 2023 Transpo Group Consultants Transportation Regulations Level of Service (LOS) & Transportation Concurrency • Locally -owned arterial streets • Transit service (Non -City provider) • Sidewalk & bikeway LOS not required for concurrency, but multimodal required by both GMA & PSRC Transportation Impact Analysis • SEPA-based if not codified in City • Off -site traffic signals, signal timing, sidewalks, safety, or payment in -lieu of improvements Street Frontage Improvements • Bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street lights, shared drives, access restrictions Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) • Transportation system improvements attributable to the impacts of new growth All can elicit mitigation measures based on standards and metrics adopt = _: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans — Mandatory Elements "The plan shall be an internally consistent document and consistent with the future land use map." (6) "A transportation element." element that implements, elements shall is consistent with, (B) "Level of service [LOS] standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system." (b) "Cities must adopt and enforce [concurrency] ordinances to prohibit development that causes the level of service on local arterials to decline adopted standards" If land use goals = higher density infill, then LOS & concurrency ordinance should be designed to allow infill served by adequate transportation Vision 2050* ' Multicounty Planning Policies *Edmonds Comprehensive Planning Horizon = 2044 PSRC Minimum Expectations = Multimodal concurrency ani LOS programs that meet Growth Management Act requirements and VISION 2050's multicounty planning polic will include: 1. Methodology to evaluate LOS for transit, bicycles, and pedestrians and veh 2. Adopt LOS standard(s) based on the methodology 3. Identification of existing and future deficiencies — to maintain LOS 4. Measures for addressing existing and future deficiencies — to maintain LOS 4.1.a V- Transportation oncurren y: r-ewth management requires tr-ansportation systems to be adequate t( sere planned growth. Transportation o concurrency links land use plans with transportation and capital improvement plans,, providing a tool for effectively o managing the growth of our community. Musts Enual c TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY Packet Pg. 9 You Get What You Measure U (Inadequate Metrics =Inadequate Outcomes) Key Concepts • WA Comprehensive Plan and Concurrency Requirements • Traditional Vehicular LOS Standards & Perspectives • Outcomes Resulting from Inadequate Tools & Metrics 4.1.a .-100% E — 90% ❑ — 80% C— �. 70% B — 60% A — 50% — 40% — 30% —20% —10% dr7w9so s / / , so 10 � as F A� s TIME B 201 IN SECONDS 75 © C 25 7a E 65 / 60 55 30 _ p 35 ` 40 45 50 ` I , Q Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Ah 1 � � • I I I _ P.M. Peak Traffic Volumes (The Local Evening Rush h Hour) 140 130 Weekday Work lours 120 110 LOS F (Adopted Standard for Arterials} r 100 LOS E .SELECT (Adopted r 9 Standard for Arterials) LOS ❑ i 1 4 L Measuredere ; Z TO LOS B aaa 60 Avaifab�e , Avai a e LOS A 60 I Ak U n u SeC- as t1 u S@ Arterial _ , Arterial E 40 r71#�]f C3 = L r Capaty ci Q 3O r > o � � W 20 I I I = Q3 I L } 10 V Time Packet Pg. 12 r r Q Terminology & Metrics: Inverse Values = Public Confusion Public Experience: Grade Report Cards LOS Traffic Engineering Demand vs. Supply Highway Capacity Manual letter value LOS classifications and inaccurate terminology, such as "failure," contribute to public confusion and controversy Traditional LOS and GMA Concurrency ■ GMA and Local Goals: "infill; compact urban centers; discourage sprawl; encourage multimodal transportation; maximize benefit, minimize cost" Common Approach: Static vehicular LOS standards based on a mode -limited measure (v/c or delay) from national manual (HCM) that is not registered to local community's land use and transportation goals, or ability to fund Common Implementation: Develop, deny, or mitigate (Add vehicle capacity); ■ Common Result: Road and intersection widening, expansive urban sprawl, land intensive and auto -oriented transportation system Common results don't achieve the GMA or local goal. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" — attributed to Albert Einstein Perpetual Accommodation of Auto Convenience at the Cost of Other Modes and Land Use Goals M■ 7 r fl 1 Incremental widening to "reduce delay" for vehicle drivers How many turn lanes are enough in dense urban areas? How do pedestrians feel trying to cross this intersection? How many highway lanes are enoug freeway lones plus frontage for Vehicle "Capacity" Measures vs. Human Mob,,,,.y • HCM LOS measures count individual vehicles; not human occupants • Average U.S. vehicle is designed to carry 4 to 5 people • Average U.S. vehicle occupancy is between 1.0 and 1.25 persons per vehicle • HCM LOS "P = 100% roadway capacity for vehicles, but 25% mobility capacity for huma • This equates to a very inefficient use of the transportation system to move people www.cyclingpromo*n.com,au 1 NA. �'► The Need to Change Measures and Perspectives y • Past Transportation Planning & Engineering Maximize vehicle thru-put; minimize vehicle delay; Vehicle LOS F = "fai Outcome = measure vehicles & mitigate (widen) for vehicle "needs" or • Public/Community Misunderstanding City Planners should strive for misperceived excellence — LOS A or B Based on vehicle measures at busiest locations and hours of the day Outcome = wasted tax dollars, under-utilized roads, auto -dominance • Modern Transportation Planning & Engineering: Balance & integrate transportation improvements with land use Conte; Mobility needs of PEOPLE: Ped, bike, transit, and vehicle networks Maximize land use efficiency, affordable 24/7/365 transportation syste TRADE-OFF: Expect urban traffic congestion at busiest times as NORM ".' 4.1.a Pedestrians Bicycles Public Transit Commercial Vehicles / Trucks High Occupancy Vehicles Single Occupancy , Vehicles A 0�- 0 Auto -Oriented Planning 471, rrrrr � ��►•t Multimodal Planning r a Packet Pg. 18 2015 Comprehensive Plan Adopted LOS Standards • HCM Intersection Delay— Seconds/Vehicle at PM Peak Intersection Concurrency • LOS C Collectors • LOS D Arterials • LOS E State Hwy Regional Intersection Non-Concurrency 9 LOS D State Hwy Significant Inc. 18913 Adopted Policy 5.15 "Implement multi -modal LOS standards that considers transit and non -motorized operation as well as automobile operations." 2)( .� NONE# .. 1. Summary • GMA requires Transportation Concurrency - does not dictate method EVI Transportation LOS standards must allow planned growth in land use element Concurrency program should help City achieve land use and transportation goals Peak hour urban traffic congestion does not equal "failure" of facilities o Peak hour congestion is inevitable, unavoidable, temporary inconvenience o Cities cannot build their way out of peak hour traffic congestion • There is no universal land use -transportation performance metric R Traditional auto -only metrics do not measure the citywide transportation system o Local urban "needs" = multimodal and different than rural, State, or federal o Metrics should be tailored to community planning and mobility goals • You get what you measure - So design measures to get what you want o Prioritize metrics to emphasize movement of people, not just vehicles Measure people -moving networks: Completeness, connectivity, accessibility o Measure safety/comfort for most vulnerable users: Pedestrian, bicycle, transit U Questions, Discussion., and What's Next? 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Written Public Comments Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of written public comments. Narrative Public comments submitted to the web form for public comments <https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment> between April 20, 2023 and April 26, 2023. Attachments: Public Comment May 2, 2023 Packet Pg. 22 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comment — May 2, 2023 Submitted 4/23/2023 9:59:45 PM FirstName Kathy LastName Ferguson Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Upzoning I would like elected officials to do all they can to fight upzoning . It's a Comments terrible idea that benefits few in the overall scheme. Look to Leavenworth to see what ADU can do to an area. Fighting to keep Edmonds as Edmonds is worth it c as E E 0 c.� 2L 7 Packet Pg. 23 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2023 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Recommendation Approval of Council Committee Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: E042523 Packet Pg. 24 8.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES April 25, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5' 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 0 since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their Q sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land a and water." M N to N 3. ROLL CALL c w City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. a� E 4. PRESENTATION c� r 1. ANNUAL REPORT - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE Q Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire (SCF), introduced Bob Eastman, Assistant Chief, and Leslie Hynes, Communications Director. Fire Chief Hovis presented: South County Fire by the Numbers 0 15 neighborhood fire stations staffed 24/7, including three fire stations in Edmonds 0 300+ uniformed personnel 0 70 firefighters on duty during the day and 64 overnight 0 36,891 incidents in 2022, including 6,038 in Edmonds o Most 911 calls are EMS - 84% in the City of Edmonds o Serves nearly 300,000 people across 53 square miles in south Snohomish County Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 1 Packet Pg. 25 8.1.a o Mill Creek annexed into the regional fire authority in 2022 o Brier and Mountlake Terrace, currently served by contract, are voting on annexation on April 25 o An additional 24-hour EMS transport unit was added effective March 1, 2022. Serving Our Residents o Fires o Medical emergencies o Motor vehicle collisions o Hazardous materials o Rescues o Marine / Water f° o Other hazards and emergency situations a o Community health, safety and risk reduction a g Emergency Medical Services o This is our most requested service N o All firefighters are emergency medical technicians or paramedics N 0 84% of incidents in the City of Edmonds were dispatched as EMS in 2022 w o South County Fire is the first agency in the county to carry whole blood to provide in -field blood transfusions for patients with life -threatening medical conditions or trauma injuries E o Cardiac arrest saves z ■ South County Fire's cardiac arrest save rate across the RFA is consistently well above state r and national averages a o Community lifesavers ■ ACT First Aid provides free online training in hands -only CPR ■ AED partnership with Edmonds Police, Edmonds Police Foundation and South County Firefighter Foundation ■ Photograph of two Edmonds residents with their driving instructor who took ACT first aid training and performed CPR and resuscitated an individual Regional Training o Benefits of regional training ■ Sharing instructors and expertise ■ Reducing duplicated efforts Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 2 Packet Pg. 26 8.1.a ■ Breaking down borders with neighboring fire agencies allows us to work together more effectively on mutual aid incidents o County Fire Training Consortium ■ South County Fire, Everett Fire, Marysville Fire, Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, Snohomish Fire District 4 and North County Fire & EMS o Snohomish County Fire Training Academy ■ 119 entry and lateral recruits completed training in 2022 - Winter: 49 recruits from 8 departments - including 19 from South County Fire - Summer: 15 recruits from South County Fire - Fall: 55 recruits from 7 departments - including 19 from South County Fire Edmonds Fire Prevention o Development Review & Construction Inspections 2022 ■ 850+ maintenance/follow up inspections* ■ 474 construction inspections ■ 366 compliance inspections ■ 20 special event inspections ■ 396 plan review ■ 91 pre-development/development meetings Community Outreach o EMS Week Fire Station Open House ■ Saturday, May 20th - 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. ■ Edmonds Downtown Station 17 - 275 Sixth Ave N, Edmonds o Community events in Edmonds ■ More than 6,100 residents reached at events including Fire Camp, Fourth of July Parade, Kids in Transition Oktoberfest and National Night Out events in the city. o Free online classes ■ ACT First Aid & CPR a ■ Disaster Preparedness ■ Child Car Seat Safety o ■ Virtual Car Seat Checks ■ Home Fire Safety ■ Aging in Place a ■ Child Safety & CPR o Distribution of lifesaving devices N ■ Child car seats N ■ Smoke alarms o ■ CO alarms w ■ Infant safe sleep sacks ■ Bike helmets E z ■ File of Life 0 Community Resource Paramedics Q o Non -emergency service to help reduce 911 calls and hospital use o Serves older adults, mental health patients, disabled people, homeless and veterans o Breaks down barriers and creates access to care o Edmonds by the numbers: ■ Enrollments:132 ■ Contacts: 600 This includes home visits, phone calls, emails, etc. ■ 51 % reduction in 911 calls throughout the South County Fire service area Assistant Chief Bob Eastman reviewed: • Emergency Responses - 2022 by the numbers and contract required metrics Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 27 8.1.a o Number of Calls ■ 2018: 5,555 ■ 2019: 5,486 ■ 2020*: 4,977 ■ 2021 *: 5,461 ■ 2022: 6,038 (9.7% increase from 2018) *Due to COVID, 2020 and 2021 not considered in data trends o Type of calls ■ Emergency Medical Aid: 84% - Basic Life Support: 54% - Advanced Life Support: 30% ■ Fire:9% ■ Other:7% Response Times o Looks at 8-minute response time in four categories o This measures Sno911's call receipt to arrival o Comparisons of data for 2018-2022 o Response times have varied ■ 80% of calls received by 911 center are via cell phones ■ Cell phones increase dispatch time due to need to confirm address; land line phones automatically provide address and phone number o Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less ■ 2018: 75.72% ■ 2019: 73.45% ■ 2020:56.19% ■ 2021: 68.41% ■ 2022:79.58% o Response time on 90% of calls ■ 2018: 09:29 ■ 2019: 09:42 ■ 2020: 10:40 ■ 2021: 09:59 ■ 2022: 09:16 • Turnout Time MN o Measures the time from when Sno9l l call is dispatched to the time the apparatus leaves the N station o o Includes time to put on bunker gear and other safety equipment such as body armor when wL; necessary o The reporting standard in the contract is different from the city's adopted standard in the 1756 z compliance report: 2:15 (contract) vs. 2:45 (compliance report) o South County Fire meets and exceeds the city adopted standard of 2:45 (90.44%) Q o Turnout time percentage at 2:15 ■ 2018: 75.44% ■ 2019: 82.34% ■ 2020:81.28% ■ 2021:77.66% ■ 2022:78.07% o 90% Turnout Time ■ 2018: 2:49 ■ 2019: 2:34 ■ 2020: 2:34 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 28 8.1.a ■ 2021: 2:42 ■ 2022: 2:43 Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor o What it evaluates: Response of units across jurisdictional boundaries. o What the numbers mean: ■ 100% = an equal balance of cross jurisdictional response ■ Contract considers 90%-110% to be within balance range ■ Over 100% = units from neighboring jurisdictions are responding into Edmonds more than Edmonds units are responding outside the city o Why does this matter? ■ We have a regional emergency delivery system ■ This evaluates if level of service decisions in one jurisdiction negatively impact a neighboring jurisdiction Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mountlake Terrace 133% 130% 157% 111% 41% Lynnwood 202% 210% 280% 253% 147% RFA 148% 162% 197% 178% 92% 0 8 In 2022, the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor varied greatly from previous years. As a result of longer wall times at hospitals, made operational changes This is due to the deployment of an additional aid unit that was operating out of Station 20 for the first part of 2022 and Station 16 for the remainder of 2022. ■ Mountlake Terrace units: 58.55% less into Edmonds ■ Lynnwood units: 47.33% more into Edmonds ■ RFA units: 8.32% less into Edmonds Unit Hour Utilization Factor (UHUF) o What it evaluates: Percentage of time a fire unit is on a call o What the numbers mean: The higher the number, the busier the unit is ■ Unit Hour Utilization Factor is up for Edmonds stations, but within compliance with contract standards ■ This number is up at all Edmonds fire station ■ 20% is the trigger to start looking at deployment options and additional resources o Unit Hour Utilization 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Station 16 15.10% 15.06% 14.72% 13.79% 14.96% 18.46% Station 17 14.60% 13.11 % 11.75% 10.79% 11.72% 12.61 % Station 20 16.30% 17.36% 17.40% 15.94% 17.45% 21.59% Transport Balancing Factor (TBF) o Looks at the balance between: ■ Edmonds 4 Outside City - The number of times Edmonds -based units are doing transports outside the city ■ Outside City 4Edmonds - The number of times South County Fire units based outside the city are doing transports in Edmonds o In 2022, the factor was under 1.0 - Outside city units transporting in Edmonds less than Edmonds units transporting outside city - A factor of 1.0 means = in balance ■ Transports 2021 2022 RFA transports in the City 575 595 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 29 M N Ln N 0 w c a� E z U c� r Q Edmonds transports not in the City 460 794 Transport Balancing Factor (TBF) 1.250 0.749 • Other required metrics o Transport fees billed and collected in Edmonds and Esperance Edmonds Billed Edmonds Collected Es erance Billed Es erance Collected 2018 $2,374,490 $1,013,928 $135,776 $53,080 2019 $2,310,729 $973,880 $118,595 $48,838 2020 $2,164,260 $896,643 $85,807 $34,927 2021 $2,314,119 $870,562 $68,059 $27,601 2022 $2,500,700 $995,040 1 $79,605 $33,188 o Shoreline units into Edmonds (measured in incident responses) ■ 2018: 103 ■ 2019: 119 ■ 2020: 56 ■ 2021: 97 ■ 2022: 16 o Edmonds unit into Woodway (measured in seconds) ■ 2018: 164 ■ 2019: 5,288 ■ 2020: 5,544 ■ 2021: 4,713 ■ 2022 287 • Standards of Cover Compliance 1756 Report) Standard 2021 2022 Turnout Time in Standard of Cover 2:45 2:42 2:43 Turnout time in contract 2:15 2:34 First arriving engine company to a fire 6:30 6:38 6:39 Full first alarm assignment at residential fire 7:45 8:15 10:55 Full first alarm assignment at commercial fire 9:00 12:35 9:16 BLS response 5:15 6:33 6:25 ALS response 1 6.45 6:13 1 6:20 o Works starts with first arriving units, do not wait for all firefighters to arrive. More work is completed as more units arrive. o Additional standards measured in compliance report include (information in packet): ■ Hazmat responses (operational and technical) ■ Rescue technical response (operational and technical) ■ Marine response Assistant Chief Eastman recalled during the 2021 annual report, a question was raised about acquiring the former Value Village property for a fire station. A reportable release quantity was reported to Ecology from the site based on its previous use. There is a 10,000-gallon tank near Highway 99. SCF has been working with Ecology and Hospital District 2 to determine the extent of the release and what cleanup will be necessary. The most recent funding SCF received from Ecology needs to be spent by the end of June; he was hopeful enough information will be available by then to determine how move forward. This process takes time and has been underway for about two years. Ecology has been a great partner, about $284,000 has been spent to determine what needs to be done before moving forward. He anticipated more information would be available after July. With regard to a question about firefighting foam, Assistant Chief Eastman explained SCF stopped using that foam in 2018 when they were notified of the issue. The RFA currently has 16 five -gallon sealed and secured containers of the foam at their headquarters. SCF and other agencies are working with Ecology; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 30 M N Ln N 0 w c a) E z c� r Q Ecology has a formal process that includes public hearings regarding how to dispose of the foam. More will be known about that in December once Ecology gets through their process. Council President Tibbott thanked SCF for their complete report, expressing appreciation for the slides and photographs that represent what SCF is doing in Edmonds. As SCF will return in a few weeks to talk more broadly about the contract, he requested councilmembers limit questions to the report provided tonight. He inquired about a term used in the report, "wall time." Assistant Chief Eastman explained time is measured from when they arrive to the hospital to drop a patient off to when they are cleared and available for another call. Council President Tibbott recalled Assistant Chief Eastman mentioning that they have experienced six hours of wall time. Assistant Chief Eastman said units have experienced up to eight hours of wall time. This has occurred in California and Oregon in the past, Washington is just now experiencing some of those challenges. Some of it is infrastructure, not enough healthcare including behavioral health, hospital staff is tired and there are people in the hospital who shouldn't be there. For example, there are 125 people at Providence Everett who do not need to be in the hospital, but there is no place to take them. There were times in December where the hospital was at 30% staffing in the ER; if the fire department was at 30%, they would close 9 stations, but the hospital stays open and continues to see patients. He acknowledged 6- 8 hours sounded horrible, but he commended the hospital staff at Swedish Edmonds and Providence Everett for the amazing work they do. The problem of extended wall time will continue; SCF is doing its best to manage it from an operational point of view. Councilmember Nand thanked SCF for the work they do at the front line of a lot of the challenges facing society, basically doing triage due to a lack of funding and resources and putting a bandaid over the gaping wounds facing society. During the budget process last year, she and Councilmember Chen proposed an amendment to fund a study to locate a permanent police substation on Highway 99. She asked SCF to comment on whether it would make sense to combine that with a firefighter/EMS presence and how that would affect NLTUF. Chief Hovis answered that would be a good question when the commission meets with the council next month. Having a multiuse facility that can address law enforcement as well behavioral health and fire/EMS makes sense. Grid 157, the hospital area, is the epicenter of the City's call volume. With what is happening in Edmonds with the reimagining Highway 99, it makes good sense. However, electeds sign interlocal agreements, not him, and he would be interested in their thoughts. In an initial conversation with Verdant Health Commission, they also thought it was a great idea. Councilmember Paine was not surprised by the six -hour wall time as hospital infrastructure in the Puget g Sound area has not grown to keep up with the population. She thanked Assistant Chief Eastman for M N answering her questions, particularly the one about the fire extinguishing foam with the forever chemical N PFAS. She was glad to hear it was not in active use. She asked if there was anything the City could do to 0 assist the community in having their cell phone provide their home address. Assistant Chief Eastman said w the public can sign up for SMART 911. Mayor Nelson said the City is actively involved in SMART 911 and have signed up 5,000 residents. Chief Hovis said having location services enabled on a person's cell z phone so it can be pinged also helps dispatch identify a caller's location. c� r Councilmember Buckshnis thanked SCF for their presentation and for their service. She asked about houses a with alarm buttons, such as an ADT alarm where someone can push the fire button. She noted her family got rid of their land line due to that expanded alarm service function. Assistant Chief Eastman answered it depends on the alarm system and service. Typically, the alarm service sends all the information when an alert is activated for fire or EMS. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the extended wall time is costing someone money, probably SCF. She asked how that could be mitigated, commenting if someone is held up for eight hours, that could be their entire shift. Assistant Chief Eastman answered in working with all the hospitals in the county including Skagit Valley, six -hour wall times are small blips, not every call takes six hours. Wall time of 1'/2 hours Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 7 Packet Pg. 31 8.1.a during peak demand times is not unusual in all the hospitals in Snohomish County. Using a procedure developed for disasters, all providers call Providence Everett who maintains a real time dashboard of the status of all the hospitals and ERs, incoming transports, how long units have been there, etc. and using that information, patients are routed to hospitals to bring wall times down. There are efforts to formalize that system which was designed for disasters like bus accidents and plane crashes, to be the model for the state because extended wait times are happening everywhere. Providence Everett who gets most of the transports in Snohomish County, has a contract with Northwest Ambulance to provide EMTs who become temporary hospital employees and can take care of three patients which allows fire personnel to leave. A lot of creative things are happening to get fire units back in service quicker, some of which required state approval, which takes time. The goal is to take care of people SCF serves; the byproduct is patients move through the hospital faster and SCF units get back in service faster. Chief Hovis advised SCF has worked with the union to have up to five peak activity units on duty during daytime hours; about two-thirds of calls come in between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. That also allows the fire engines and ladder trucks to get back in service because, although there are not a lot of fires, there have been some significant events over the years in Edmonds so peak activity units help address that. The community resource paramedics have been at the hospital to "sit on patients" as the nursing staff tries to find beds for them. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in having a joint partnership on Highway 99. Chief Hovis agreed there was great potential for expanding vertically on that site. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the use of body armor. Assistant Chief Eastman explained dispatch will inform when there is a scene of violence and crews will don the appropriate PPE including body armor and helmets either before they leave the station or occasionally enroute. He recalled in 2019, an ambulance in Marysville had a bullet through the windshield. It doesn't happen often, but crews have the PPE available and a defined protocol regarding when to use it. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for SCF's service. The presentation provides the council c the insight and knowledge they need. The fact that 84% of calls are EMS makes sense for Edmonds because of its 20% senior population. He referred to the transport balance factor, recalling a year ago Edmonds was o over -utilizing neighboring cities' services and now that is reversed. He asked the implication of the $1.5 a million that Edmonds paid to correct that imbalance. Chief Hovis asked for clarification, whether there a should be consideration on the cost if the unit is moved. Councilmember Chen asked whether that could be M N considered or were there other factors that caused the imbalance. Chief Hovis answered Mountlake Terrace `O N has one fire station, Station 19, and in the 4.2 square miles of Mountlake Terrace with all the growth they o are experiencing, they had 2900 incidents. When the TBF and NUUF was discussed previously, Mountlake w Terrace was a piece of that. As fire chief, he cannot add staffing. If Mountlake Terrace voters decide in tonight's election to annex into the RFA, he will propose adjustments in the staffing at that station to the z commission for next year. Mountlake Terrace has the same staffing that existed in 2001. Another piece in the TBF and NUUF is Lynnwood; Station 17 has the greatest penetration into the Edmonds bowl area. If a a unit is moved to Station 16, it will serve Lynnwood and Highway 99, as well as North Edmonds. Station 20 Esperance is the busiest area, but until something different is done in Mountlake Terrace, it will provide extra service. The intent was to provide data from all three Edmonds fire stations, that year of data will be used to determine the best location for that unit. Councilmember Chen commented the reverse trend makes sense with the tremendous growth in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. If the trend continues, consideration needs to be given to appropriately adjusting the funding. He noted there was a workshop in the Brackett Room today regarding SMART 911. Chief Hovis advised as part of SMART 911, people can indicate if they are trained in ACT and/or CPR and be notified of a nearby medical emergency. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 32 8.1.a Councilmember Teitzel thanked Chief Hovis and Assistant Chief Eastman for their presentation and for the good work they do for Edmonds. In Edmonds, like other cities, more large apartment and condominium buildings are being constructed up to 75-feet on the Highway 99 corridor. He asked where a ladder apparatus to fight a fire on the top floor would come from as none of the three Edmonds stations have one. Chief Hovis answered there are ladder trucks at Lynnwood Station 14 in Blue Ridge and another at 156t' & Highway 99. Councilmember Teitzel asked if a ladder apparatus would be added at a new station at the former Value Village site if that came to fruition. Chief Hovis answered due to Sound Transit, consideration is being given to moving the ladder truck to Station 15 and if the Verdant property is secured it could be located there or at Station 10. Councilmember Teitzel observed calls are up 10% since 2018, but even with more calls, performance has improved; percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less is up about 5% 2018 compared to 2022, the response time on 90% of calls is down compared to 2018 and 2019. He asked what that was attributable to. Chief Hovis answered a highly motivated workforce and the remedial measure the council approved. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the TBF, observing since Swedish Edmonds is the only hospital in the Edmonds/Lynnwood/Mountlake Terrace area, it would be logical there would be more transports into Edmonds. He asked if the numbers were adjusted or normalized to take that into account. Assistant Chief Eastman answered the TBF is only calls that are generated within in Edmonds or calls outside Edmonds and specific units going out and coming in. It doesn't take into account if a unit happens to be at the hospital and is dispatched because it is closer. Other analysis has been done to ensure that is not happening. Councilmember Teitzel clarified his question was if a Mountlake Terrace EMS unit responds to a Mountlake Terrace incident and transports to Swedish Edmonds, is this data normalized somehow. Assistant Chief Eastman answered yes, the calculation is not based on where a patient ends up, it is where they are picked up. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS � � N Ln Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments. c w Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the city attorney agenda item and the first question, should legal services be contracted for as they are now, or should the city attorney position be a staff member? For the °' E last 32 years of his business career, he worked for two corporations that had in-house attorneys. As the officer responsible for worldwide sales, he also had an attorney on his staff. No single attorney will have the breadth of knowledge to deal with all issues so one of the major duties of an in-house attorney is to Q manage the work handled by the contracted attorneys. There will always be a need for outside attorneys, but not a need for an in-house attorney. The second question for the council is if the City continues to contact for services, who should the City contract with? He recalled about 12 years ago, after more than 24 years with the same firm, the council decided to test the market for the possibility of less expensive services. While it was a given that at least one proposal would be a lower cost than the current cost since a lower cost was the real purpose for seeking bids, Lighthouse Law offered a lower cost and the City contracted with them. The cost for their services was known, but the quality of the services was unknown. For about half their tenure, Lighthouse went through what was probably best described as an apprenticeship of City business. In recent years, they appear to be doing a good job. He has read and witnessed their annual reports and believed they were objective and unbiased. In his opinion, it would be a waste of the City's time and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 33 the taxpayers' money to go through another bidding process for legal services because a lower price will obviously be received for services of unknown quality. The Einstein quote, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" somewhat applies to this situation. Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, referred to the city attorney issue on the agenda and information from Shoreline provided in the study about maintenance of a law library. The cost of in-house counsel needs to include the cost of a library and historical background. He suggested the council consider whether they wanted to take a long term or short-term view. If the council was considering that Edmonds was growing and its legal problems will also grow so the legal team also needs to grow, in-house counsel makes sense and will provide a foundation. He thinks of Edmonds like Mayberry, a small town with small town problems that cannot anticipate or plan for the big town issues. He preferred to have an experienced legal team that has the infrastructure to adapt to whatever comes their way. In his opinion, in-house counsel may be more than the City can handle. Another issue with in-house counsel is contract attorneys are still necessary which reduces the predictability of cost. With regard to the MOU with WSDOT that the council discussed last week, he said sometimes things need to be simple. In reading the MOU, there is nothing that obligates the City. If the City ever enters into a contract to purchase the property, all the due diligence can be done, and he did not see why the council would object to signing the MOU. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2023 2. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2023 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 5. 2023 APRIL BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2023 UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJF.CT Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla reviewed: • Scope of Work 0 1,870 ft of 12-in, 8-in and 6-in Watermain 0 310 ft of 8-in and 6-in Sewer pipe 0 710 ft of 18-in Sewer pipe o New Sewer Structures 0 1,180 ft of 8-in & 10-in CIPP Sewer • Bid Results Contractor Amount Shoreline Construction $2,638,969 Rodarte Construction $2,661,789 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 34 M N to N O w c a� E t c� to r r Q 8.1.a Laser Underground $2,708,421 Marshbank Construction $2,879,012 Colacurcio Brothers $3,859,802 Engineers Estimate $2,852,346 • Proposed Construction Budget Proposed Bud et Amount Contract Award — Shoreline Construction $2,638,969 Management Reserve (15%) $395,845 Const. M mt., Inspection & Testing 15% $395,845 Total $3,430,659 • Construction Funding Funding Source Amount Water Utility Fund $1,792,019 Sewer Utility Fund $1,638,640 Total $3,430,659 0 Staff Recommendation o Award Construction Contract to Shoreline Construction o Authorize a 15% Management Reserve of $395,845 Council President Tibbott pointed out Shoreline Construction has done a lot of work in the City. Mr. De Lilla answered staff has been extremely happy with their work, they are very responsible, responsive, and look ahead to things that may be a problem; everything one would expect a contractor to do, they do and do it well. He was very glad they were the low bidder. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,430,659. Council President Tibbott commented he has seen Shoreline Construction's work firsthand and was glad they are a company the City can rely on. Councilmember Olson said she also feels good about the contract award; four of the five bids were in line M with each other as well as with the engineer's estimate. She referred to the narrative that states this project Ln N was a combination of the annual water and sewer replacement projects and asked why staff was confident they would receive multiple bids. Mr. De Lilla answered the market has been pretty interesting. With the w pandemic there has been the great resignation among engineers and many jurisdictions are having difficulty keeping up with projects. Edmonds was lucky to retain its usual timeline for going out to bid but many °' cities have not been able to do that so more contractors looking for work. The goal is to go out to bid in the timeframe of January - April/May when everyone is building their backlog. Doing that usually results in more bidders and a more favorable bidding climate versus going to bid later in the year when the a construction season is a bigger consideration such as delays due to weather. Going to bid earlier results in a better chance of doing the work during dry conditions although the weather this spring has been an anomaly. Councilmember Olson said she felt lucky the City had the engineers it does, and she expressed appreciation for the confident estimates they provide. Mr. De Lilla said the engineers have a good idea about costs, the biggest challenge has been the economy and inflation, but engineers keep in touch with contractors regarding material availability; for example, sometimes pipe can take 4-8 weeks to be delivered. Having contractors like Shoreline Construction helps with that as well. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 35 8.1.a Councilmember Chen commended staff for getting so many bids and the lowest bid from Shoreline. He asked about equity and inclusion in the selection of contractors. Mr. De Lilla answered there are state laws that have to be followed that include inclusion, apprentice utilization measures, etc. He was not familiar with requirements related to minority -owned businesses. With regard to Shoreline Construction, they are a minority -owned business, the main owner is Doug Suzuki. Federal contracts have requirement for minority businesses, but the City's purchasing policies do not. A lot of consultants the City deals with have minority, women or veterans owned statuses. The City tries not to always pick the same contractor, but in accordance with state law, the City is required to accept the lowest bid. There may be ways to increase inclusion, but it would need to fit the requirement for the low bid, the one true selection item that the City is required to follow. Councilmember Chen asked with a big project like this, the engineer must have quality control in place to ensure work is done properly. Mr. De Lilla answered this project has been 1-1'/2 in the making. Engineers coordinate with maintenance and operations staff regarding the projects and sites and compare that to the N sewer, water and stormwater comprehensive plans. Once sites are selected and preliminary alignments N done, the fire marshal is consulted to ensure hydrant coverage is adequate for the project and verify Li necessary fire flows. Various models are consulted for water and sewer to ensure demand is met. For `V example, last year's sewer project was constructed due to increased development near 239' that may have a caused issues downstream for the sewer system. From there it is an iterative process with numerous discussions between public works, engineering, and maintenance and operation. The public is involved whenever possible, especially with regard to placement of fire hydrants. 5 Councilmember Chen commented the scariest thing would be to install pipe that ends up not being large enough. Mr. De Lilla said so far, the modeling has been good, but the comprehensive plan update will m reassess things, more than likely sewer related, because the water system is in pretty good shape. L M Councilmember Teitzel commented this was reviewed by the Planning & Public Works Committee. He a referred to bills that were passed by the legislature and headed to the governor that will result in more density in a non-standard trend line. c Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, requesting councilmembers speak to the motion. Mayor o Nelson ruled point taken. Q a Councilmember Nand said she has questions about the information presented and was not be comfortable M N voting on the motion until she gets those questions answered. She was surprised Shoreline's bid was N $200,000 below the engineer estimate. She asked whether the management reserve of approximately w $400,000 was adequate in view of labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and fuel cost fluctuations or should it be higher. Mr. De Lilla answered he anticipated 15% should be fine. For projects like this the Q management reserve is usually 10%. The reason this project has a 15% management reserve is the water z main site is closer to the bowl area which has historically had a lot of interesting underground features that records do not typically show. This is similar to the Dayton replacement project which was accomplished a with the budget provided. Councilmember Nand said she had a comment related to the issue of DEI that Councilmember Chen brought up, but she would wait until after the vote on the motion to ask those questions. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nand said she has a minority and woman -owned business but chooses not to seek an OMBWE designation because as a lawyer she does not want to be typecast, a decision a lot of other minority and woman owned businesses make. She asked if it would be possible to do a voluntary self-support for the REDI manager and engineering to track that demographic information. Mr. De Lilla said that could be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 36 8.1.a considered; he did not see any issue with tracking, only having the staff and time to track that metric. Councilmember Nand said that may be part of the REDI manager's workload. Councilmember Teitzel continued his earlier comment, anticipating there will be more density per square mile in the next 5-10 years; however, infrastructure planning has been based on previous projected densities. He asked if there were plans for larger diameter pipes or had that been considered yet. Mr. De Lilla answered the exact locations are currently unknown and will occur based on the new zoning. City staff is definitely looking into reassessing the sewer and water models in the near horizon. It may be harder to make that determination for the sewer model as the City takes effluent from other entities to the WWTP. He concluded stay tuned is his best answer. 2. EDMONDS CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION DECISION - CONTRACT OR IN-HOUSE? Councilmember Paine explained tonight is when the council will make a decision whether to remain with the contracting model for city attorney services or to bring city attorney services in-house. Council has had an opportunity to review and ask questions about the materials in the packet. The subcommittee has been working on this since the beginning of the year and have endeavored to present all the information in a neutral but complete manner including pros and cons for both models, summary information and financial summaries for the nine comparator cities as well as an assessment of the contracted city attorneys' hourly rates. Per the subcommittee's work plan, if the choice is to continue with contracted services, the subcommittee will propose a draft Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/RFQ). If the decision is to bring city attorney services in-house, the administration will be asked to start the process of developing a job description and ultimately publishing the job bulletin seeking applicants. Councilmember Paine pointed out the administration will have an opinion about this and the subcommittee invites the mayor to speak on the issue. Mayor Nelson began his comments and Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, suggesting the council vote on whether the mayor should speak first. Councilmember Paine commented before the council votes, it is important for the council to hear the o administration's opinion because this is a big decision that includes a lot of the administrative staff who use a the city attorney services daily. Therefore, it is important to have the mayor and administration's voice in a this discussion. Councilmembers will make their own voices heard during the process and this is an N opportunity to hear the administration's opinion. N 0 Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, commenting it sounded like Councilmember Paine was w making a motion and discussing the motion. Councilmember Paine said she was making a motion. E COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO HAVE THE MAYOR REPRESENT THE ADMINISTRATION AND OFFER THE ADMINISTRATION'S VOICE AND OPINION. Q Councilmember Buckshnis said she will vote against the motion because she preferred the council discuss this first followed by the mayor weighing in rather than him providing his opinion first. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND NAND ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson said as someone who was a councilmember who had the opportunity to see how the city attorney operated from the outside, now as the mayor and seeing how the city attorney operates from that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 13 Packet Pg. 37 8.1.a perspective and how staff interacts from the city attorney at a level he did not see when he was a councilmember, he could say a majority of the workload is with a variety of city staff, most of which is unseen by council as well as by the mayor. There are regular reports, meetings, advice, etc. where all Lighthouse's contract attorneys are constantly working with staff on a myriad issues. Without that experience, it is difficult to look at it objectively and say an in-house attorney would be better because of X or a contract attorney would be because of Y. He has had the pleasure of working with one contract attorney who he believes has done a great job. He was unsure he could be objective but preferred to keep the contract attorney because of who the contract attorney firm is. To ensure everyone understands the process, Council President Tibbott explained tonight the council is making a decision regarding contracted city attorney services or in-house city attorney. The intent is to discuss how to proceed at the next council meeting. He had an opportunity to review the survey responses from city council, city staff and others and found the reviews regarding the current contracted city attorney were very good. He opined the City consistently gets quality legal input from whomever at Lighthouse is N providing legal counsel, whether Mr. Taraday, the labor specialist or other specialists. He expressed support N for an RFP process for a contracted attorney. Li N Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Paine and Nand for their professional and diligent work a gathering information. He stressed the information in the packet is presented by the subcommittee without any bias or spin. Tonight the subcommittee members will be speaking as individual councilmembers and provide their own opinions. He referred to the list of pros and cons, highlighting one of the pros of hiring 5 an in-house attorney is it is intended to be a long-term commitment such that the city attorney hopefully will become a long-term employee and gain institutional knowledge, a pro provided by one of the comparator cities. The term "long term commitment" is important, because if the council were to make that m change, it would be a long-term commitment, a choice that cannot be made lightly and needs to be well thought through. M a Councilmember Teitzel referred to another pro of hiring an in-house attorney, City attorney(s) are generally accessible for in -person consultation and will maintain regular office hours. He noted that was clearly a o benefit to be able to go down the hall and talk to the attorney. That pro was also provided by one of the comparator cities. o a a Councilmember Teitzel highlighted a con of hiring an in-house city attorney, as a generalist, the city a attorney(s) may not have knowledge of specialty areas of the law, requiring contracting of outside counsel M N to special legal needs. This can make it difficult to assess the net total city attorney costs (when in-house to N and the need for ad hoc contracting legal services are considered). Councilmember Teitzel highlighted o another con, as city employee(s), in house attorney(s) require full benefits packages, incur professional w expenses related to the practice of law (including legal research engines, continuing legal education credits, bar dues, professional association membership, etc.) and office support, which require a municipal budget z that is able and willing to support those needs. A city attorney arrangement will likely require multiple attorneys (a single attorney would likely be unable to cover the workload), a paralegal and assistant to cover a the range of legal issues facing a city. Councilmember Teitzel highlighted another con, The in-house attorney(s) will report to the mayor, and that arrangement could compromise the independence of the city attorney(s) since the mayor —as the direct supervisor —may exert political pressure on the decisions of the city attorney(s). Councilmember Teitzel assured he was not saying that would happen or was likely to happen but there was the potential due to the direct reporting relationship versus the current contracted relationship. Councilmember Teitzel referred to pros and cons for a contracted city attorney, highlighting the following pros: offers a third -party, impartial, perspective; typically, a contracted city attorney firm has expertise in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 14 Packet Pg. 38 specialty areas in addition to standard municipal legal areas —minimizing the need to seek contracted help from additional firms; and no direct line of reporting to the administration, which can reduce potential for bias and the appearance of political interference in legal decisions. Councilmember Teitzel highlighted cons for a contracted city attorney: lack of cost predictability in the hourly rate model, as opposed to the less common flat -rate model; performance evaluation process can be cumbersome and vague (as opposed to a direct reporting arrangement); City may not have consistency in attorney coverage (e.g., when primary attorney is not available, a substitute may step in who is not as familiar with the current city issues). Councilmember Teitzel summarized each model has pros and cons. He reiterated if the council chooses to go in-house that is a big, long-term decision, not to be taken lightly and will require funding contract attorneys in addition to the in-house attorney. Councilmember Teitzel cited numbers from the data provided. The in-house annual expense for 2022 ranged from $725,000 in Shoreline to $1.5 million in Puyallup; Edmonds paid Lighthouse $647,000 in 2022. He referred to the 2023 hourly rate comparison for current contracted attorneys, Lighthouse Tier 1 attorneys bill at $336/hour and Tier 2 attorneys bill at $253/hour, which is in the mid -range of other 2023 contracted city attorney rates. He concluded Edmonds was getting a fair deal from that perspective compared to the market. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY CONTINUE TO CONTRACT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES. Councilmember Nand said, speaking not as a member of the legal assessment subcommittee but as a councilmember, she was in favor of retaining the contract model as well as bypassing an RFP and retaining the contract with Lighthouse. She did not think the City of Edmonds was large enough administratively to justify having in-house counsel. Funding the RFPs for support paralegal and assistants and managing outside billing of specialty law firms is an endeavor that a much larger city might undertake; Edmonds does not have that level of need. The City's needs are more than adequately being served by Lighthouse and the contact attorney model. She anticipated the City would be taking on more fuss, expense and headaches than needed with an in-house attorney because basically the City is contracting with Lighthouse to manage that administrative burden. As the 2022 Legal Investment Summary for Comparator Cities indicates, the City is getting a very good bargain. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she takes this job very seriously and was involved with the review M in 2014 and saw the fiasco in 2019. She also worked with Ogden Murphy Wallace when she was first on N council. She has discussed this with many individuals including attorneys and supports continuing to c contract for city attorney services. An issue for discussion is non -biased decisions and whether the citizens w still have trust in Lighthouse. E Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, suggesting Councilmember Buckshnis speak to the motion. His motion was not related to any particular firm but continuing to contract for city attorney services. Mayor Q Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was an important issue due to lawsuits, tort, land use, and everything imaginable facing the City such as 5G and agreed the City should continue contracting for city attorney services. Councilmember Olson commended the subcommittee for the information provided in the packet. She referenced two cons related to an in-house attorney that she was interested in avoiding and she has a strong bias toward a contract arrangement. Those cons are related to potential gaps in coverage should the counsel be ill or on vacation. There has also been a question raised of whether one in-house city attorney would be adequate or if more than one would be required which makes it a less financially viable option. Under the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 15 Packet Pg. 39 current contract city attorney arrangement, when Mr. Taraday is away, there are other very competent attorneys available to fill that role. She highlighted another con related to an in-house attorney reporting to the mayor and potential for compromising the independence of the city attorney. Those were big reasons not to utilize an in-house city attorney model. Almost all the pros of an in-house city attorney are met with the City's particular contracted attorney Lighthouse such as familiarity with city issues and personnel, long term commitment and gain of institutional knowledge, generally accessible, focused only on City issues and more sensitive to ongoing issues because regularly works in the City. She had no reservations with a vote for a contracted city attorney model. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE CONTRACTING WITH LIGHTHOUSE EFFECTIVE TONIGHT. Councilmember Paine commented it was clear the council had all the votes needed for an RFP for a contracted city attorney model. With Lighthouse, the City has terrific access to a broad range of legal services with a well -respected municipal services law firm. A contracted city attorney is more cost effective and multi -year contracts offer consistency and easy access to legal advice for both the council and administration. The service provided by Lighthouse is tantamount to having in-house counsel but provided via a contract. Looking from a 30,000-foot view, the City has had very effective counsel who knows everyone, can speak to their concerns and picks up on threads. Lighthouse's staffing model has been very effective with superb services. She expressed support for a new contract with Lighthouse effective next week. Councilmember Teitzel said although he has had a very good experience with Lighthouse, he will not support the motion because many citizens have said it is time after 12-13 years to see what is available in market. It is incumbent on councilmembers to hear those voices and to respond. He preferred to proceed with an RFP which both the contract with Lighthouse and the ordinance related to the city attorney provides for. Councilmember Olson asked if there were any councilmember who did not want to take a vote on this issue o tonight. She did not want to vote if anyone wanted more time to make that decision. To the extent that the council proceeds with a vote tonight, she had the same opinion bubble up through this process. She was o thankful for the process and the amount of information provided to council. To the point made by another a councilmember about wanting to learn what is available in the market, the council is unlikely to learn that a from applications or interviews so that is not a compelling reason. Having someone actually do the work is M how one sees how the work will be done. She had compelling reasons for continuing with the current N contract city attorney after evaluating this packet. Many of the pros of an in-house attorney have been met c with the City's existing contracted attorney, which may not be the case for other cities who utilize contracted w city attorneys per the feedback from comparator cities. E Councilmember Olson observed Lake Stevens contracts separately for employment law and Puyallup contracts separately for telecom and cable franchises, areas of expertise that Lighthouse has. Issaquah paid two additional months of overlap between their new and old contracted attorneys when they selected Q another contracted attorney. Even if the City obtains a new contract attorney at exactly the same hourly cost, they will not have the institutional knowledge that Lighthouse has, requiring more hours for the new contract attorney to gather information. She concluded it would be more expensive to contract with a different city attorney. Based on the above, and crediting Lighthouse for navigating a very contentious few years with professionalism and patience, she will support continuing to contract with Lighthouse. In speaking to the amendment to bypass an RFP process and negotiate a contract with Lighthouse, Councilmember Nand said her philosophy is if it's not broke, don't fix it. If there had been serious problems as a result of the review of Lighthouse in January where multiple people who work with the city attorney indicated they were dissatisfied with the level of service, she would have supported devoting time to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 16 Packet Pg. 40 8.1.a managing an RFP process. However, she did not think that was a good use of the council's time this year and preferred the City strengthen its relationship with Lighthouse. Although she was unsure the City would ever get back to the incredible flat rate that Lighthouse offered, the hourly rate contract is being managed very judiciously and the City is making good use of taxpayer dollars. She preferred if it was not broke, don't not fix it and for council to focus on actual issues facing the City and not fall prey to a very vocal minority that have issues with the city attorney. Of the 43,000 people in Edmonds, 99.99% do not have a problem with Lighthouse or the services they provide. Councilmember Chen observed a lot has been said about the wonderful service provided by the current city attorney, but as elected officials, the council represents its constituents in making a decision whether to have legal services provided via a contracted firm or in-house attorney. He agreed with continuing with a contract model given the City's size and situation and all the pros and cons that councilmembers have cited. However, he did not support the amendment because he wanted to see what's out there. If Lighthouse continued to be the strongest candidate, logically they would be selected as the City's contracted attorney. Councilmember Buckshnis said there was a reason the City chose to look at other attorneys in the past when OMW was the city attorney. Like Mr. Wambolt described, the City hired a young firm with a flat rate model and learned a lot. It is important to citizens to be judicious because there has been a long-term relationship with Lighthouse and there have been a lack of trust with some citizens on specific issues. She agreed an RFP process would take a lot of time, but the last few years have been very tedious and troublesome with some things that happened. Councilmember Paine urged councilmembers to support the amendment because the City has been getting high quality service from Lighthouse. The judicial officers who commented on their work said Lighthouse was top of the line and could not have scored them higher. Lighthouse has been doing municipal services work for the City with high marks. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL ABSTAINING. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS � � N Ln Mayor Nelson gave a special shout out to Council President Tibbott, commenting he was looking forward to councilmembers and directors attending the budget retreat and having a good discussion. w c 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS E t Councilmember Buckshnis reported Earth Day at Marina Beach was great. She thanked Robert Ha and the r Asian Service Center team and Councilmember Chen. She heard the other team which included the youth Q commission doing cleanup at Yost Park also had a great day. Councilmember Nand commented the community was struck by two tragedies this week, an innocent man was stabbed to death going to the grocery store at WinCo on Highway 99 and there was nothing people could do to save his life, and a young boy was shot, whether randomly or targeted. Her heart broke that a mother posted on My Edmonds Neighbors asking that anyone with information regarding the shooting report to the police. The council is trying to move police services to Highway 99, and she assured this is not a part of the community that is being disregarded or should be underserved. Edmonds should not be the type of place where people are stabbed or shot. There is violence happening in the community indigenously and coming into the community from other places. People should feel safe to live, work, and visit Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 17 Packet Pg. 41 8.1.a and just go to the grocery store or let their son play with friends. She summarized these events were heartbreaking and her heart goes out to those families. Councilmember Paine echoed Councilmember Nand's comments, the escalating violence needs to be addressed. She announced Edmonds Earth Fair on Saturday at the Frances Anderson field from 12 to 3:30 p.m. The public is invited to attend and volunteer opportunities are available. The Climate Protection Committee has been working on the fair for the last 15 months. It will include providers such as Ridwell and opportunities to recycle plastic, food truck, dietitians, composing tips and tricks, haulers, etc. Council President Tibbott referred to tragedies that occurred this last week, commenting it is very regrettable in so many ways to see this happening in Edmonds, it is frightening, grieving and not reflective of the Edmonds he knows. One of the silver linings for him was to see how effectively the Edmond Police Department worked with other police departments to develop a list of suspects and eventually bring people to justice. M N O N Council President Tibbott reported he and his wife recently celebrated their 29t' anniversary; the vast Li majority of their married life has been spent in Edmonds. There were many places to choose from for dinner. `V He thanked his friends who offered suggestions and reminded anyone celebrating an anniversary, birthday, a etc. that there are many great places in Edmonds. m Councilmember Olson commented on the recent incidents, finding them so regrettable, and her heart goes 5 out to those families. Even one incident is too many. She appreciated the KOMO story that indicated Edmonds' violent crime is down overall, the lowest since 2018 even with the addition of these two incidents. She wanted the public to hear that information, acknowledging incidents like these in the community are very scary and upsetting. She hoped everyone could find a way to way to contribute to broken window kind of crimes. It is not coincidence that there is gang graffiti in Edmonds and gang -like, violent actions happening. She relayed a story of someone who used to live across the street from a school a in Seattle where graffiti showed up every day. They and the neighbor got permission from the school to paint over graffiti and it became a game to see who could paint over the graffiti faster. If that's what it takes, o she wanted to do that to protect Edmonds and let gangs know that Edmonds is not a place for them. 0 L Councilmember Chen said he was saddened, and his heart goes out to the family of the man stabbed to Q death on Highway 99. There have been many incidences in the last few years in the underserved Highway a 99 corridor including the 7-Eleven shooting, the Boo Han Market shooting, a robbery at gunpoint on the M N Interurban Trail, the Plum Tree Plaza fire that destroyed 14 businesses and now this stabbing in the parking N lot of a shopping center and numerous break-ins and thefts, shoplifting, etc. There is a hotel coming to this o corridor, bridge housing that will help people in need. Two years ago, he recommended a study to relocate w the police substation to Highway 99 which did not get much traction. In the 2023's budget, he requested Q $60,000 to study relocating services. He hoped this was a wake-up call for elected officials and the public z that crime is concentrated in this area and police services need to be where the action is. The Uptown City Hall provides a presence on Highway 99, but it is not enough to deter crimes. a Councilmember Chen thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her leadership in organizing the youth commission to help with the Marina Beach cleanup. He never knew it would be much fun picking up garbage. He said the people who participated from the Asian Service Center is not the entire team, it is only 1/10' of them. Councilmember Teitzel reported on April 16 a hate crime incident occurred at the Edmonds United Methodist Church on Caspers Street in Edmonds where pornographic and hate filled flyers were placed on car windshields in the parking lot. The images on the flyers were horrific and he hoped to never see something like that again. As Mayor Nelson has said on multiple occasions which he completely agreed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 18 Packet Pg. 42 with, hate has no place in Edmonds. He read from the press release the church posted on April 20 in the local media, "A response and a call to a community vigil. Dear Church and Edmonds Community. On Sunday, April 16, we had an incident at church during our 10:30 am service. A man put double sided flyers on congregants' cars in the parking lot. The flyers were violent, transphobic, homophobic, racist, and child pornographic. A staff member saw the flyers and removed them from most of the cars. This incident was immediately reported to the Edmonds Police Department. The police were already made aware of the incident from a neighbor and were concerned. The police offered a presence in the parking lot on Sunday evening during the youth group meeting. Our Edmonds UMC Administrative Board met on Tuesday, April 17 to discuss the matter and create a plan moving forward. The Board unanimously agreed to increase our security measures including additional cameras on the property, locked building doors, a buzzer system to enter the building during the week, and additional measures. The Board is taking this threat very seriously and is creating a robust safety and emergency preparedness plan to implement in the next two weeks to adequately take care of our staff, school, and groups that meet in and use the building. The Board also unanimously affirmed Edmonds UMC's commitment as a reconciling congregation: a church that affirms, welcomes, serves, and loves all people, especially folks who are trans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, asexual, and intersex. Pastor Ann will serve as our primary point of contact as we deal with this matter. There is a song written by Mark Miller with the words: We resist, we refuse to let hatred in! We rise up, we won't back down! We're in this `til the end. Pray for your enemies! Welcome the stranger! Show love to your neighbor! We're in this `til the end. This disturbing, hateful, violent act is meant to intimidate us and strike fear into us. As you read this and learn about this incident, if you feel afraid or anxious, I affirm it. This is a really disturbing event. And I also want to affirm that we are Easter people, church. We resist and refuse to let hatred in!" Councilmember Teitzel continued, the church plans to hold a community vigil "We Side with Love" on Q Tuesday, May 2 at 6 p.m. in the Edmonds United Methodist Church sanctuary. He encouraged elected a officials and the public to attend. M N Executive Session o w At 9:04 p.m. the city council convened in executive session for approximately 20 minutes to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). z c� The executive session concluded at 9:23 p.m. a Reconvene in Open Session The meeting was reconvened at 9:26 p.m. No action was taken. 12 ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 25, 2023 Page 19 Packet Pg. 43 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #257211 through #257317 dated April 27, 2023 for $1,248,382.80 and wire payments of $45,254.14, $4,558.60 & $1,779.14. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of payments. Attachments: Claim checks 04-27-23 agenda Packet Pg. 44 8.2.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 4/27/2023 10:06:52AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 257211 4/27/2023 677.10 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 257212 4/27/2023 120.00 078745 A-1 LANDSCAPING & CONSTRUCTION 257213 4/27/2023 293,620.14 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 257214 4/27/2023 194.49 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 257215 4/27/2023 215.14 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 257216 4/27/2023 206.54 075132 AERZEN USA CORP 257217 4/27/2023 947.26 065568 ALLWATER INC 257218 4/27/2023 40.87 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 257219 4/27/2023 2,974.94 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 257220 4/27/2023 164.53 002170 BARTON, RONALD 257221 4/27/2023 2,271.07 072455 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC 257222 4/27/2023 3,366.66 068007 BICKFORD MOTORS INC 257223 4/27/2023 69,184.43 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 257224 4/27/2023 19.36 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 257225 4/27/2023 979.15 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 257226 4/27/2023 15,515.93 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 257227 4/27/2023 1,055.60 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 257228 4/27/2023 111.15 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 257229 4/27/2023 1,427.94 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 257230 4/27/2023 3,900.00 076816 CITY OF EDMONDS VEBA TRUST 257231 4/27/2023 64,550.00 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 257232 4/27/2023 195.00 076107 COMPASS HEALTH 257233 4/27/2023 10,018.76 075384 CONOM LAW FIRM PLLC 257234 4/27/2023 2,177.08 004867 COOPER, JACK F 257235 4/27/2023 5,848.20 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 257236 4/27/2023 1,084.80 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 257237 4/27/2023 713.00 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 257238 4/27/2023 892.13 007253 DUNN LUMBER 257239 4/27/2023 2,927.26 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 257240 4/27/2023 190.55 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 257241 4/27/2023 714.25 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 257242 4/27/2023 144.28 074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA 257243 4/27/2023 3,060.00 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 257244 4/27/2023 718.96 079184 FORMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 257245 4/27/2023 13,094.31 011210 GC SYSTEMS 257246 4/27/2023 7,746.05 072634 GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 257247 4/27/2023 276.89 078907 GOLEMBIEWSKI, LAUREN 257248 4/27/2023 36.00 012199 GRAINGER 257249 4/27/2023 243.02 074804 HARLES, JANINE 257250 4/27/2023 300.00 076333 HASA INC 257251 4/27/2023 8,624.83 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 257252 4/27/2023 2,759.26 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 257253 4/27/2023 15,367.05 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 257254 4/27/2023 3,343.89 078923 HKA GLOBAL INC 257255 4/27/2023 8,625.00 079113 HOLLY RUIZ LLC 257256 4/27/2023 63.00 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 257257 4/27/2023 1,783.71 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 257258 4/27/2023 2,888.86 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 257259 4/27/2023 500.00 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC 257260 4/27/2023 2,716.48 073518 INNOVYZE LLC 257261 4/27/2023 9,119.57 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 257262 4/27/2023 1,364.50 069851 JACKYE'S JACKETS 257263 4/27/2023 1,483.29 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 45 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 4/27/2023 10:06:52AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076161 JIM DANDY SEWER & PLUMBING 257264 4/27/2023 4,813.25 078250 KAUFER DMC LLC 257265 4/27/2023 300.00 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 257266 4/27/2023 267.95 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC 257267 4/27/2023 594.77 079069 KISHA POST 257268 4/27/2023 2,870.00 074693 LETTERWORKS SIGN DESIGN 257269 4/27/2023 1,035.55 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 257270 4/27/2023 15,258.17 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC 257271 4/27/2023 59.65 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 257272 4/27/2023 280.67 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 257273 4/27/2023 92.79 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS 257274 4/27/2023 15,467.79 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INT'L & IDEALEASE 257275 4/27/2023 101.04 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 257276 4/27/2023 1,566.38 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 257277 4/27/2023 328.25 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 257278 4/27/2023 1,118.15 079277 NELSON, THOR 257279 4/27/2023 345.89 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 257280 4/27/2023 464.00 074148 OLSON, VIVIAN 257281 4/27/2023 16.56 079255 PACIFIC COAST SURVEYS INC 257282 4/27/2023 2,950.00 072507 PEACE OF MIND OFFICE SUPPORT 257283 4/27/2023 244.00 071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS 257284 4/27/2023 581.01 064167 POLLARD WATER 257285 4/27/2023 234.49 078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 257286 4/27/2023 600.00 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV 257287 4/27/2023 1,350.00 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 257288 4/27/2023 882.00 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 257289 4/27/2023 491.62 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 257290 4/27/2023 6,712.65 068657 ROBERT HALF 257291 4/27/2023 12,214.13 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 257292 4/27/2023 150.08 079278 SANGER, BETH 257293 4/27/2023 228.74 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 257294 4/27/2023 12,950.00 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 257295 4/27/2023 223.53 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO 257296 4/27/2023 28,071.25 075628 SNO CO DEPT OF EMERG MGMT 257297 4/27/2023 14,876.50 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 257298 4/27/2023 72,580.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 257299 4/27/2023 22,417.78 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 257300 4/27/2023 3,795.68 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 257301 4/27/2023 610.99 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 257302 4/27/2023 360.78 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 257303 4/27/2023 650.00 079185 SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY INC 257304 4/27/2023 24,342.91 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 257305 4/27/2023 1,899.06 079136 THE GORDIAN GROUP INC 257306 4/27/2023 2,336.96 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 257307 4/27/2023 232.05 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 257308 4/27/2023 734.83 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 257309 4/27/2023 150.84 074662 VERTIGIS NORTH AMERICA LTD 257310 4/27/2023 6,339.39 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 257311 4/27/2023 233.00 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 257312 4/27/2023 1,002.36 071467 WEST COAST PET MEMORIAL 257313 4/27/2023 38.00 079083 WESTWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 257314 4/27/2023 384,638.73 079243 YOUNG MARKETING 257315 4/27/2023 2,000.00 078807 ZACHOR STOCK & KREPPS INC PS 257316 4/27/2023 24,570.00 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 257317 4/27/2023 1,146.30 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 46 8.2.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 4/27/2023 10:06:52AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson GrandTotal Total count: 1,248,382.80 107 Page: 3 Packet Pg. 47 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Report on Construction Bids for Citywide Bicycle Improvements and Elm Way Walkway Projects Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On April 11, 2023, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to a future City Council meeting for possible approval. Staff Recommendation Reject construction bids. Narrative On April 20, 2023, the City received five (5) bids for the Citywide Bicycle Improvements and Elm Way Walkway Projects. The bids ranged from a low of $2,524,285.33 submitted by Kamins Construction, Inc (Kamins) to a high of $3,672,688.20 submitted by Granite Construction Company, Inc (Granite). The Engineer's Estimate was $1,997,231.49. The Citywide Bicycle Improvements project will install bicycle facilities - including both separate bicycle lanes and sharrow pavement markings - on approximately 7.5 lane -miles of City and County streets. The project will also install associated improvements to pedestrian and signalization facilities. The Elm Way Walkway project will install approximately 700 linear feet of sidewalk along the south side of Elm Way from 8t" Ave S to 1001" Ave W. The project will also install associated drainage and signalization improvements. This project was combined with the Elm Way Walkway project in 2021. The two projects are similar in scope and City staff believes that bidding them out together will result in cost savings due to economy of scale. While reviewing the bids, City staff noted that no direction was specifically provided for the contractor to list rebar and structural steel sub contractors - or identify self -performance of the work by the prime contractor - as required by RCW 39.30.060(1)b. Of the five contractors who submitted, only one contractor, Laser Underground, who was the second lowest bid, added this information in the contractor packet. Laser Underground filed a protest with the City on, April 25, 2023, stating that the low bid from Kamins needs to provide this information. Kamins has countered that they did not include this information, since the City provided bid document did not show this as a requirement. Since RCW 39.30.060 requires that this be part of the document, and the City did not provide this requirement in the bid documents, staff recommends rejection of all bids. Revisions will be made to the project documents to more explicitly describe the steel and rebar requirements and re -advertise for bids. Project costs are being provided by a combination of local funds and a Sound Transit grant. Packet Pg. 48 9.1 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Area Map Packet Pg. 49 -� CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS AND HELM WAY WALKWAY PROJECTS I 9.1.a I MAIN.ST P.INE.ST Elm Way: 8th to 100th Installina Sidewalk WESTGATE — E4--- YOST PARK Walnut and Bowdoin 9th to 5 Corners Addina Bike Lanes 100th and 9th: 244th to Walnut Addina Bike Lar _FIRDALEi VILLAGE I- I I I- — 524 / 196TH:ST SW y (Ai 5 CORNERS _it rW a I- 220TH_ST.SW. �I ESPE,RANCE, 228th: 78th to 80th Widening & Adding Bike Lanes )th: 228th to 220t harrows Onlv M M M L a r a E a r E r r a Packet Pg. 50 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Library Property Quit Claim Deed Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History In the late 1970s, the City obtained from the Edmonds School District, via eminent domain, the real property and former school buildings on Main Street that are now the Frances Anderson Center / Playfield and the Library building. At that time, the City obtained a judgment from the court stating that ownership of the property transferred from the School District to the City. In 2022, City staff discovered that the Library property/building (but not the Frances Anderson Center / Playfield) was still listed with the County Auditor's Office as belonging to the School District. City staff researched the issue and discovered that, at the time of the eminent domain action, the documentation of the transfer of property interests from the School District to the City was apparently not properly recorded with the County. In 2003, the then -City Attorney attempted to remediate this issue by negotiating a Quit Claim Deed with the School District, which successfully recorded in County records that the City is the owner of the Frances Anderson Center / Playfield. Unfortunately, at that time, the County did not record in its records the change in ownership of the Library property from the School District to the City. Staff Recommendation Approval of Mayor's signature on and recording with the Snohomish County Auditor of the attached Quit Claim Deed. Narrative Over the past few months, the City has been working with the School District to obtain a Quit Claim Deed that the City can file with the County Auditor to demonstrate that the City is the owner of the Library property and that the School District makes no claims to it. At its April 2023 School Board meeting, the School District approved and signed the attached Quit Claim Deed for this purpose. Upon the Council's authorization of the Mayor's signature on this document, the City will record it with the Snohomish County Auditor to fully and finally clarify this issue with the County. Attachments: 20230428130336[1] Packet Pg. 51 9.2.a Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 QUIT CLAIM DEED Grantor: Edmonds School District No. 15, a Washington municipal corporation Grantee: City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation Property Address: 650 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020-3056 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number: 00434209701100 Legal Description: Lots 13 to 28, inclusive, Block 97, City of Edmonds, according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington together with the vacated alley lying between said lots, and together with that portion of Durbin Street shown as Lots 11 to 12 and 29 to 30 of Block 97. Reference Number(s) of Related Documents: N/A THE GRANTOR, Edmonds School District No. 15, for and in consideration of the payment of $426,886.30 made by the Grantee on or about April 11, 1979 in accordance with the Order Directing Payment of Judgment in that certain eminent domain action in Snohomish County Superior Court, Case No. 78-2-02587-9, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, conveys and quit claims to the Grantee, the City of Edmonds, all of the Grantor's right, title and interest in the above -described real estate, situated in the county of Snohomish, state of Washington, together with the improvements thereon, subject to liens, encumbrances, easements, restrictions and reservations of record, and together with all after -acquired title of the Grantor. DATED THIS 2 0iK DAY OF yl I 2023. GRANTOR GRANTEE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CITY OF EDMONDS UD L r. Rebecca Miner, Superintendent Michael Nelson, Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH On this day, before me, the undersi ed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared KebL'CCOt Nl l VV- t— to me known to be the official representative of Edmonds School District No. 15, who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of said entity, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. �y� y� GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 2?� DAY OF ► {�J 1 , 2023. vERSey �i i�•�xp m 0 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the ra State of Washington, residing at NOTARY w = U�nwoc l USA u)I PUBLIC IF = V �.,,�j •°?�� No. .2.p'� My commission expires 3 •rrrO � ��°'+ r r r a 00% Packet Pg. 52 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Sno-Isle Library District & City of Edmonds Interlocal Agreement Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Susan McLaughlin Background/History In June of 2022, an irrigation pipe burst at the Edmonds branch of the Sno-Isle Library causing significant damage to the library, which has been out of operation since the flooding event. The City has completed the emergency repairs and has finalized a settlement for reimbursement with our insurance providers. In order to reopen the library, the City has been working with Sno-Isle on the restoration work. The repair and restoration is complex as there are shared responsibilities between Sno-Isle and the City. The City is responsible for all building related repairs - including but not limited to walls, flooring, restrooms and elevator. Sno-Isle Libraries is responsible for their portion of the renovation project - such as furniture damage, equipment, and materials. Sno-Isle also plans to modernize the library whilst undergoing the necessary restoration work. City Council approved an addendum to the Library Annexation Agreement which was executed in March 2023 to enable the City and Sno-Isle to utilize the Building Repair Fund to cover some of the out of pocket expenses for the restoration that was not covered by insurance. Our collective goal continues to be to reopen the library as soon as possible. In order to meet that goal, the City and Sno-Isle have drafted the attached interlocal agreement (ILA) to facilitate construction and promote efficiency. The ILA would enable the city to transfer the insurance funds that we received to Sno-Isle to deliver the restoration work on our behalf. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that Council approve the interlocal agreement to transfer $408,179 in funding to Sno-Isle to cover the construction and affiliated project delivery costs associated with the library restoration project. Narrative The City, in partnership with Sno-Isle, has drafted the attached interlocal agreement (ILA) to facilitate construction and promote efficiency. The ILA would enable the City to transfer funding that we received from the insurance settlement to Sno-Isle to deliver the repair work on our behalf, as part of the broader restoration project. Packet Pg. 53 9.3 Attachments: Edmonds-Sno-Isle Library District Interlocal Agreement for Library Repair and Upgrade Project 4.27.2023 Packet Pg. 54 9.3.a a) 0 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND rn SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into as of the effective date referenced below, between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), and the SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT, a Washington intercounty rural library district (the "Library District") pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. RECITALS A. The City and the Library District entered into an Annexation Agreement dated April 3, 2001 (the "Annexation Agreement"), attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. The Annexation Agreement sets forth the obligations of the City and the Library District with regard to the quarters provided by the City to the Library District (the "Library Quarters") in the City -owned facility known as the Edmonds Library Building (the "Building") and the Library District's provision of library services in the Library Quarters; and C. The Building and the Library Quarters recently suffered damage from a flooding incident related to a burst irrigation pipe within the Building; and D. In February 2023, the parties entered into Addendum No. 1 to the Annexation Agreement ("Addendum No. I"), attached hereto as Attachment B and incorporated herein by this reference, to document their agreement regarding the obligations of the City and the Library District relating to the repair of the flooding damage to the Building and the Library Quarters (the "Repair Project") and a concurrent project to provide tenant improvements to upgrade and update the Library Quarters (the "Library Upgrade Project") (collectively, the "Projects"); and E. The parties wish to document their agreement on the rights and responsibilities of the City and the Library District with regard to the Projects with this Agreement entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and the Library District agree as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement is authorized by and entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to define the responsibilities of the City and the Library INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 55 9.3.a District as they relate to the execution of the Projects. 2. Effective Date This Agreement shall not take effect unless and until it has been duly executed by both parties and either filed with the County Auditor or posted on the parties' websites. 3. Administrators. Each party to this Agreement shall designate an individual (an "Administrator"), who may be designated by title or position, to oversee and administer such party's participation in this Agreement. The parties' initial Administrators shall be the following individuals: City's Initial Administrator: Susan McLaughlin, Director Library District's Initial Administrator: Chy Ross, Assistant Director of Capital Edmonds Planning & Development Strategy and Planning Department Strategic Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue N 7312 35th Ave NE Edmonds, Washington 98020 Marysville, WA 98271 (425) 771-0220 (360) 651-7017 Susan.McLaughlin@edmondswa.gov Cross@sno-isle.org Either party may change its Administrator at any time by delivering written notice of such party's new Administrator to the other party. 4. Proiect Performance. 4.1 Certification of Real Property Interest. The City certifies to the Library District that the City owns the real property upon which the Projects shall be executed, and additional real property interests or easements are not needed to complete the Projects. 4.2 Grant of License / Right of Entry. The City hereby grants to the Library District a non-exclusive license of reasonable access to those areas of the Building not included in the Library Quarters for the purposes of performing the work necessary to complete the Projects, and all activities reasonably related thereto. The right of entry authorized by this Agreement is subject to all valid rights existing in those areas as of the effective date of this Agreement. The City reserves the right to grant others the privilege to enter those areas of the Building not included in the Library Quarters, and the parties specifically agree that the right of entry granted by this Agreement is not exclusive. The Library District shall not permit any other party, except the Library District's duly authorized representatives, employees, agents and contractors, to enter or work in those areas of the Building not included in the Library Quarters. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 56 9.3.a a� 0 4.3 Library District as Lead Agency. As agreed in Addendum No. 1, the Library rn District shall serve as the lead agency for undertaking both the Repair Project and the Library Upgrade Project as described therein, including but not limited to engaging the necessary c contractors and providing project management to ensure coordination of the two Projects. 'y 4.4 Library District's Responsibilities with regard to the Projects. The Library District shall undertake the following responsibilities with regard to the Projects: 4.4.1 Provide for the performance of all work necessary to deliver both Projects. 4.4.2 Obtain all necessary permits for the completion of the Projects. 4.4.3 Take responsibility for returning the Building to operational condition (including building systems known as mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems included in Upgrade Project). 4.4.4 Building alarms (Fire and Burglar) shall be in operational condition at the time of occupancy or when otherwise required by code. Work on the Library Upgrade Project will need to take these pre-existing systems into account, and make an necessary alterations that will allow these systems to be operational and compliant. 4.4.5 Building DDC (HVAC) controls will need to be reconfigured and made operational and calibrated to meet new design parameters with City's vendor ATS (Alerton controls). 4.4.6 The Library District will contract for certain agreed upon work scopes on behalf of the City outside of the Library Upgrade Project in order to facilitate contractor coordination and expedite completion of the Projects. The scopes and costs associated with these are outlined in Section 4.5.7. 4.4.7 The Library District will provide the City with design and as -built drawings for all Library Upgrade Project work and contracted work on behalf of City. 4.4.8 The Library District shall obtain and, upon request, provide the City with copies of all permits necessary to complete the Projects. 4.5 City's Responsibilities with regard to the Projects. The City shall undertake the following responsibilities with regard to the Projects: 4.5.1 Expedite the provision of any necessary City permits. 4.5.2 Upon request by the Library District, promptly provide all information necessary to complete the Projects. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 3of10 Packet Pg. 57 9.3.a 4.5.3 Installation of exterior insulation at West parking area 4.5.4 Perform professional air quality sampling study. 4.5.5 Provide access and assist with logistics as agreed upon by the City and the Library District. 4.5.6 Install irrigation re-routing for long term flooding solution. 4.5.7 The scopes and costs of the agreed upon work that the Library District will contract for on behalf of the City, as described in Section 4.4.6, are outlined below: Contractor Estimate Insurance Estimate General Labor Requirements 59,230 35112 Existing Condition Demo 2785 0 Wood, Plasitic, Composits 54713 29806 Moisture/Thermal protection 43550 2062 Door Openings 1167 0 Finishes 147475 142395 Specialty Items 986 613 Equipment 4400 0 Furniture 3533 0 Flooring 129778 164162 Plumbing 6250 1355 HVAC 177 0 Electrical 6640 6640 Safety 164 164 Sub 460,848 382,310 Tax 48,389 51,496 Tota 1 509,237 433,806 4.6 Project Funding, The parties agree that the funding of the Projects shall be undertaken as set forth in Addendum No. 1. The City shall be responsible for providing funds in the amount of $408,179.00, with the remaining costs being the responsibility of the Library District. This dollar figure represents the estimated insurance settlement amount ($840,000, less City deductible) and expenses incurred as part of City responsibility in mitigating flood damages and restoring the Building to pre -flood conditions as agreed to by the City and the Library District. As provided in Addendum No. 1, up to $250,000 of the Reserve Fund will also be available as funding for Repair Project costs, and any remainder may be used as agreed in Addendum No. 1. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 58 9.3.a a� 0 4.7 Project Deadline. On or before September 30, 2023, the Library shall be vn operational to the public provided, that, the parties shall extend either or both of these deadlines, at the request of the Library District, as necessary or appropriate due to circumstances beyond the c Library District's control, including but not limited to acts of God, fire or other calamities, labor y or material shortages, unanticipated building conditions, pandemics, civil unrest or acts of war. 4.8 Ongoing Maintenance. Upon completion of the Projects, the City shall be responsible for all other maintenance, repair, and capital costs related to the Building and the property on which it is located, as set forth in Addendum No. 1. When the Reserve Fund referenced in Addendum No. 1 is exhausted, the City and the Library District shall negotiate the responsibility for ongoing maintenance, furnishings, equipment and improvements for the Library Quarters. 5. Other Flooding Damage Repairs. The Library District and the City acknowledge that the City has assumed responsibility for other flooding damage repairs to the Building that are not included in the Projects. The scopes and costs associated with these are outlined below: Scope Estimate Restorx floor mitigation work $ 257,519.58 Exterior West elevation insulation $ 51,998.01 Public Restroom restoration $ 50,185.79 Restroom partitions $ 8,041.91 Building Irrigation re-routing TBD $ Total 6. Accounting and Record Keeping. 6.1 Accounting. The Library District shall maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with generally accepted accounting principles and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards in accordance with RCW 43.09.200. 6.2 Recordkeeping. The Library District shall maintain adequate records to support billings for the Projects. The records shall be maintained by the Library District for a period of five (5) years after completion of this Agreement. The City, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall have access to books, documents, or papers and records of the Library District relating to this Agreement for purposes of inspection, audit, or the making of excerpts or transcripts. 7. Independent Contractor. The Library District shall perform all work associated with the Projects as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the City. The Library District shall be solely responsible for control, supervision, direction and discipline of its personnel and agents, who shall be employees and agents of the Library District and not the City. The City shall only have the right to ensure performance. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 59 9.3.a 8. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. The Library District shall assume the risk of liability for damage, loss, costs and expense arising out its activities under this Agreement. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Library District shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, actions, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments, or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including but not limited to any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the Library District's activities under this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the above indemnification does not apply to those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. This indemnification obligation shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against the City by an employee or former employee of the Library District, and the Library District, by mutual negotiation, expressly waives all immunity and limitation on liability, as respects the City only, under any industrial insurance act, including Title 51 RCW, other Worker's Compensation act, disability benefit act, or other employee benefit act of any jurisdiction which would otherwise be applicable in the case of such claim. The City shall assume the risk of liability for damage, loss, costs and expense arising out its activities under this Agreement. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Library District, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, actions, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments, or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including but not limited to any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the City's activities under this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the above indemnification does not apply to those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Library District, its appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. This indemnification obligation shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against the Library District by an employee or former employee of the City, and the City, by mutual negotiation, expressly waives all immunity and limitation on liability, as respects the Library District only, under any industrial insurance act, including Title 51 RCW, other Worker's Compensation act, disability benefit act, or other employee benefit act of any jurisdiction which would otherwise be applicable in the case of such claim. 9. Insurance. The Library District and the City shall each maintain its own insurance and/or self- insurance for its liabilities from damage to property and /or injuries to persons arising out of its activities under this Agreement as it deems reasonably appropriate and prudent. The maintenance of, or lack thereof, insurance and/or self-insurance shall not limit the liability of the indemnifying party to the indemnified party(s). Each party shall provide the other with a certificate of insurance or letter of self-insurance as the case may be upon request. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 60 9.3.a 10. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. The parties each acknowledge, agree and understand that the other party is a public agency subject to certain disclosure laws, including but not limited to Washington's Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. The parties understand that records related to this Agreement may be subject to disclosure by such laws. 11. Default and Remedies. 11.1 Default. If either the City or the Library District fails to perform any act or obligation required to be performed by it hereunder, the other party shall deliver written notice of such failure to the non -performing party. The non -performing party shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice in which to correct its failure to perform the act or obligation at issue, after which time it shall be in default ("Default") under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the non-performance is of a type that could not reasonably be cured within said twenty (20) day period, then the non -performing party shall not be in Default if it commences cure within said twenty (20) day period and thereafter diligently pursues cure to completion. 11.2 Remedies. In the event of a party's Default under this Agreement, then after giving notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 11.1 above, the non -Defaulting party shall have the right to exercise any or all rights and remedies available to it in law or equity. 12. Termination. 12.1 Project Completion. This Agreement will commence on the effective date set forth above and will terminate as of the date of the City's final acceptance of the Projects, unless earlier terminated as provided in Section 12.2 below. 12.2 Termination for Breach. In the event that the Library District fails to complete the Projects by deadline, including any extension thereof, set forth in Section 4.7, and/or otherwise commits a Default as described in Section 11, the City may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivering written notice to the Library District. In the event that the City commits a Default as described in Section 11, the Library District may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivering written notice to the City. 13. Dispute Resolution. In the event differences between the parties should arise over the terms and conditions or the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve those differences on an informal basis. If those differences cannot be resolved informally, the matter may be referred for mediation to a mediator mutually selected by the parties. If mediation is not successful or if a party waives mediation, either of the parties may institute legal action for specific performance of this Agreement or for damages. Neither party in any legal action shall be entitled to attorneys' fees or court costs accrued during mediation or any legal action regarding this INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 7 Of 10 Packet Pg. 61 9.3.a Agreement. 14. Notices. All notices required to be given by any party to the other party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person, by United States mail, or by electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator or the Administrator's designee. Notice delivered in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Administrator, or their designee, at the addresses set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time received by the recipient. 15. Miscellaneous. 15.1 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein, except those attached hereto as Attachments A and B. This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any manner except by a written document executed with the same formalities as required for this Agreement and signed by the party against whom such modification is sought to be enforced. 15.2 Conflicts between Attachments and Text. Should any conflicts exist between any attachment hereto and the text or main body of this Agreement, the text or main body of the attachment -shall prevail. 15.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any action arising out of this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for Snohomish County. In the event that a lawsuit is instituted to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs of such a lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. 15.4 Interpretation. This Agreement and each of the terms and provisions of it are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated by the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either of the parties hereto. The captions and headings in this Agreement are used only for convenience and are not intended to affect the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so that wherever applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 15.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 62 9.3.a a� 0 circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to v� the extent permitted by law. 15.6 No Waiver. A party's forbearance or delay in exercising any right or remedy with respect to a Default by the other party under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the Default at issue. Nor shall a waiver by either party of any particular Default constitute a waiver of any other Default or any similar future Default. 15.7 No Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by either party without the express written consent of the other party, which may be granted or withheld in such party's sole discretion. Any attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall constitute a Default under this Agreement. 15.8 Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that they are competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom they purport to sign this Agreement. 15.9 No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties. 15.10 No Separate Entity Necessary. The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary to carry out this Agreement. 15.11 Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, any real or personal property used or acquired by either party in connection with its performance under this Agreement shall remain the sole property of such party, and the other party shall have no interest therein. 15.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof is for the sole benefit of the City and the Library District. No other persons or parties shall be deemed to have any rights in, under or to this Agreement. 15.13 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. [Signatures on Following Page] INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS 9of10 Packet Pg. 63 9.3.a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the later date written below. CITY OF EDMONDS: Mike Nelson, Mayor Date Attest/Authenticated: Scott Passey, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR LIBRARY REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECTS SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT: Lois Langer Thompson, Executive Director Date 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 64 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/2/2023 Introduction to permanent code amendment for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Michael Clugston Background/History The City Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. Per RCW 36.70A.390, interim ordinances may remain in effect for up to six months. As such, a permanent ordinance needs to be adopted by Council before June 10, 2023, in order to maintain any of the provisions of the interim ordinance. Interim Ordinance 4283 added an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The interim ordinance amends the development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in August 2017 via Ordinance 4078. Ordinance 4078 established a step back requirement for buildings that are adjacent to IRS (single-family) zones. Interim Ordinance 4283 added the same step back requirement when a proposed building in the CG zone is located across the street from an IRS zone, "unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board." The interim code language also requires a two-phase design review process by the ADB, like that in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet. Buildings less than 35 feet tall would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff. This requirement currently applies to all properties in the CG zone, including those not adjacent to or across the street from IRS zones. Prior to Ordinance 4283, the Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (4278) in October 2022 that contained required step back language. That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the concept of requiring step backs for buildings across the street from IRS zones was carried forward as part of Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process. The Planning Board and ADB have discussed potential language for a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283 at several meetings. The ADB discussed interim ordinance 4283 at their January 26, 2023 meeting and began deliberations on language for a permanent ordinance at their regular meeting on February 23, with the discussion continued at a special meeting on March 8. The Planning Board discussed the interim ordinance at their February 15 special meeting before holding a public hearing to consider the ADB's recommended language on April 12, which was continued to April 26. The minutes from the ADB meetings are included in Attachment 3, while the minutes from the February 15 and April 12 Planning Board meetings are included in Attachment 4 and the video of their April 26 Packet Pg. 65 9.4 continued public hearing is provided as weblink. Videos of all six meetings are available on the city website. Regarding the design review process in the CG zone, the ADB unanimously approved a motion on February 23 recommending: 1. A two-phase public hearing process and decision by the ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet in height when across from or adjacent to RS zone properties, and 2. A Type II staff review process for all other projects in the CG zone with buildings greater than 35 feet in height, which would provide an opportunity for public comment on those projects (such as properties along Highway 99) without a public hearing. All projects less than 35 feet in height in the CG zone would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff using the Type I process (no public notice). The ADB also discussed options for building step backs, with a focus on buildings across the street from an RS zone. There was general agreement in support of the Board having discretion about when to apply building step backs in the CG zone, which has been the case since the adoption of Ordinance 4078 in 2017. There was less consensus about what the appropriate step back should be and whether that should be applied uniformly when projects are across the street from an RS zone, with the applicant required to demonstrate why the step back should not be required. At a special meeting on March 8, the Board reviewed several generalized sketches created by staff to better visualize the interaction of building heights, step backs, and right-of-way widths and discussed the option of altering the step back language from the interim ordinance, eliminating it entirely, or keeping it. At that meeting, the ADB approved a motion on a 4-3 vote to retain the step back language from the interim ordinance in the permanent ordinance, which requires a step back when RS-zoned properties are located across the street from the CG zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. The minority opinion was to remove the automatic step back requirement for properties across the street (unless waived by the ADB at the Phase I public hearing) and instead rely on the ADB's existing discretion to require design changes when deemed necessary, including step backs. The Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12 to consider the ADB's recommendation on a potential permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283. The Board heard a staff presentation, took public comments, and began discussion and deliberation before opting to continue the public hearing to April 26 to allow for additional research and deliberation. After the April 12 meeting, a subcommittee of the Planning Board (Chair Gladstone, Member Golembiewski, and Member Mitchell) met and prepared two additional documents that are included as Attachments 5 and 6. Attachment 5 includes a narrative that outlines the Working Group's understanding of the goals of the emergency ordinance and four options for moving forward. In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup identified four goals: 1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones. 2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to Packet Pg. 66 9.4 RS zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process. 3. Certainty for builders. 4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that would require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a maximum of one public meeting. The subgroup identified the folowing four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283: 1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with potential modification to reflect ADB recommendation regarding Type II -A review process for projects not adjacent or across the street from RS zones). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review and instead require administrative staff review with public notice/comments (a Type II -A review process). 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55- feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55-feet and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate requirement to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting (a Type II -A review process). Attachment 6 contains three renderings prepared by Board Member Mitchell that were considered based on the options discussed above: 1. Top image: The ADB's recommendation for buildings across the street from RS-zoned parcels - a 10' step back from the required setback above 25' in height and a 20' step back from the required setback above 55' in height (the same step -back language as is in interim ordinance 4283) 2. Middle image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings less than 55' in height across the street from RS-zone parcels - no step backs required. 3. Bottom image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings greater than 55' in height - 10' step back above 25' and a 30' step back above 55' The version of Attachment 6 reviewed by the Planning Board did not show the required 10' street setback for the CG parcels (which provides additional building separation between the CG zone and RS zones) and the street setback for the RS parcels is not shown to scale. Board Member has since updated the illustrations to show the 10' street setback, which is reflected in the version attached to this meeting packet. In making their recommendation to create clear and objective step back requirements for buildings above and below 55' in height and removing the option for the ADB to waive these requirements "if deemed unnecessary", the Working Group referenced House Bill (HB) 1293, which has passed the state legislature and is awaiting signature from Governor Inslee. If signed, HB 1293 would require the city to amend its development code to include only clear and objective design standards and revise its design review processes so as not to require more than one public meeting. The ADB currently utilizes a two- phase public hearing that would need to be amended to comply with state law. A summary of HB 1293 is included as a weblink. Overall, the Working Group believed that the need for ADB review would be eliminated by the inclusion of more clear and objective step back requirements. After deliberation on April 26, the Planning Board unanimously approved a motion to recommend Packet Pg. 67 9.4 Option 4 developed by the Working Group, which would: 1. Remove step back requirements for buildings in the CG zone at/under 55' in height that are adjacent or across the street from RS zones; 2. For buildings over 55' in height adjacent or across the street from RS zones, maintain the 10' step back requirement at 25' of building height and increase the step back requirement (from 20' to 30') at 55' of building height; while removing the discretion to remove this requirement; and 3. Eliminate ADB review of CG projects adjacent to or across the street from RS zones, and instead require Type II -A review, which includes public notice and public comments. Staff has prepared a stFik gh/underline version of impacted code sections for the potential permanent ordinance, which is shown in Attachment 7. In preparing Attachment 7, staff realized that the Planning Board's recommendation did not address whether they wished to require a Type II -A review process for projects not adjacent to or across the street from RS zones (the ADB's recommendation), or revert to the Type I review process for properties under 75' in height that existed prior to Interim Ordinance 4283. The language in Attachment 7 currently reverts to the Type I process for these properties. Members of the Working Group confirmed that their recommendation did not address this topic, as they focused on the step back requirements and design review process for those properties adjacent or across the street from RS properties. Given the lack of a formal Planning Board recommendation for properties not adjacent or across the street from RS properties, the City Council has a few options. The first is to adopt a permanent ordinance that reverts to the language/process in place before the interim ordinance was adopted (a Type I process for buildings up to 75 feet), which is reflected in Attachment 7. The Council may also direct staff to update the ordinance to incorporate the ADB's recommendation, which would result in all CG properties up to 75 feet in height - including those along Highway 99 - being subject to the Type II -A review process. Staff worked with the Planning Board Chair to develop a formal Planning Board recommendation letter, which is included as Attachment 8. Such recommendation letters will be included for all future Planning Board recommendations on legislative and quasi-judicial decisions and included as an exhibit to the ordinance proposed for Council adoption. Staff Recommendation Staff will provide a presentation summarizing the work the Architectural Design Board and Planning Board did in developing the proposed permanent regulations. Council members should ask any questions they have about the recommended language in preparation for the scheduled public hearing on May 16, including the appropriate review process for projects above 35' in height that are not adjacent or across the street from RS properties. Staff will provide an attachment with public comments received throughout the process (which are summarized in the ADB and Planning Board minutes attached to this item) as part of the May 16 packet, and the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft ordinance during that public hearing. Narrative Several related pieces of code are recommended for update in the draft permanent language to clarify the existing design review process codes or the proposed changes, which are shown in Packet Pg. 68 9.4 stM(gig"/underline text in Attachment 7: 1) The illustration in ECDC 16.60.020.1) is proposed to be updated prior to final adoption by Council to reflect the step back language that is eventually approved, and which Board Member Mitchell did an excellent job in illustrating. 2) Type II -A design review process added to table in ECDC 20.01.003.A for buildings greater than 35' that are adjacent to or across the street from RS zone. 3) Staff is proposing to eliminate the process language in ECDC 20.12.080, since it was added to the table in ECDC 20.01.003.B several years ago. 4) Staff is proposing to remove the process schematic in ECDC 20.12.005.D, which staff believes is confusing. Attachments: Attachment 1- Ordinance 4283 emergency interim CG design review and step backs Attachment 2 - Council minutes for Ord. 4283 on 12.10.22, 1.17.23, 1.24.23 Attachment 3 - Architectural Design Board minutes 1.26.23, 2.23.23, 3.8.23 Attachment 4 - Planning Board minutes 2.15.23 and 4.12.23 Attachment 5 - Options Considered by Planning Board Attachment 6 - Renderings comparing ADB and PB Working Group Recommendations Attachment 7 - PB Recommended Permanent CG Design Review and Step Back Language (AMD2022- 0008) Attachment 8 - Planning Board Recommendation Attachment 9 - May 2 Council Presentation HB 1293 Bill Report April 26, 2023 Planning Board meeting video Packet Pg. 69 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ORDINANCE NO.4283 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance 4278; and WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and Packet Pg. 70 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278), step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 71 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13 and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010 (as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020 instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 72 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: DocuSigned by: Nl,L,1�4 MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: DocuSigned by: 7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022 PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4283 al Packet Pg. 73 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 101h day of December, 2022. DocuSigned by: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 74 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ATTACHMENT A 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None Y/10'2 U/15'' 75" None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. 2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. Packet Pg. 75 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. IF4 i Q C ro m Y N .- v a a a a� inN 0.N <N -,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r, Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Packet Pg. 76 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Pg. 77 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single- family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. Packet Pg. 78 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has Packet Pg. 79 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ATTACHMENT A failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart: Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process &Eaa nal}ryyvy 7 RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffW qwo o} AnRrI I COd Cid1u A� DKWW DOW ! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys. I � E � k— — — — — — — ----------_ hood D"ee 4JA41PPV-W [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020 regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the Packet Pg. 80 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ATTACHMENT A process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. Packet Pg. 81 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. Packet Pg. 82 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D 9.4.a ATTACHMENT A f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: Packet Pg. 83 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. Packet Pg. 84 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. Packet Pg. 85 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A 9.4.a 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. Packet Pg. 86 9.4.b Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 87 9.4.b Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 - Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 - Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 - Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 Proposed Code Revisions - 16.60.030 o 16.60.030 Site development standards ■ Design buildings exeeeding75 feet in height identified in ECDC eixeeeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type 1 deeision. Rega oess of-I.Ah-At -dir-ed, all pr-qjeets proposed in the GG zone must meet the design ;., .h-is se tio_, Proposed Code Revision - 20.12.010 o 20.12.010 Applicability ■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A decision. ■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 88 9.4.b Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. M N N T- eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 89 9.4.b Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 90 9.4.b step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods... Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 91 9.4.b Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind." Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type III -A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 92 9.4.b Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY 5 ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE � � DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. N N UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL N PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND." Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 93 9.4.b Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. M N 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) N vi COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO N APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 10, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 94 9.4.b 5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 7. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 8. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 763 1 2022-2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 9. SNOHOMISH COUNTY AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH REAL PROPERTY INTEREST 10. TREE BOARD CANDIDATE APPROVAL 11. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE 12. APPROVAL OF SENIOR PERMIT COORDINATOR -ENGINEERING JOB DESCRIPTION 13. CODE UPDATES TO CHANGE MEETING LOCATION OF PLANNING BOARD, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, TREE BOARD, AND ADB CO) 8. PUBLIC HEARING N N 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE vi ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD REVIEW AND BUILDING STEP -BACKS FOR N CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is a public hearing on the ordinance the council adopted on December 10, 2022; the council is required to hold a public hearing within 60 days since it was an emergency interim ordinance. The ordinance did two things, it created a new process for design review of projects in the CG zone with buildings taller than 35 feet. Currently design review for the CG zone is done entirely by staff. New projects with building 35 feet or taller would go to Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ordinance also added step back language for those buildings in the CG zone. Step backs were covered in a previous version of an interim ordinance, but this language was included with the current ordinance. Step backs are not a requirement, but in their review process, the ADB could require them at their discretion. Mr. Clugston explained the packet contains Ordinance No. 4283 that the council approved on December 10, 2022 as well as the minutes of that meeting. The packet also includes a resolution from 2016 which staff was not completely aware of at the time the emergency ordinance was adopted. Resolution 1367, adopted in 2016, indicated the council's desire to get the council as well as citizen boards out of making quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are when a board or council essentially sit as a judge listening to land use permits. In the case of the council, that was typically closed record reviews; the council still hears closed record appeals of conditional use permits and variances that go to the hearing examiner. No changes were made to the ADB code as a result of Resolution 1367 and the ADB still issues quasi- judicial decisions although Resolution 1367 indicated the council's intent to remove the ADB from making those decisions. The current interim ordinance is asking the ADB to do another review so the current ordinance and Resolution 1367 are somewhat in conflict. The intent of tonight's public hearing is to take public testimony and issue a resolution with findings in support of the interim ordinance. Staff will then go back to the planning board over the next few months and bring a recommendation to council for final regulation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 3 Packet Pg. 95 9.4.b Public Testimony Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway neighborhood of the Highway 99 subarea, spoke in support of emergency Ordinance 4283. She felt residents had been heard with the council's recent vote to approve funding for the SEIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan and sidewalks on 84' Avenue West between 234' and 238t1i Streets. She thanked the council for making those a priority. Another demonstration of how the council is listening to neighborhood concerns is voting to make Ordinance 4823 permanent. The ordinance is a good solution to address the lack of transition between the CG zone and the single family residential area identified in the Highway 99 subarea plan in 2017. ADB review of building design over 35 feet allows for the right expertise to guide design elements that soften the transition between the zones and provides public process and accountability. Voting tonight to approve the code revision adding one more architect bolsters the ADB's expertise. ADB review in the Highway 99 subarea also allows for parity with the downtown business district which also has building design review by the ADB. Further, including step backs in Ordinance 4283 is very important to eliminating a barrier for addressing neighborhood concerns. The existing code for the ADB in section 3A reads, "The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence." This puts the burden on every community whether this is an issue to produce the clear and convincing evidence required which can require expertise and studies, potentially requiring more resources than most neighborhood groups have at their disposal. It creates a potentially unresponsive process for the very residents most impacted by these types of development. She urged the City to continue their consideration of emergency Ordinance 4283 and make it permanent to maintain the City and council's commitment to their community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, expressed support for the emergency ordinance and appreciation for the persistence shown by council and staff to respond to the neighborhood concerns when large developments in the Highway 99 planned area raise issues. She reminded council that a significant issue remains; the planning board recommendation and the council decision in 2018 to eliminate transition zones that existed around the boundaries of the Highway 99 planned areas. She did not want to wait until the 2024 comprehensive plan update and the possible zoning changes that will come with that work effort. She emailed council last week with possible comprehensive plan language to add to Ordinance 4283; if that amendment does not occur, she will meet with the planning board to propose a code amendment that requires CG buildings on the boundary of an RS zone to use site and building design to transition to the less intensive residential area. A technical definition of transition is in other cities' codes but is missing from Edmonds' code. That language is a tool the ADB needs. She asked the council's support for adding the transition requirement to the CG code regardless of whether Ordinance 4283 is amended or a code revision vetted and forwarded to council by the planning board. Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a resident on 236th Street SW, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She thanked the council for funding the SEIS for the Highway 99 planning area and for moving up the timeline for installing badly needed sidewalks on 84t1i Avenue West. She also thanked the council for listening to and coming to their neighborhood to see and discuss the impacts of this development firsthand. She applauded the idea of involving the ADB in review of projects that intersect with single family zoned properties. She requested step backs be included in the code revisions as defending the need for them on a case -by -case basis will be difficult for residents with limited resources. She hoped the council would vote to make the ordinance permanent. Stanley Piha, one of owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84th & 236th, commented since October 4, the city council has stopped an application from a builder to develop a market rate multifamily building totally in compliance with all City codes and provisions of the Highway 99 subarea plan on this vacant M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 4 Packet Pg. 96 9.4.b parcel. Blocking the project was first accomplished by enacting the emergency ordinance related to step backs and now continues with the implementation of an emergency ordinance requiring ADB approval when none is required under the Highway 99 subarea plan. Also since October 4, there has been a public outcry from Washington state officials describing the housing and homelessness crisis in the state due to a lack of affordable housing. Governor Inslee has gone so far as saying a lack of affordable housing drives the state's homelessness crisis. State Senator Markus Liias expressed to the Snohomish County Alliance that one obstacle is the permitting process for new projects and supports streamlining the process to encourage new development. Once property is zoned, projects also need to be built, something that is not seen in Edmonds; there is a vision, but there need to be units on the ground. While state officials including the governor describe the housing crisis as the main cause of homelessness and promote ways to encourage housing so desperately needed, Edmonds' governance and actions to date are exactly the opposite. Mr. Piha continued, the council's actions discourage building housing and as a result ignore the plight of M the homeless population. The council's actions create an insurmountable barrier to building in the Highway 99 corridor and adding housing to the City's stock as mandated by the GMA which turns a blind eye to the 0 crisis at hand. Following an extensive public process in 2017, the Highway 99 subareas plan was adopted to incentivize building in the corridor by removing uncertainty in the permitting process. Passing the 0 emergency ordinance on tonight's agenda does exactly the opposite and penalizes those considering building in the corridor. Additionally, a vote to pass the emergency ordinance is simply a vote of no confidence in the planning director and planning department. The planning director has expressed to council ° on numerous occasions the protections in place in the administrative review process to guide projects in the 5 corridor to their best outcome. Professional planners working with professional designers and builders to M provide housing complimentary to the corridor are the experts, yet by passing this emergency ordinance, N the council's actions undermine that authority. The wordsmithing in the ordinance and ignoring N constructability consequences is a prime example of creating so much confusion and uncertainty that ai building in the corridor will come to an immediate halt. Like the prior emergency ordinance, this ordinance N should be vacated. Dean Williams, Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, speaking on behalf of the applicants for the Terrace Place building, explained the purpose of the Highway 99 subarea plan and planned action EIS was to provide developers with certainty and predictability while streamlining the environmental review and permitting process, furthering the goals of SEPA and the GMA, a direct quote from the subarea plan. Recent actions by the City have eliminated the certainty and predictability that made this subarea plan an attractive development opportunity for investors like his client. A project like this requires an immense amount of due diligence, planning, and prep work to even submit a preapplication. Under the current regulations, his client could not even submit a vest -able building permit until they go through the design review process. Most recently the City upended that predictable, streamlined process they worked so hard to implement in 2016-2017 so instead of predictability, the process has been changed in the middle of their submittal and there is no clear guidance on how to shift gears from one process to the next. Instead of an administrative review for something as fundamental and encompassing as designing their building, his client is being told there will be a two phase public hearing, first a preliminary concept design, a hearing where findings of fact are established and then the applicant redesigns their project and submits another set of plans to comply with priorities design guideline checklist criteria. Mr. Williams continued, the ADB then decides upon conditions that will be imposed, establishing a guess and check review for what should be a relatively simple process for constructing a building that the City invited and exhaustively planned for. This is a 5-over-1 apartment building, not an Escala-type high rise in the center of downtown. This is a working class building in a working class corridor. The ordinance is inconsistent with the GMA and the City's comprehensive plan. The subarea outlines much of the work that went into it, including consolidating the CG zone to allow for a cost effective 6-story mixed use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. Page 58 notes the construction type of five wood Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 5 Packet Pg. 97 9.4.b frame floors over a ground floor concrete podium, also known as a 5-over-1 building, is efficient and cost effective. This statement is only true because for issues like step backs, the City established regulations that required step backs adjacent to single family and no step backs across the street. The reasoning for this came from the EIS, there have been no new facts to warrant throwing out that EIS which is required under SEPA when adding to existing environmental documents. The subarea plan the City came up with is well thought out and provides the efficiency and predictability that was missing before. He urged the City to stick with it and avoid reversion to the prior litigious system. Jeremy Mitchell, Edmonds, said he generally supports the design review process as it helps cities guide architectural, aesthetic and transitions from neighborhood to neighborhood which is very beneficial. He referred to the upper story step backs adjacent and across the street, finding the language in the packet to be too vague looking at it from an applicant's point of view, "these requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to design review or the ADB." In his mind when going into a phase 1 design review whether an applicant is meeting with the ADB or City staff, they want to know upfront what is and is not prescriptive because at the phase 1 hearing with the public is where departures are presented. If not clearly aligned, it is hard for the applicant to put the departures in the submittal. If the intent of the language is to put the onus on the applicant to justify its use, he recommended taking out "unless deemed not to be necessary" and just making it a strict requirement and let the applicant do the rest via departures. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented in support of the emergency interim ordinance to require ADB review and building step backs for certain projects in the CG zone. Although relatively new to the neighborhood, three years, she moved into an area that until recently has had very little turnover. Her house, like many in the areas, was built in the 50s and they are only the third owner. People have stayed in this neighborhood, raised families and developed communities. Her neighbors talk about how the areas is changing, sirens are common if not nightly and property theft and vandalism are growing concerns. People who spent their lives there now feel unsafe and lock their doors. The area is also changing due to displacement. In the past three years, half the houses on her street have turned over at least once, amazing for an areas where the tenure used to be 30 years. The issues of lack of resources and displacement of population especially lower, fixed income and elderly population are a reality in the corridor every day. Ms. Seitz said was telling the council this because when talking about the emergency ordinance and what it does, it is often framed as anti -housing. She is not anti -housing; she is anti -displacement and anti - gentrification, but that is exactly what the CG zone is doing. Residents know the buildings in their community will not be the same and they are completely supportive of low income housing; the fact is the City's actions are displacing residents in the community and she feared it would only get worse. The emergency ordinance gives the community a voice and allows greater participation in community redevelopment, a recognized anti -displacement strategy. In addition to supporting the emergency ordinance, she thanked the council for funding the SEPA in the most recent budget, advancing sidewalks on 84', and fmding creative solutions to help meet the community's needs. She supports including more architects on the ADB and making additional code amendments to allow ADB to utilize a full range of design guidelines applicable to the SR-99 corridor and the SEPA required step backs. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Council President Tibbott thanked the public for their comments and for showing up when it is very important for the council to hear from the public. With regard to design review by the ADB, he asked how the ADB would be improved by adding an architect to the board. Mr. Clugston answered having more architectural experience on the board would be helpful. Currently the position is very general, anyone with a related background. Changing it to an architect provides more architectural context. Planning & Development Manager Susan McLaughlin answered design professionals go to school for that, they learn the design vocabulary, materiality, dimensions and depth, how to design a building in context and scale, M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 6 Packet Pg. 98 9.4.b and are able to speak architects in the same language. Often lay people may not see things the same way or be able to articulate how to improve a building in the same language as an architect. v E Council President Tibbott asked if that could be added that to the ordinance through the hearing process L with planning board. Ms. McLaughlin answered that change was approved on the consent agenda tonight. She relayed staff still supports administrative review, but the question was how to strengthen the ADB's M composition, and that was staff s recommendation. L Council President Tibbott asked if the ADB's review was always quasi-judicial. Mr. Clugston answered it 0 is always quasi-judicial. If a building is in one of the design districts in the BD and CG zones, it is a two- E phased hearing. General Commercial design review is a one -phase hearing, but it is all quasi-judicial. Council President Tibbott asked the type of hearing. Mr. Clugston answered it was Type IIIA. E Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the comments at the public hearing. She suggested next M -a) time this comes to council, it would be helpful to have a flowchart of the applicant process with this change. 0 0 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Resolution 1367 regarding quasi-judicial, pointing out the council is 0 still involved in quasi-judicial processes. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday answered the resolution Councilmember Buckshnis referenced was an aspirational statement by the council to direct staff and the planning board to develop code changes that would reduce or eliminate the council's role in quasi-judicial processes. One outcome of that resolution was adoption of Ordinance 4154 which was 5 adopted in 2019 and referenced in the council packet. Resolution 1367 can be looked at as the beginning of M the process and Ordinance 4154 as a potential end of the process. With the adoption of Ordinance 4154, it N was unclear whether the council was done tinkering with the quasi-judicial process or if there would be N future reductions in the council's involvement in quasi-judicial processes. Whatever the council thought in ai 2019, decision makers may have a different opinion in 2023. Resolution 1367 did not do anything other `"• than set a goal. As historical background, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the quasi-judicial process has been back and forth for many years; it used to be called Title 20. In 2009 the council voted to remove itself from quasi- judicial, and when she was appointed to council, the council moved back into quasi-judicial in 2010. In 2019, via a process led by Councilmember Tibbott and the late Councilmember K. Johnson, a modified approach was adopted where certain parts would go through the council and certain parts would go to supreme court. She preferred to have citizen's voices heard at local level. Although this issue was not part of the public hearing, but she wanted people to understand what was stated was not entirely true, that everything is quasi-judicial and council is totally out of the picture. She recommended this be addressed sometime in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEIS and EIS, relaying her understanding that those have nothing to do with the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered they are related in the sense they are addressing the same neighborhood and the same zoning district so they are not completely unrelated, but it is a separate process. The SEIS is a much longer term project and will allow for a much broader review of the council's long term vision for the neighborhood. This interim ordinance is not directly related to the SEIS process. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that the SEIS process came through as a report for filing and the council pulled it and asked to have a supplement done right away which of course has not happened but it is in the budget. The council did not agree with the report for filing stating that the CG and subarea were environmentally fine. She wanted people to realize that the timing of events have muddied the water. She thanked staff for their hard work and the citizens for their comments and continued concern and encouraged them to continue to comment to council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 7 Packet Pg. 99 9.4.b Councilmember Teitzel said his perspective about the ADB is it is a board that is best equipped to monitor development activities to ensure they are in concert with the charm, character and livability of Edmonds and in his opinion, that is their charter. The description of the ADB on the City's website includes, Establishes goals, objectives, and policies for design districts, which was in line of his view of the ADB. He asked if the emergency ordinance complied with the current code relative to development in the CG zone; in other words, does the ADB have the latitude under the existing code to do what council is suggesting they do in this draft ordinance or are they precluded from quasi-judicial rulings like this. Mr. Taraday answered the ADB is certainly not precluded from conducting quasi-judicial review; the ADB is largely a quasi-judicial body. In that respect, the ordinance is not giving them anything new. In the absence of the interim ordinance, design review in the CG zone would not be a quasi-judicial process, it would be an administrative (staff reviewed) process. That is one of the most significant changes in the interim ordinance, who does design review. Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation of his understanding that the draft ordinance does not mandate that step backs are required, there is flexibility in the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered there is certainly a presumption that they are required, but it is not an absolute mandate. Councilmember Nand thanked the stakeholders who took the time to share their views with council. She recognized this is a very hot button issue and emotions are running high. Everyone's input is very important to council and City staff is taking feedback and trying to find ways to meet the stated objectives and desires of various stakeholders. She encouraged everyone who participated tonight to come to the next planning board meeting on January 25 because this process will take many months. The council is looking at a draft ordinance and a full public and political process will follow. She urged stakeholders to continue providing feedback to the planning board, council and City staff. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PROPOSAL Speaking on behalf of the assessment subcommittee, Councilmember Teitzel explained the subcommittee will present the 2023 city attorney assessment work plan and key target dates associated with the plan. At the end of the presentation on the workplan, he would like to have council vote to approve the work plan. The subcommittee will also present regarding the performance evaluation survey tool to evaluate Lighthouse's performance. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Nand and Paine for their work during the past two weeks to reach this point, recognizing there is a lot more work ahead for the subcommittee and council to reach an end goal and make decisions. He reviewed a list of tasks and key dates for collection information to support the Council decision process (Attachment A): • January 3, 2023 o Council approved the formation of the City Attorney Assessment Subcommittee (Councilmembers Teitzel, Paine and Nand) • January 17, 2023 o Present draft for discussion and approval of 2023 city attorney assessment work plan o Present draft for discussion and approval of city attorney internal client satisfaction survey o Consider costs/benefits of external audit of communications involving Lighthouse, the administration and Councilmembers leading up to the 2022 budget discussions, and request Council vote regarding proceeding. • February 1, 2023 o Issue city attorney satisfaction survey to internal city attorney clients, requesting responses by February 16 M N N eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 17, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 100 9.4.b 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.60 ENTITLED DISASTER PREPARATION, EMERGENCY COORDINATION, AND CIVIL EMERGENCIES Councilmember Olson advised one amendment made during the council meetings was not reflected in the ordinance. That amendment was provided to council via email and at the dais. She pulled this item so the ordinance could be amended. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE 6.60 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DECISION ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 - CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND STEP BACK Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this item is back to council following a public hearing held last week. The city attorney prepared both a resolution in support of retaining the findings of the interim ordinance, and a repealer of the emergency ordinance. The emergency Ordinance 4283 was not included in the packet, but it is the same ordinance that was in last week's packet and was provided to council this afternoon by the city clerk. He noted with the step back language as proposed in Ordinance 4283 would apply not only to step backs across street from a residential zone but also to adjacent properties. Both are something the ADB could decide not to apply. He did not believe that was the intent pf the language. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin commented there have been emails and public comment about Resolution 1367 which was provided in tonight's and last week's packet. The reason staff included it was to offer transparency about a historic document that showed intent to reduce the ADB's quasi-judicial decision making so she felt it was relevant to address it as part of this ordinance. She recommended creating a resolution stating where the council stands now to justify the emergency ordinance. There has been an ordinance since the resolution stating intent, but it did not stay the course, it was a step in the process by the council in accordance with Resolution 1367. Councilmember Teitzel relayed Ordinance 4154 was adopted by council after Resolution 1367 was adopted in 2016. There was quite a bit of process in 2018 and 2019 including public hearings, planning board consideration, and city council public hearings and consideration, before Ordinance 4154 was adopted. In looking at the narrative, Ordinance 4154 conveys that council intended to have the ordinance and the associated ECDC read as council chose it to read at that time. Although Resolution 1367 was valid at the time, additional process occurred to further show council intent. The council's intent was that council and boards and commissions in some cases be removed from quasi-judicial decisions, but not in all cases. In fact, it was council's intent that the ADB be involved in Type III design review decisions. Mr. Clugston said he looked through the planning board and city council minutes for Ordinance 4154 and at no point was the ADB's review process discussed in any significant way. It was all about getting council out of quasi-judicial decisions like closed record appeals. The reason the design review was moved from Type IIIB to Type IIIA was to get it out of council appeal and become a judicial appeal. The only things left on council appeal are conditional use permits and variances by the hearing examiner. The intent of that ordinance was to reduce the council's exposure to quasi-judicial decisions, but none of the discussion addressed the ADB's review process. The intent as expressed in the resolution is that the ADB get out of quasi-judicial. If the council's thinking has changed, it would be good to have a new resolution expressing that because the current resolution states the council wants to get the ADB out of that decision -making process for the reasons outlined in Resolution 1367. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this reminded her of the time old resolution were found that made no sense such as one regarding council procedures and the council finally moved to using Roberts Rules. She asked if the council should repeal Resolution 1367 and just work with Ordinance 4154. In her M N N T_ eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 24, 2023 Page 8 Packet Pg. 101 9.4.b opinion, and she lived through that era, she did not want to remove the council from quasi-judicial, but she knew the ADB was part of this process because their expertise is needed. She asked what the city attorney suggested since the administration is suggesting the council do something. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended the council discuss that separate from the current issue. The decision today is whether to leave the interim ordinance in place. The council should revisit Resolution 1367 if for no other reason that everyone is clear what the council wants staff to work on. For example, if the council does not want staff to bring an ordinance in the future that takes the ADB out of quasi-judicial land use decision making, that would be good direction to provide to staff. He reiterated that is not a discussion for now, it is a discussion for the future. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out it was brought up by the administration and she recalled there was different intent as Councilmember Teitzel explained. With regard to the adoption of findings, Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Ordinances 4078 and 4079 were not included in the findings of fact, noting Ordinance 4079 also deals with the subarea from the SEPA standpoint, environmental issues, which is the main crux of a lot of things the council wants to look at. She asked who wrote the findings of fact and why all the ordinances were not referenced. Mr. Taraday described his thought process when drafting findings, he was not seeking to include in a resolution a comprehensive history of every single council action that led up to this moment. If the council wants that in the future, he is happy to do it but historically and in this resolution, that was not how he scoped his work. In drafting a resolution with findings of fac, his intent is to articulate the reasons why this particular interim ordinance is necessary for the next six months. It is a fairly focused drafting of the findings, not a broad scope. If the council feels it is too narrowly focused and wants a more comprehensive history, the council should provide that direction and he will draft it accordingly. The findings of fact are not written in stone and the council can amend them before they are adopted. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ordinance 4078 is about the subarea plan and CG zones and Ordinance 4079 "is right next to it." She would have put weight on Ordinance 4079 and thought if Ordinance 4078 is included, Ordinance 4079 should also be included as it was a companion ordinance to go along with the CG. Mr. Taraday said the findings of fact could have referenced Ordinance 4077 too as all three were adopted back to back. Ordinance 4078 is the development regulations, Ordinance 4079 is the planned action, and Ordinance 4077 is the subarea plan; when he was preparing the findings of fact that relate to amending the development regulations, the development regulations were in Ordinance 4078. To him, the most relevant of the three ordinances was 4078 because it contained the development regulations that are being amended with the interim ordinance. He reiterated the findings of fact are not set in stone and the council should free to amend them to make them their findings of fact. He was only trying to give the council a head start by presenting proposed findings of fact for the council's consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will probably amend the findings after other councilmembers speak. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4283 AND THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF FACT, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. Councilmember Teitzel commented the council has discussed step backs at great length. He emphasized step backs are not mandated; the design would come to the ADB for design review and the ADB is the best equipped of any board to review these. The ADB will consider the design and consider whether it is appropriate for the neighborhood, especially neighborhoods adjacent to single family residential zones as this one is. M N N T- eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 24, 2023 Page 9 Packet Pg. 102 9.4.b Mr. Taraday clarified the motion as stated was to adopt an ordinance that has already been adopted; he believed Councilmember Teitzel may have intended to adopt the findings of fact that support that ordinance, not the ordinance itself. Councilmember Teitzel restated the motion: TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT ORDINANCE 4283. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification, the findings of fact support Ordinance 4283 which goes into effect in six months from the adoption date. Mr. Taraday explained the council adopted Ordinance 4283 previously and it is already in effect. The only question before the council tonight is whether to leave Ordinance 4283 in effect for a long enough period of time that the planning board can review it and provide a recommendation on a permanent ordinance. The other alternative is to repeal Ordinance 4283. The findings of fact he proposed for council consideration are justification to leave Ordinance 4283 in effect. Councilmember Chen observed Ordinance 4283 only applies to development adjacent to single family zoning and not to other commercial zones within the CG zone. Mr. Taraday referred to language that Mr. Clugston brought to the council's attention that may have been inadvertently expanded the scope of the ADB review beyond what the council originally intended. Generally speaking, the scope of Ordinance 4283 only applies to the CG zone, it does not apply to zones outside of the CG zone. Councilmember Chen asked if it would only impact development adjacent to single family zoning, not the � � entire CG zone. Mr. Clugston explained the proposed language only applies to the CG zones, however, N the way the step back language is worded in the interim ordinance, it addresses the across street step back N as well as the adjacent step back. He opined the intent was to add the across the street step back and make ai that subject to ADB design review. The way the language reads, it also makes the adjacent step back N subject to ADB review. He asked for clarification whether that was council's intent. Councilmember Chen observed the ordinance would grant that quasi-judicial power to the ADB to make that recommendation. Mr. Clugston agreed, it would task the ADB with reviewing additional projects and to make a call about step backs each time one of those projects is reviewed, not only across the street from single family residential zones but also adjacent to single family residential zones. Councilmember Nand spoke in favor of the motion, specifically the adoption of findings of fact due to Section 1.e.5 which highlights the creation of equity in public process between the BD zones and the Highway 99 subarea. Establishing equity in public process is very important for various areas of the City. She supports maintaining the interim ordinance and sending it to the planning board to continue the political process. That would be an appropriate expression of the public will as processed over the last few months. Councilmember Paine asked when the SEIS will be completed. Ms. McLaughlin answered the new planning manager started a couple weeks ago and their work plan is being reviewed including the SEIS in relation to the comprehensive plan scoping and understanding where they are linked. She did not have an exact answer. Councilmember Paine commented the findings of fact reflect the circuitous route that has been taken. The land use regulations definitely circumvent past decisions and best practices as was pointed out last week by the attorney representing the developer of the project. The City does not allow for consistent, predictable regulations. The last two multifamily projects came forward in a very circuitous way and both required emergency ordinances. The need for emergency ordinances as the go -to means the system has failed in many ways and does not honor the practice that is in place. She recalled being in the audience when the council decided to make a change to the quasi-judicial process. She also recalled discussion Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 24, 2023 Page 10 Packet Pg. 103 9.4.b about how council would participate in quasi-judicial matters but did not recall if there was discussion related to the planning board and/or ADB. Going back and forth over the past 8-9 months is not serving the broader community and she questioned how continuing to adopt emergency ordinances for every multifamily project guaranteed the community that the plans the council adopts are being honored in a meaningful way. Councilmember Paine pointed out projects can be delayed by 6-8 months which may result in a project moving to a different community. The City needs to welcome multifamily projects. There is a housing shortage, an issue the legislature and many communities are talking about. The City needs to find a path to allow multifamily housing in Edmonds in all shapes and forms. There is stagnation in the market because there is no place for people to move to, something that the council and the community needs to address. She applauded the planning & development department for ensuring there is broad public outreach and engagement to offer the most successful path. She was supportive to a certain extent of the SEIS process because it will add better information, but if it will not be done before 2024, it will stall creative, thoughtful projects by the development community in Edmonds. She suggested the council, planning board and ADB talk about that. She expressed support for the findings of fact, but it is time to consider how the council is impacting the laws, regulations and not addressing a critical issue in the state. Councilmember Teitzel read the amended language in Item D in Attachment A to Ordinance 4283, regarding building step backs: D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessarypursuant to a design review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. With regard to the point of the ADB looking at a design review for a large building, to the extent that building is directly adjacent to single family homes, it would be extraordinarily unlikely the ADB would determine that step backs were not required. Therefore, this is a difference without a distinction and the language as proposed is fine. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the planning & development department, there are two projects with over 500 units being constructed on Highway 99 and plenty of units being constructed on Edmonds Way, none of which required a moratorium. Per the last report, there are 1000 units coming on line in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ordinance 4079 contains development thresholds which are land use, non-residential and residential. She asked for Mr. Taraday's opinion, commenting she believed Ordinance 4079 should be included in the findings of fact because it deals with transportation, traffic mitigation, etc., a lot of things other than just setbacks. She understood Mr. Taraday did not want to include the entire history and include Ordinance 4077, but Ordinance 4079 adds the nuance of the fact that there is an environmental impact of all development which is what the ordinance addressed. Mr. Taraday said he was not sure what Councilmember Buckshnis wanted him to opine on. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to language in the findings of fact that five years ago the council adopted 4078 which updated the CG site development standards in accordance with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. She pointed out the council also adopted Ordinance 4079 five years ago which established a planned action for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan which deals with the SEPA aspect. She wanted to M N N V_ eh N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 24, 2023 Page 11 Packet Pg. 104 9.4.b ensure the SEPA aspect was addressed since a new SEIS will be conducted. She noted how Mr. Taraday compartmentalizes things is different than how she compartmentalizes things. Mr. Taraday said he has no objection if the council wants to amend the findings of fact to reference Ordinances 4077 and 4079. He did not think it was necessary but if the council wanted a more comprehensive history in the findings, it would be easy to amend the resolution to do that. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ordinance 4077 just establishes the Highway 99 subarea so she agreed that did not need to be included in the findings of fact. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD ORDINANCE 4079 INTO THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT BY ADDING, "SINCE THE 2017 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4078 AND 4079, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CG SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIGHWAY 99 AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT." Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to include that in the findings of fact as SEPA impacts the development aspect of things. Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment as it was not part of the discussion during this process. Ordinance 4079 deals with a different aspect and Ordinance 4078 deals with the CG zone. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not support the amendment because Ordinance 4077 and 4079 are both addressed in the first whereas clause of the findings of fact and the conclusion takes care of that issue. MN N UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE, AND NAND AND COUNCIL N PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. is Councilmember Olson was excited to hear that work has started on planning for the SEIS. She expressed support for the motion to add ADB review, an exciting and positive development for properties in the CG zone that border single family. She originally voted against the step back language, and with the new information, she would vote no again. She hoped the planning board would look closely at vetting that element. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD QUALIFICATIONS Council President Tibbott said this will be a presentation regarding the powers and duties of the planning board, reflections based on input from former planning board chairs, how the council got to this point, and how the recommendations came to council. At the end of his presentation he is seeking input from council regarding their reflections on the discussion, presentation and any additional qualifications that should be considered. The packet includes factors informing planning board selection, which was taken directly from the ordinance, ECC 10.40.020 which he is using as a summary. He reviewed: • Planning Board Membership should represent: o Diverse Occupations o Diverse Experiences o Various Geographical areas Planning Board appointment and attendance requirements: o Serve a four year term o Regularly attend two meetings per month on the 2nd and 4"' Wednesday o Attend as needed to consult with the Mayor and City Council several times/year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q January 24, 2023 Page 12 Packet Pg. 105 9.4.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting January 26, 2023 Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr (on Zoom) Maurine Jeude (on Zoom) Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom) Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom) Board Members Absent Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused) Corbitt Loch (Excused) APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Other Councilmember Dave Teitzel Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration up there on 84th which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large structures and single-family homes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes ' Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting M Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January 26, 2023 Pagel of 5 Packet Pg. 106 9.4.c The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet. NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance 4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes — one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance 4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input. Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB. Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods. Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks. He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than saying just "across the street' he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered. Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the developer know what they are thinking. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building. Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code, Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 107 9.4.c but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with these developments. Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale. At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher. Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes. Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space, underground power lines, and other infrastructure. Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99 corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against single family homes. Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect. It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred. Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a I0-foot setback. He agreed that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for multifamily projects. Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January 26, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 108 9.4.c acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate. The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial issues with the BD zone downtown. Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units. Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street, and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred. Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue. Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much weight as they give those in the downtown area. Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more discretion. Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings. Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door to the same type of zoning. Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 109 9.4.c as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged they would have to justify their decisions. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS- I zone would no longer exist, and the single- family homes along 84th could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re - look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Review ADB Handbook Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it would be very helpful. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board. Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the Board for their good work. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting M Minutes of Regular Meeting Q January26, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 110 9.4.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5ffi Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director Other: Councilmember Dave Teitzel The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on 84t' and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single - Architectural Design Board Meeting t�0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Pagel of 9 Packet Pg. 111 9.4.c family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan. Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low- income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind them. Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 112 9.4.c to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals. Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236th and 84th West which has been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit - oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need of transit -oriented development attributes. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone. Written Comments: Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting: • Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum • Theresa Hollis — 2 emails • Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 113 9.4.c NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the proposed step back be based on architectural justifications. She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so great that it would mitigate the massing. She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice, removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless the ADB does not determine them necessary. Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied that they are; it is project specific. Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283: • Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007. • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. • Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 114 9.4.c Considerations on the design review process: • Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year. o Projects maybe controversial. • Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities? o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities? • If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply ... during subsequent design review". o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing. o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones. Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed. How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation, modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like. Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects? Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused. Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements. Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real. She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 115 9.4.c ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community. She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017. Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor. She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the street. Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the development community while still considering community concerns. Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She thinks it should be a two-step process. Issue 1: Design Review Process • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone • Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone Architectural Design Board Meeting t�0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 116 9.4.c Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public hearing Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across the street from RS zone Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference. He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one- sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision. Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity. Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already regulated at their discretion. Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance. Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting �0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 117 9.4.c in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2). Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision. Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot building heights. Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options. Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing) • Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required • Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision. There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings. Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information, and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1. Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community members' comments about concerns around step backs. Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is. Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2. Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner, or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting w Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 118 9.4.c There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more information. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS None ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting t�0 Minutes of Regular Meeting Q February 23, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 119 9.4.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting March 8, 2023 Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Devt. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Teressa Hollis, Edmonds resident, urged the Board to get the most complete information available to make a decision on the interim ordinance. She cautioned against listening to the developers' perspective when they say that step backs call the economic viability of a project into question. She discussed other projects this developer has done and noted that it's not possible to make any accurate predictions about the future of a specific project in light of this ordinance. She referred to a question from the Board about the why the City Council created the interim ordinance and referred to Resolution 1512 which was created to answer that question and explain why the debate from 2017 is being reopened. She asked if the Board had considered the implications of Edmonds adopting a one-off approach when staff suggested that right-of-way width is a criterion for defining step back. She couldn't find this criterion in the codes of any other city in the region when she checked. She stated that mandating step backs with a sensitive boundary is a judgement call. She noted that in 2022 staff presented background information to the City Council and concluded that step backs across the street were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supported by policies in the Planned Action report. She played a recording of Director McLaughlin from a previous meeting related to this topic. She recommended code language that describes the step back dimensions on those CG parcels that have a boundary with single family but no other criteria. She recommended adding verbiage to the itemized list about design review in the code which invites Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 120 9.4.c the applicant to submit departures that provide equal or better moderation of the bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the code. Natalie Seitz said she had sent some information to the ADB previously about this topic. She asked that they give this area the same due consideration that they gave to the folks who live near the BD2. She expressed concern about the heights and stated that the development being permitted for residential apartments is already two stories more than was envisioned for this Planned Action. She hopes for fair and equal treatment for all Edmonds residents. Deborah Arthur said she agreed with Natalie Seitz that height is the issue. She hopes they can figure out a way to build these places without creating a tunnel view for residents and a vacuum of heat with no breeze or sky. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Ordinance Related to the CG Zone Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of this topic related to step back requirements for projects 35 feet and above in the CG-zoned properties with single-family residential (RS) zoned properties across the street. The ADB is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Board on potential permanent language. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption of that permanent ordinance. At the February 23 ADB meeting there was consensus and a motion approved that recommended that these types of projects be required to go through a Type II quasi-judicial review process meaning there would be a two-phase public hearing before the ADB when projects are adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned properties. As part of that same motion the Board recommended that the City implement a Type II review process for all other CG projects. This requires public notice and public comment but does not require a public hearing. Projects below 35 feet in height would continue to be reviewed through a Type I review process. There was a consensus from the ADB on the step back requirement. Staff was provided direction to provide better graphics to illustrate the potential impacts of step backs as it relates to massing and scale and potential shadow impacts. He emphasized that tonight they are not focusing on the height of the buildings but only on the impacts of the step back requirements. The interim ordinance, as currently written, requires an initial step back of an additional 10 feet at a 25-foot building height. Once you get to 55 feet you are required to have an additional 10-foot step back. There was discussion from the ADB at previous meetings and general consensus that Board members were comfortable with having that second step back be elevated from 55 feet to 65 feet. This also should be clarified as part of the motion tonight. Director McLaughlin clarified the context and background of the quote by her referred to by Teresa Hollis from a previous Council meeting. She stressed that staff supports the design tools that the ADB has access to and recommends they are used on all projects. Step backs may very well be the answer for projects that are across the street from single family residences, but staff wants the ADB to be able to make that decision with all the tools that are available based on the contextual nature of the site. Clarification questions were asked and answered. Director McLaughlin made a presentation showing illustrations of the impacts of potential step back requirements for CG properties across the street from RS zones with various scenarios. She showed examples Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 121 9.4.c of differences in modulation which is another tool available to the ADB in their toolkit. She reviewed the effects of heights and various step backs on shadows. She reiterated that this is not a conversation about building heights but only the step back. She also pointed out that these images are worst -case scenarios which would only happen for a portion of the day in the spring. From noon on there would not be any shadow impacts from across the street. Board Member Strauss commented that the graphics help to really see the impact. She notices a bigger visual difference with the step backs at 55 feet rather than 65 feet. Board Member Schmitz commented that when the ADB reviews buildings taller than 35 feet things like modulation will be strong tools for them. Board Member Herr said he didn't see a big difference with the shadows. By the time summer comes around those shadows don't even exist. There would be more in the winter, but there's also not much sun in the winter so there is no shadow. He pointed out that the illustration also shows a sunny day with a clear sky which is not very common until summer. He stated it is important to keep in mind where they live. He also stressed that the number of available lots where this shadow impact is going to apply is limited. Chair Bayer pointed out that if a house is sitting west of a 75-foot building they aren't going to see morning sun regardless of step backs. Vice Chair Brooks commented that considering that they live in the Pacific Northwest, they need to optimize what little sun they have in the wintertime. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that the major issue is specifically in the way that the step back requirements are phrased. The ADB already has existing discretion to recommend a whole host of design principles and standards when something comes before them as part of the Phase 1 public hearing. The interim ordinance says that step backs are required unless the ADB says they are not. The options available to the ADB are: • To not carry forward the language related to step backs in the interim ordinance and use the authority they already have with in the two-phase public hearing to require step backs on a case -by -case basis. This would effectively strike the applicability of the section that previously applied only to adjacent properties, but Ordinance 4283 amended it to apply to properties across the street as well. • To keep the language the way it is written now which requires step backs at 25 feet and 55 feet for properties across the street from RS-zoned properties unless the ADB deems they are not warranted in the Phase 1 public hearing. An applicant would have likely have to come forward with two proposals. They could present without step backs and state their case why they don't think they should be required for their project, but they would be taking a risk in doing all that work without any input from the ADB. • To modify criteria such as right-of-way width or other situations where step backs shouldn't be required. Director McLaughlin emphasized that with regard to light, the difference between the step backs is very small. Chair Bayer stated that the issue for her is still the mass. What are significant issues with requiring step backs? Is it financial? Director McLaughlin noted there are a lot of expenses that go into the first design review. The developer's team makes their own design judgements based on their interpretation of the codes and policies that are in place on that particular site. With the current code the design team would be forced to put the step backs in or make two sets of designs which is double the expense. Also, with the design justification the discussion Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 122 9.4.c at the first meeting is going to be solely about step backs and not about all the other tools the ADB has at their disposal to mitigate massing. Staff s preference has always been to mitigate massing and use all the design tools available in the existing development standards. This allows the ADB to use their full discretion to optimize design to make a building effective and fit into a site. She believes that when it is done in a prescriptive way it hyper focuses the conversation and puts the design team on the defense when it may not be the best tool for mitigating massing. Board Member Strauss asked if staff is available to architects/developers to come in with some sketches of the site and proposing ideas. Planning Manager Mike Clugston said there are two types of meetings where that could happen — a pre -application meeting which is a paid meeting and a Development Review Committee which is a free meeting. Anybody who is going to build a building like this is going to come and talk to staff beforehand. Board Member Strauss noted that the developers have plenty of opportunity to come in and discuss with staff what the requirements are. Board Member Loch asked what the City has in terms of policies or guidelines regarding shadow impacts. He also referred to the tree code and noted that many single-family homes could be shadowing themselves with trees. He wondered about the difference between shadows from buildings and shadows from trees. To him they seemed the same. He also asked if a 75-foot building would be allowed on a street that only has 60 feet of right- of-way or would there be a dedication requirement so that ultimately the setback is more like 80 feet. Mr. Clugston said that 60 feet is the right amount to be looking at. The setback is taken from the property line. Whether the whole area is developed doesn't matter. 60 feet is the right of way for most of Edmonds; there are only a few that are different widths. It includes the street and sidewalk. Regarding shadows in the code, he stated he was not aware of any code that had any sort of numerical values that they would measure. There may be some language in the Comp Plan but it would be very general. Director McLaughlin thought that this is something that could be included in the submittal packet. Board Member Jeude noted there is language around light. Director McLaughlin agreed but said it is very subjective. Regarding the question about trees and shadowing, Director McLaughlin was not aware of any language preventing trees from shadowing houses. Board Member Brooks commented that a building is solid, and a tree has branches so you will get some filtering. You can see through a tree, and they blow in the wind so it's a shifting shadow. Board Member Schmitz agreed with addressing the bulk and scale of buildings but expressed concern about focusing solely on property line step back height because they may lose the nuance of the developer and architect being able to address other concerns. There may be better techniques to make those units valuable to people who will ultimately be living in them such as balconies, shadow box windows, and other techniques that will address privacy concerns. In his experience if there are very strict requirements it limits how you can design a building and makes a lot of buildings look very similar. If there's very little flexibility a lot of developers won't approach the City with options, and Edmonds will end up with a lot of similar looking "wedding cake" buildings. By using the toolkit the ADB already has, they would still have the ability to address privacy issues, especially these across the street shadowing issues, with simpler mitigations than broad brush requirements. Board Member Strauss argued that it is really hard for the ADB to tell developers who come in and present their designs that they can't do what they want. If it's not in the code she thinks the developers won't agree to it. Board Member Schmitz replied that the ADB already has the authority to tell developers what the City would like to see. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Strauss noted that step backs are a big suggestion. Also, the ADB does not end up seeing the developer again so they don't even know if they comply. Director McLaughlin noted this would be a quasi-judicial decision; the developer would have to abide by it. Planning Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 123 9.4.c Manager Levitan noted that the first phase of the two-phase public hearing is where the developer would introduce the concept. If they introduce a concept, is within the ADB's purview to say what they want to see before the applicant comes back for the Phase 2 public hearing. This is something that the ADB is already able to do. Director McLaughlin noted that staff ensures the ADB's decision is adhered to all the way to the certificate of occupancy. Board Member Jeude asked about a previous project the ADB had reviewed which the applicant had later parceled off. She wondered if this was a way they had gotten around the ADB's recommendation. Senior Planner Clugston explained that it was not. The buildings will end up looking exactly like the ADB recommended; they are just parceling it in a different way. Board Member Strauss commented on difficulties with that decision because the Board was mixed in their opinions. She thought it would have been easier if it had been clear in the code. Board Member Loch recommended bifurcating the question into the topic of step back above 25 feet and then any other step back issues. Board Member Strauss asked Board Member Schmitz to explain his reasoning for recommending the step back at 65 feet instead of 55 feet. Board Member Schmitz explained how this makes it less complicated and more affordable for developers. This has a big impact for those trying to provide affordable housing. He asserted that from the street the average person would never notice the difference between a 55- foot step back and a 65-foot step back. Board Member Strauss referred to the graphics provided by staff and said there appeared to be a big difference between the 55 and 65-foot step backs. Chair Bayer agreed. Board Member Schmitz thought that the lower -level step back would make the most difference. Board Member Brooks asked if modulation causes similar complications for developers. Board Member Schmitz explained that modulating creates depths in the facade. Vertical modulation provides the most relief in a building because you can break the mass up into what looks like several smaller buildings. Horizontal step backs reduce the bulk of the building by pulling the building back further. Director McLaughlin noted that they don't have prescription around modulation. She thought if there is prescription in the step back, the developers might spend their money there in lieu of modulation or other techniques that could be used to mitigate massing. There was discussion about the ADB's ability to require modulation on projects they review. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, THAT THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS NOT INCLUDE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 25 FEET WHEN ACROSS FROM SINGLE FAMILY (RS) ZONE. Upon request, Board Member Loch clarified his motion. He explained that he hasn't been shown that it makes a material difference in the impacts to the area. He also doesn't think it's good for the City to put an optional regulation that the applicant won't know how to satisfy. This is not fair to the applicant or the neighborhood. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, THAT THE ORDINANCE REMAIN AS WRITTEN IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE 25-FOOT STEP BACK AND THE 55-FOOT STEP BACK. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 124 9.4.c Board Member Schmitz commented that if they push the step backs higher it won't make a difference with shadows, and they have other tools that can be used to address bulk and scale better than step back in an arbitrary way. Board Member Strauss agreed that it would not make a difference with shadows, but from a bulk standpoint it will make a difference. MOTION PASSED 4-3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Special Meeting Q March. 8, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 125 9.4.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Written Public Comments related to February 8 Meeting Planning Manager Levitan noted that the City had received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and following the February 8 meeting, which are attached to the agenda packet. • Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1 • Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map Additional Public Comments: David Cohanim, SytjgW Construction, Inc. stated he was representing developers of the project at 2365 80 Avenue West. They have been working with the City of Edmonds on this project for quite a while. Plans were submitted for design review that met all relevant criteria under the municipal code. Now the project has been stopped by the actions of the City Council. They are unable to move forward, and there has been substantial financial impact due to this. The Emergency Ordinance that was enacted by the City Council calls for substantive changes to the nature of the proposed structure that were not present in the zoning code at the time they submitted for review. This project has been called out repeatedly by city staff as the impetus for these moves. He expressed concern that Judy Gladstone is a neighboring resident of the project under discussion and has spoken out about her position regarding the project and the zoning issues associated with it. Since the Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Council on which Ms. Gladstone serves as Chair, he expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He recommended that Chair Gladstone recuse herself from any matters pertaining in any way to the project under discussion as well as zoning and related legislation associated with the project, particularly with regard to CG zoning. Stanley Piha spoke regarding transit -oriented development which he believes should be as significant a focus of the Planning Board as it is at the current state legislative session. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, an act related to promoting transit -oriented development, a station hub means all parcels that are fully or partially within a quarter -mile radius of a major transit station. Further defined in the senate bill, a major transit stop means a site that has been funded for development or a site on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on high -occupancy vehicle lanes. Mr. Piha stated that governance creating transit -oriented development activities should be a priority of the Planning Board. Community Transit recently announced the proposed shuttle service from the Edmonds Kingston ferry terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station with stops along the way. As a result, the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 238th and Highway 99 will be one of the most transit -concentrated hubs in the city of Edmonds. It is the only intersection that will have both north and south Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the highway. This creates an opportunity to create a transit - oriented development radius as defined by the senate bill allowing the most accessible access to public transportation. He noted that multifamily properties already exist across the street from single-family zoned properties on 80 Avenue between 236th and 238ffi. He spoke in support of a suggestion at a recent Architectural Design Review Board meeting to create a transition between the CG zone and the single-family zone by changing the single-family zones along 80 to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. He stated that the quarter -mile radius from 238th and Highway 99 should be viewed by the Planning Board as a transit -oriented development opportunity. Promoting density here will provide a means of addressing the housing crisis and promoting easy access to all Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 126 9.4.d forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. He thinks all properties within this radius should be excepted from the conditions outlined in the Emergency Ordinance to allow needed housing to be built. Finis Tupper online), Edmonds resident, expressed concern about where Edmonds is headed and the way that the current government is operating. He expressed frustration that he was unable to attend the February 8 meeting because of technical difficulties. He is concerned about open and transparent government and stated there are consequences for violating the Open and Public Meetings Act. Glenn Douglas (online), Gateway community, stated he is getting ready to put together another citizens' petition regarding persistent speeding on 80 Avenue West. He thinks adding a 261-unit apartment building at 236th and 84t' will only exacerbate this. He thanked anyone on the Board who helped get the new stop signs put in at that intersection, but it is not enough. He is frustrated that the southbound radar feedback sign has not been reinstalled, and the northbound radar feedback sign has not been activated. He suggested relocating both radar feedback signs to more effective locations. He commented that asphalt speed bumps have been recommended by neighbors. He would appreciate some feedback or some kind of response. Deborah Arthur said she also tried to get on for the last Planning Board meeting and had technical difficulties. She requested clarification about the area along 84th they are talking about developing. She expressed concern about speeding traffic along the side streets in this area and pedestrian safety issues she has witnessed. NEW BUSINESS B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Chair Gladstone stated that she has been involved as a private citizen on this issue. It is her intent to continue to serve impartially and take in information as she would on any other issue coming before the Planning Board. Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that was presented on February 8. He explained that due to a lack of recording and other technical difficulties, that meeting was being repeated. He reviewed some of the history and provisions of Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283. It requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height; requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB, and is valid for six months from adoption (June 10, 2023) with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. He reviewed considerations regarding the design review process. Right now, they are seeing about one new project per year. He asked for feedback on whether the ADB should have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities. If so, is the two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? He discussed existing and interim step back requirements including factors to be considered regarding across -the -street step backs. He reviewed design tools and requested feedback on additional design tools to be considered. He requested feedback and stated this would go back to the ADB on February 23 for additional code refinement and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to Council. The Council must adopt permanent standards by June 10, 2023. He summarized some of the previous discussion. Board Member Mitchell asked how the Supplemental EIS plays into this. Planning Manager Levitan explained that was added as part of the Council budget package as part of the 2023 project to analyze some of the Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 127 9.4.d development assumptions within the Planned Action EIS related to trip generation and the ability to handle stormwater. He pointed out that the Planned Action EIS went through all the required processes and was subject to public comment and potential appeals which did not happen. Staff is working on ways to integrate this analysis with the needed environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update as a whole. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the projects in the CG zone are not required to go through the ADB, are there any other opportunities for public comment in the permit process to get feedback on the design or the proposed development? Planning Manager Levitan thought there would be an opportunity for a Type 2 public process even though it would be reviewed administratively. Board Member Golembiewski stated that the process of going through the ADB seems counterintuitive to the subarea plan which was designed to streamline development in this area. She thinks public input is important, and she is comfortable as long as the public has the opportunity to provide comment for staff to review. She spoke to the importance of believing that staff will be working in the best interest of the community. Board Member Campbell spoke to challenges with public comment opportunities as has been heard tonight. If they are not going through the ADB process, what else can the City do to make sure people's comments are heard? Planning Manager Levitan stated that a Type 2 process would require public notification be sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project property. If someone comments on that they become a party of record and would be notified of any notice of decision and would have the opportunity to appeal the project if they wished to. Board Member Campbell asked about the possibility of expanding the notification radius to reach out to a greater number of people. Planning Manager Levitan thought it could be discussed. Chair Gladstone asked about the vision of the Planned Action EIS. Planning Manager Levitan replied that a Planned Action was done recognizing the role of high -capacity transit coming down Highway 99 and that the area has the potential to meet a lot of the City's identified housing needs, especially multifamily residential. There was a public process in establishing the subarea plan as well as doing the environmental review through the State Environmental Policy Act. The general intent of the Planned Action was to evaluate transportation and stormwater impacts in that area so it would streamline development. Chair Gladstone requested more information about the history of the CG area and the EIS so they can get a better accounting of this. She also suggested that a joint meeting with the ADB might be helpful to get their perspective before making a recommendation. Chair Gladstone asked about differences in street widths in the CG zone. Planning Manager Levitan thought street widths vary in that area from about 40 to 80 feet; however, this would apply only to CG-zoned properties that are directly across from RS zones so it would be very limited. Board Member Campbell said she would like to see additional information and more detail about the equity piece related to whether step backs would be required. She is concerned about the language in the proposed ordinance that says that step backs would be required unless the ADB determined that they weren't needed. If that condition is left in there, it is important to set out clearly what those requirements are. She can see the benefits to having the flexibility in there but expressed concern about potential inequities between developers. Chair Gladstone asked about the reason for the shift in the emergency ordinance to add review by the ADB regarding step back requirements. Planning Manager Levitan thought the emergency ordinance reanalyzed the ability for the ADB to have discretion about whether step backs are needed and implemented the two-phase design review process. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 128 9.4.d Board Member Mitchell asked if there is still an ability by the developer to prove to the ADB that step backs aren't needed. Mr. Levitan explained that the applicant can state why they don't think they are needed when they present their design. He offered to bring back more information about this. Board Member Mitchell agreed with Board Member Campbell's concerns about consistency. He noted that in his experience step backs are the first thing to go. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the possibility that a developer would propose no step backs on either adjacent properties or across the street the way the code is written. Mr. Levitan explained that in the interim ordinance the discretion for the ADB applies to both adjacent and across the street. The language could be changed if desired. There was some discussion about how the code language development process happens with the Planning Board. ADNIINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Manager Levitan explained that at the last meeting he had reviewed the visioning process and the vision statement: "Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. " The next step in the process will be to do a citywide mailing with a QR code and other opportunities for people to log on to a survey to provide their feedback. He had also asked for general feedback from Planning Board members on the vision statement. The general consensus was that this isn't necessarily a vision statement, but it is just stating what we are. There was a general thought that a vision statement should be more aspirational and forward looking. Board Member Maxwell commented as long as they have the time it would be great to have an additional mail out survey. He stressed that there should be opportunities for people who aren't comfortable with technology, don't have access to smart phones, or have other accessibility issues to be able to respond as well. Board Member Martina agreed that they really need to remember accessibility for the disabled and aging community. She wonders how much feedback they would get from them if they had to go online versus having a survey mailed to them or an opportunity to call a phone number. Planning Manager Levitan thanked them for the feedback. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 15, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 129 9.4.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting April 12, 2023 Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. She apologized for the delay in starting the meeting while they were waiting for a quorum. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair (online) Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Nick Maxwell (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent Susanna Law Martini Richard Kuehn Lauren Golembiewski Todd Cloutier Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rose Haas, Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Vice Chair Campbell suggested moving Administrative Reports to the end of the evening just prior to the Extended Agenda due to the late start. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 130 9.4.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Seitz (online) commented that an email she had provided to the Board prior the meeting had been included in the packet; however, the six attachments she had attached to that email were not included. She requested that those be included in the final meeting minutes. Ken Reidy, Edmonds resident, welcomed new Planning Board members. He suggested that when the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council a member of the Planning Board attend the City Council meeting to make that recommendation in person to make sure it is conveyed as intended. He also referred to the absences of four Planning Board members tonight and noted that the decision as to whether or not those absences are excused needs to take place in an open public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB) recommendation on permanent amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. The permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Interim Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008) Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the staff presentation. He introduced the public hearing and reviewed the history of interim Ordinance 4283. Provisions of Ordinance 4283 are that it requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height) and that it requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. He reviewed work on this to date. The ADB's unanimous recommendation regarding process is to maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are adjacent/across street from RS zones and create a new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height that are not adjacent/across the street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice). All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I. The ADB recommendation regarding step backs is to maintain step back requirements for projects across the street from RS zones unless deemed not necessary by the ADB. He explained there had been discussion among the ADB about whether they wanted to maintain discretion and operate during the first phase of the two-phase public hearing as opposed to explicitly requiring the step back and then having the option to waive the requirement. Some members also expressed concerns about project costs for developers of having to prepare multiple designs. He reviewed visual representations that staff had prepared regarding various step back and modulation scenarios. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board take oral public comments regarding this item; review and ask questions about it; deliberate; and make a recommendation to Council on permanent code language. Council must hold their own public hearing and adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 131 9.4.d Public Testimony: Randy Hollis (online) encouraged the Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. He noted that the only members of the development community who have commented on this are working on a deal related to one parcel in this 260-acre area. He asserted that if the Council were making a radical departure from the code in nearby cities they would have heard from other developers. He raised concerns about the motivations of these stakeholders and discussed some background on their communications which he stated have consisted of incomplete information and personal attacks. Jan Steadman (online), Edmonds resident, commented that building step backs are a common regulation in land use planning when there are no transition zones, and a tall building needs to transition to a less intensive zone. The authors of the Highway 99 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required these step backs. These step backs were an important mitigation to the upzoning to 75 feet; however, when adopted in 2017 the City Council did not require step backs across the street because of the slow development environment. She stated that the development activity today is significantly higher. When this was reviewed in 2022 staff encouraged them to consider step backs across the street from residential. She noted that these CG property owners on the boundary of Highway 99 have already received a huge windfall from the city's upzoning of the area. She recommended that interim Ordinance 4283 be made permanent. Natalie Seitz (online), Edmonds resident, spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing EIS for the SR 99 Planned Action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding CG zone step backs seek to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She also spoke in support of the two-step process for design review. She pointed out that the SR 99 area brought in four times the annual sales tax of the downtown area and twice that of Westgate in 2022. She also pointed out that the Edmonds population has shifted to the east. The current population of the Highway 99 area exceeds downtown area population. She urged the Board to challenge their perception of how residential development in this area functions within the context of the City. She expressed concern that this area and its residents are not treated with the same consideration that would be given to a similar development downtown. She acknowledged that there is a housing shortage and that this upzone can help to address some of that but it also kills the city's commercial breadbasket and exacerbates the simplification of the housing structures into renters and single family. It eliminates middle housing and does not address the equity issues that are now required by the Growth Management Act. She asserted the impacts are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of the lower density, whiter, and wealthier areas of Edmonds. She asked the Planning Board to recommend step backs or an overlay to require the CG to function within the densities envisioned by the Planned Action. At a minimum, they should keep the City's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed. The interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, spoke in support of Chair Gladstone's right to make public comments to the City Council regarding this item and noted she had acted within her rights and with transparency. She stated she read the codes of many neighboring jurisdictions. Step backs to mitigate the mass and bulk of a building is a very common principle in the field of architecture design. She was not aware of any examples of cities that require step backs when abutting but not across the street. She urged the Planning Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 132 9.4.d Sue Oskowski, Edmonds residents, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She feels it is important to allow the public to participate in the design review of tall buildings in the Highway 99 area especially since the City removed the transition zone in 2017. She raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed 75-foot tall, six -story apartment building at the corner of 236th and 84th which would be built five feet away from the walkway of the neighboring three-story condo. She suggested that the developer could change the building's footprint and courtyard size to allow for a buffer from the condo building on the south boundary. She urged the City to make the interim ordinance permanent because it helps to level the playing field between the interests of the new development and the neighbors who were here first. Seeing no further public comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. Clarification Questions: Board Member Maxwell requested a clarification about the difference between the two-step and the one-step process. Senior Planner Clugston reviewed the difference and how each process would work. Vice Chair Campbell asked staff if it was accurate that one of the developers who has provided comments related to the step backs was a person who provided recommendations in the 2017 design standards process. Mr. Clugston thought that it was. Chair Gladstone noted that Bothell has overlays. She asked if this is something that Edmonds has done or is able to do. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City has the ability to establish overlay zones. Senior Planner Clugston noted there are no overlay zones right now, but there are overlay districts in the Comp Plan. Chair Gladstone asked if the Council was made aware about the neighborhood objection to not doing the step backs. Senior Planner Clugston was not certain but thought it was probably discussed at more than one public meeting. Board Deliberation: Board Member Mitchell referred to the vagueness of the code and the discretion of the ADB to make the determination as to whether there are step backs or not. He noted that the skill level of whoever sits on the Board at the time varies. He expressed concern that there would not be consistent measures implemented across the same zone over time. He wondered what metrics they would look at when making that determination. He referred to the people concerned about the step backs and noted that a property can still take both step backs at the same time. He also noted that somebody could buy up a group of parcels, do a lot line adjustment into one parcel and not have to do the step back. Chair Gladstone referred to Board Member Mitchell's comments about the ambiguity of the code and the potential for inconsistency as ADB members change. She commented that if the ordinance just says that step backs need to occur and removes the ADB review it would resolve that issue. Board Member Mitchell agreed. Right now, any applicant could come to the table and easily remove the step backs and justify it in many different ways. From a community standpoint, if they are really concerned about mitigating the bulk with step backs, he thinks that the code language needs to be improved. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 133 9.4.d Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of urban development. Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four- story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing. They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017 ordinance was adopted. Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples of how codes are applied in surrounding areas. Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings over 35 feet. Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member Mitchell. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023 -000 1) Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 134 9.4.e Planning Board Options for CG Emergency Ordinance 4283 Prepared by Working Subgroup: Jeremy Mitchell, Lauren Golembiewski, and Judi Gladstone Goals of Emergency Ordinance In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup identified four goals: 1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones. 2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to RS zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process. 3. Certainty for builders. 4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that would require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a maximum of one public meeting. 4 Options The subgroup identified four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They include the following: 1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated. 2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB possibly). 3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting but staff decision. 4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55- feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55-feet and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate requirement to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting. Below is a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. Stepbacks of 10' Allow Emergency Require and 30' for Stepbacks as Goals/Option Emergency Ordinance as written with buildings over Ordinance to written. 55'. No ADB be vacated. no ADB review. Review. Provide better transition between CG and X X X RS zones Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 X Subarea Plan Certainty for X builders X X Compliance with X X X HB 1239 Packet Pg. 135 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m 0 0 Chapter 16.60 0 CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE 0 L r Sections: 16.60.000 CG zone. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. I 16.60.000 CG zone. A. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district. B. Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: 1. "Amenity space" means outdoor space for uses that are considered to provide an amenity or benefit to people. 2. "Auto sales use" means facilities for the commercial sale of motor vehicles, including buildings and areas typically associated with auto sales use, such as areas for the display and storage of automobiles that are sold or serviced as part of the overall auto sales use. 3. "Frontage" means the front part of a property or building adjacent to a street. 4. "Primary frontage" (or "primary street frontage") means the frontage for a property that is adjacent to only one street or, for a property that is adjacent to more than one street, the frontage that is adjacent to the street that is considered primary over any other streets to which the property is adjacent. 5. "Step -back" means the upper portion of a building that is required to be set (or stepped) further back than the minimum setback otherwise required by ECDC 16.60.020(A). C. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the general commercial district. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. Packet Pg. 137 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m 16.60.005 Purposes. 0 The CG zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for c r business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: 0 L r A. Encourage economic vitality through businesses, investment, redevelopment, and efficient use of land; ,„ B. Encourage safe and comfortable access for pedestrians, transit, and motorists; C. Encourage attractive mixed -use development, affordable housing, and a variety of commercial uses; and D. Recognize the district's evolving identity and sense of place, including distinctions between different parts of the district, and be sensitive to adjacent residential zones. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsections (B) and (D) of this section; 2. Halfway houses; 3. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Indoor storage facilities that either comprise less than 40 percent of a permitted primary use of the building in which they are located or are in a separate accessory building or buildings comprising less than 40 percent of the total leasable building space used for the parcel's permitted primary use(s). 3. Outdoor storage areas that are integral to a permitted primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or Packet Pg. 138 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m garden/nursery sales; provided, that such outdoor uses are screened from adjacent 0 residential zoning districts. c 0 C. Prohibited Uses. 0 L 1. Mobile home parks. c 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to a permitted use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or products: (1) expressive dance; (2) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (3) classes, seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or educational purpose; (4) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (5) nudity within a locker room or other similar facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (6) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health -related purposes; and (7) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected zones, whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses, whether such protected use is located within or outside the city limits: Packet Pg. 139 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m a. A public park; 0 0 b. A public library; c r 0 c. A nursery school or preschool; 0 L r d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for religious worship; f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and i. A public hospital or hospital district. 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section to the nearest physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance from Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses; Packet Pg. 140 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Floor Area CG None None 5'/102 0715', 75'3 None Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. Z The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls Packet Pg. 141 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of 0 development otherwise exempted under this chapter. c 0 a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of c the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor o dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in N an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be o constructed in a portion of the activity zone. o b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. C. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. a Packet Pg. 142 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 -,L 5'min, f S-1C4 Note. Numerical Ranges forthe PedesrrianZane and theActivityZone are typiedbutdonat canrmlover other requirements olthls chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or Directly Across the Street from IRS Zones. 1. There are two options for applying building step backs: a. For buildings 55 feet in height or less, no step backs are required: b. For buildings greater than 55 in height, the portion of the building above 25 feet must step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height must step back no less than 30 feet from the required setback adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone. 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. Packet Pg. 143 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 Xnm 1Yw.h 141.�d�oprMRrr _�4 (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) (Illustration to be updated to reflect permanent step back language) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 1 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. m 0 0 0 0 0 L r a Packet Pg. 144 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with 0 Chapter 20.13 ECDC. o c 0 e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 c L feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single-family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or Packet Pg. 145 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. 0 0 B. Parking, Access, and Bicycle Storage Standards. c r 0 1. Parking Requirements. Vehicle parking shall be provided as follows: 0 L r a. Nonresidential uses, one space per 500 square feet of leasable building space; and b. Residential uses, an average of 0.75 space per unit that is less than 700 square feet, an average of 1.25 parking spaces per unit that is between 700 and 1,100 square feet, and otherwise 1.75 spaces per unit. c. In addition, guest parking for residential uses at a minimum ratio of one guest space for every 20 required parking spaces. d. For mixed -use development, a portion of the parking spaces may be shared between residential and commercial uses provided the director finds that the proposal is supported by a parking study and/or nationally recognized parking standards and that the site plan assures access for all shared parking uses. e. Parking meeting the nonresidential parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. 2. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial space in a mixed -use development with a shared parking plan is exempt from off-street parking requirements. 3. The development services director may approve a different ratio for the vehicle parking required by the standards of subsection (B)(1) of this section when an applicant submits parking data illustrating that the standards do not accurately apply to a specific development. The data submitted for an alternative parking ratio shall include, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, and the anticipated peak and average parking loads of all uses. The director may approve a parking ratio that is based on the specific type of development and its primary users in relationship to: a. An analysis conducted using nationally recognized standards or methodology, such as is contained in the Urban Land Institute's most recent version of the publication "Shared Parking" or the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication "Parking Generation"; or b. A site -specific parking study that includes data and analysis for one or more of the following: i. One -quarter -mile proximity to a bus rapid transit station and methodology that takes into account transit -oriented development; Packet Pg. 146 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m ii. Use of transportation demand management policies, including but not limited 0 to free or subsidized transit passes for residents and workers; c 0 iii. On -site car -share and bike -share facilities; 0 L iv. Uses that serve patients, clients, or tenants who do not have the same vehicle c parking needs as the general population; or v. Other methods that reduce the need for vehicle parking. 4. All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except as otherwise allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from the sidewalk by a wall or plantings between two to four feet in height. Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40 percent or less of the public street frontage area within 100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses. 5. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking standards relating to bicycle parking facilities. 7. Driveways Accessing Highway 99. All driveway connections to Highway 99 must meet the applicable requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation, including minimum requirements for distance between driveway access connections, which may be up to 250 feet to help promote traffic safety and minimize pedestrian - vehicle conflicts. 8. Paths within Parking Lots. a. Pedestrian paths in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may include landscape barriers and landscape islands. b. Pedestrian paths shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on -site buildings as well as to pedestrian walkways that border the development. c. Pedestrian paths shall be a minimum of six feet in width and shall be separated from the parking area either horizontally or vertically (e.g., with curbs). Where paths cross vehicular lanes, raised traffic tables should be considered if feasible. Packet Pg. 147 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m d. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum 0 of every 100 feet. 0 c 0 9. Bonus for Parking Below or Above Ground Floor. 0 L a. For projects where at least 50 percent of the parking is below or above the ground c floor of the building, the following standards may be applied regardless of any ECDC standards that otherwise conflict: c i. The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. ii. The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20 percent. iii. A mixture of full and reduced width parking stalls may be provided without demonstrating the stalls could also be provided at full width dimensions. 10. Drive -Through Facilities. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, and espresso stands, shall comply with the following: a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. b. No more than one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. 11. Pedestrian and Transit Access. a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing pedestrian routes where applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking or access areas. c. Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required. d. Pedestrian routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other. C. Site Design and Layout. Overall, the design and use of each site shall be based on the building/street relationship and on the integration of pedestrian features. This will take the form of either a pedestrian -oriented design area or an alternative walkable design area, as Packet Pg. 148 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 described in subsections (C)(1) and (2) of this section; provided, that an exceptions process, 0 pursuant to subsection (C)(3) of this section, may be allowed under the provisions of this section. Additional site design and layout standards in this section must also be met. c r 1. Pedestrian -Oriented Design Area. Unless otherwise permitted under subsection (C)(2) c or (3) of this section, development must meet the requirements of this subsection for a pedestrian -oriented design area. a. Primary Frontage. At least 50 percent of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within 20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists. The illustration below provides an example of this concept. The requirement does not apply to buildings that are behind another building on the same lot when the other building has a footprint of at least 3,000 square feet and has met the requirement. Where site constraints preclude strict compliance with the requirement, the building line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; or iv. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. b. The building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage. Vehicle parking, other than where permitted for vehicle sales use, shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage. The first 20 feet of the primary street frontage may include building space, landscaping, artwork, seating areas, outdoor displays, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ..Fw;!`;•::6�P.By6.` 6`�:.y ��6F r:.��n4'•3J�.�pXdj4:.7.}�y:.. 'i-'. ! "ur - 2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option. An alternative to the pedestrian -oriented design area requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section may be allowed by the development services director only for sites that the director has found to have unique and significant constraints related to pedestrian access and for which a phased design plan to increase pedestrian access and connectivity has been submitted to the Packet Pg. 149 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 development services department. While they currently may be largely auto -oriented, 0 walkable design areas have a high potential for walking, bicycling and transit service. If a development is allowed to use this standard, it shall be subject to the requirements of this c subsection. 0 L a. Building Placement. For any new building permitted on a property after August 1, 2017, a minimum of 50 percent of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60 feet of the front property line or within 65 feet where a c five-foot landscaping area is provided between the parking lot and the sidewalk. o When site constraints preclude strict compliance with this requirement, the building N cm line shall be measured one foot behind the line created by that constraint. o b. On a corner lot or a lot with frontages on multiple streets, the development services director shall determine the primary street frontage considering the following: i. The street classification of the adjacent streets; ii. The prevailing orientation of other buildings in the area; iii. The length of the block face on which the building is located; iv. The location of any alley or parking areas; or v. Unique characteristics of the lot or street. c. No more than one double -sided row of parking spaces shall be allowed in the front of a building on its primary frontage. d. A pedestrian entrance must be located on the primary frontage. SAdlrg I..de lao r g omery sheet shall 6e Pede*w ebb a 1—*d within 60 feel of the 1m t olooeny ilne Ago Prim ry 5"e1 Wiage e. Required amenity spaces, under subsection (C)(4) of this section, shall be located to connect the building to the street as much as practicable; provided, that amenity space may also be located between buildings where the space will be used in common. Packet Pg. 150 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m 3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian or Walkable Design. An exception to the exact 0 requirements of subsection (C)(1) or (2) of this section may be allowed by the hearing examiner under a Type III -A decision process to provide for design flexibility that still c encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses when the following criteria are met: G L r a. The property is located within 300 feet of a highway interchange and has unique 00 pedestrian access constraints or is primarily used for motor vehicle sales; o b. The development provides business and pedestrian areas that are near the primary street frontage and likely to be active throughout the day and evening; c. The development features a prominent building entry for pedestrian use that is highly visible and connected by a well -lit walkway from the primary street frontage; d. At least 25 percent of the required amenity space shall be located to connect the building to the street in a manner that encourages pedestrian use and include seating, landscaping, and artwork; e. Where a site has multiple buildings (excluding accessory utility buildings), 50 percent or more of the required amenity space shall be located between buildings to allow for shared use; f. No more than 50 percent of vehicle parking, other than that associated with a permitted vehicle sales facility use, may be located within 20 feet of the front property line; g. One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of useable space 4. Amenity Space. Amenity space is intended to provide residents, employees, and visitors with places for a variety of outdoor activities. a. An area equivalent to at least five percent of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity space. If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least five percent of the additional parking area. b. The amenity space shall be outdoor space that incorporates pedestrian -oriented features, such as, but not limited to, seating, paths, gazebos, dining tables, pedestrian -scale lighting, and artwork. A minimum of 10 percent of the required amenity space shall be comprised of plantings, which may include tree canopy areas and other shade or screening features. Native vegetation is encouraged. Packet Pg. 151 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m c. The majority of the required amenity space must be provided in one or more of 0 the following forms: c 0 i. Recreation areas: an open space available for recreation. The area may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its surface shall c consist primarily of hardy groundcover or a material conducive to playground or recreational use. Decorative landscape features, such as flower beds, shall not 00 comprise more than 15 percent of the total area. o ii. Plazas: an open space available for community gathering and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by either building facades, with strong connections to interior uses, or close proximity to the public sidewalk, especially at the intersection of streets. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape; provided, that trees, shade canopies, and other landscaping, as well as water features and artwork, may add visual or environmental features to the space. iii. Squares or courtyards: an open space available for unstructured recreation or community gathering purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its surface shall be primarily hardscape, supplemented by trees and other landscaping. Water features and artwork are optional. iv. Exception. A community garden may comprise a portion of any amenity space; provided, that it: (A) Is located more than 20 feet from a primary street frontage; (B) Is dedicated to ongoing use by residents of the site, including for growing edible produce; and (C) Includes facilities for watering the garden and storing garden supplies 5. Lighting. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut off" fixtures. a. Parking lots shall have lighting poles that are a maximum of 25 feet in height. Pedestrian paths or walkways and outdoor steps shall have pedestrian -scaled lighting focused on the travel path. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet, although lighting bollards are preferred. b. For pedestrian paths and walkways on internal portions of the site, solar -powered lighting may be sufficient. Packet Pg. 152 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m c. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the 0 building/canopy. c 0 D. Building Design Standards. 0 L 1. General. To provide variety and interest in appearance, the following design elements c should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least four of the elements will be used to vary the design of the site: a. Building massing and unit layout; b. Placement of structures and setbacks; c. Location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities; d. Composition and character of open space, plant materials and street trees; e. Variety in architectural elements, facade articulation, and/or building materials; f. Roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Building Design and Massing. a. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct "base" and "top," which may be achieved through differences in massing elements and/or architectural details. b. The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as facade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step -backs, distinctive roof lines or forms, and other design details. c. Primary Frontage. On the primary frontage, to provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, 50 percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. A departure from this standard may be approved when the facade will not be visible from the public street due to the placement of other buildings on the site; provided, that the requirements of subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section shall apply. Packet Pg. 153 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m 0 0 0 c 0 0 - o c ■ 50% Min Transparency (may include all viFr6cvn and glass doors, bait not rnirrored O finishes; C i. On the primary frontage, no vehicle parking shall be located within the first 20 feet of the first level of a building facing the street except where such parking is underground. d. All Other Building Frontages. All street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street, other than for the primary frontage or those facing an alley or the last block of a dead-end street, shall comply with the standard below. i. Thirty percent of the building facade between two and 10 feet in height shall be made of windows or doors that are transparent, the bottom of which may not be more than four feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Windows shall not be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40 percent in order to meet this requirement. e. Wall Treatment. Building facades not subject to all requirements of subsection (D)(2)(c) or (d) of this section are intended to not display blank, unattractive walls to the public or to other building tenants. To accomplish this, walls greater than 30 feet in length shall have architectural treatment that incorporates at least four of the following elements into the design of the facade: i. Masonry (except for flat concrete block). ii. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall. iii. Belt courses of a different texture and color. iv. Projecting cornice. v. Projecting metal or wood canopy. vi. Decorative tilework. vii. Trellis containing planting. Packet Pg. 154 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m viii. Medallions. 0 0 0 ix. Artwork or wall graphics. c r 0 x. Vertical differentiation. 0 L r xi. Decorative lighting fixtures. xii. Glazing. xiii. An architectural element not listed above that is approved by the director to meet the intent of this subsection. [Ord. 4277 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4251 § 2 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3736 § 11, 2009; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities,- 2. Off street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. r c m B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall r be considered a temporary use. As a temporary activity, any signs or structures used in Q accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the E U 0 a Packet Pg. 155 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m required available parking for the other business use below the standards established in this 0 chapter. c 0 C. Ongoing Uses. 0 L 1. Audio equipment at drive -through facilities shall not be audible off site. c 2. Development subject to the standards of this chapter shall continue to meet the standards of this chapter except as specifically permitted otherwise. [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 8, 2013; Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. I 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Zoning Accessory Contingent Outdoor dining Essential Site specific compliance dwelling unit critical area public rezone letter review facilities Lot line Formal Shoreline Technological Development Zoning text adjustment interpretation substantial impracticality agreements amendment; of the text of development waiver for area -wide the ECDC by the permit, where amateur radio zoning map director public hearing antennas amendments not required per ECDC 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA Critical area Comprehensive determinations determinations variance plan amendments Shoreline Preliminary Contingent Conditional Annexations exemptions short plat critical area use review if public permits hearing (where requested public hearing by hearing examiner is required) Minor Land Shoreline Variances Development amendments to clearing/grading substantial regulations planned development permit, where Q Packet Pg. 156 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V residential public hearing development is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor Revisions to Shoreline preliminary plat shoreline conditional use amendment management permits Staff design Administrative Shoreline review, including variances variance signs Final short plat Land use Design review permit (where public extension hearing by requests architectural design board is required) Sales Guest house Preliminary office/model formal plat (ECDC 17.70.005) Final formal Innocent Preliminary plats purchaser planned determination residential development Final planned Staff design residential review (ECDC 20.12.010.B.2) development B. Decision Table. PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Recommendation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board by: Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City council City council examiner/ADB examiner Notice of No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No application: Open record No Only if (1) If Yes, before Yes, Yes, before Yes, before public hearing or appealed, director hearing before planning board planning board open record open decision examiner or hearing which makes which makes m 0 0 0 c 0 r 0 0 L r Q Packet Pg. 157 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I LEGISLATIVE - IV) TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V appeal of a final record is board to examiner recommendation recommendation decision: hearing appealed, render final or board to council to council or before open decision to render council could hearing record final hold its own examiner hearing decision hearing before hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III -A process Closed record No No No No Yes, Yes, before the review: before council the council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of Drocess and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines. criteria and checklist. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. I 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a m 0 0 0 c 0 r 0 0 L c Packet Pg. 158 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant 0 expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: c 0 A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staffs c determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the c applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all o significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular N cm characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon o these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120-day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staffs decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staffs ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. Packet Pg. 159 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart. O V Design Review for Major Projects 0 Proposed New Review Process � O SEpx L a+ �Irrr.,r�r� C 0 hWYWf-PV �1794YpS r'I �'t iv a-IFVffWAXed.M 1 WMq M�Cb Mw-�+p y.I��:.. -h GiY -1111li IFIM'fy5 Phly4 E� Ph.l�! �. SiOIIC�l19� L�4Cd�l� Dow I � QOSlgrr tJ- - - - -IL 1 IOLY4� 1 �— — — — — : — — — — — — — — — — — Aqad diry0ivv-fi [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.010 Applicability. A. Downtown Business (BD) zones. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. B. General Commercial (CG) zone. In the General Commercial zone, the applicable design review process depends on the site- and project -specific situation: 1. Design review by the Architectural Design Board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 75 feet in height as identified in ECDC-1 6.60.020. Packet Pg. 160 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m 2. If the project site is adjacent to or across the street from the IRS zone and an 0 application contains a building greater than 35 feet but less than 75 feet in height, staff reviews the project and issues the design decision as a Type II -A decision. c r 3. Staff completes all other project design reviews as a Type I decision. c L r [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing - Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. Packet Pg. 161 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the 0 volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. c 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to 0 present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and c information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the N hearing record. o 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria - and their relative importance - that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing - Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. Packet Pg. 162 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 m d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing 0 and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). c r e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the c submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (B)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.70B.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Packet Pg. 163 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this 0 V section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The c staffs determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. c The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: o 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. I 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre - application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. Packet Pg. 164 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, m 0 additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. c r I 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 0 A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and zone-S located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 165 9.4.g DRAFT PERMANENT LANGUAGE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 I 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision - No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. m 0 0 0 c 0 r 0 0 Packet Pg. 166 9.4.h CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.edmondswa.g CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD April 27, 2023 To: Edmonds City Council From: Edmonds Planning Board Chair Judi Gladstone Subject: Planning Board Recommendation on Permanent Ordinance to Replace Interim Ordinance 4283 (AMD2022-0008) On April 12, 2023, the Planning Board held a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council on a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283, which is set to expire on June 10, 2023. The Planning Board considered recommendations made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) at their February 23 and March 8 meetings. Their recommendation was to make the ordinance permanent as written with the exception of requiring a Type II -A review process for projects in the CG zone not adjacent or across the street from RS zones. In addition, the Planning Board considered public comments and input from staff. To allow for additional board discussion and deliberation, the public hearing was continued to April 26, 2023. In the time between our April 12 and April 26 meetings, I met with Board Members Lauren Golembiewski and Jeremy Mitchell to explore options that could be presented to the whole board on April 26. The subcommittee started by identifying the goals of Interim Ordinance 4283 and developed several options for consideration, which were included as Attachment 11 in the April 26 Planning Board packet as well as in your May 2 meeting packet. The subcommittee concluded that Option 4 would be the most consistent with the goals of the interim ordinance and the most consistent with the subarea plan, as shown in the table in Attachment 11. Jeremy prepared illustrations (also included in your May 2 meeting packet) showing the two main design components of Option 4: 1) eliminating step back requirements for CG-zoned projects with building heights of 55' or less that are adjacent or across the street from RS zones and 2) for projects over 55' in height, requiring a 10' step back at 25' of height and a 30' step back at 55' of height, an increase of 10' over the language in the interim ordinance. Given the clear and objective step back standards included in Option 4 — as well as the upcoming requirements of recently passed HB 1293, which the city will need to comply with - the subcommittee felt that the requirement for ADB review included in Interim Ordinance 4283 should not be carried forward to the permanent ordinance. Instead, Option 4 would require projects adjacent or across the street from RS zones to be subject to the Type II -A permit process outlined in ECDC 20.01.003, which involves an administrative staff decision that requires public notice and allows for public comments. This would replace the Type I process that was in place prior to the adoption of the interim ordinance. The Planning Board recommendation didn't address projects not adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Following discussion and deliberation on April 26, the Planning Board made a unanimous (7-0) recommendation to include the components of Option 4 in its recommendation to City Council for a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance 4283, as shown in your meeting packet. I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and am available to answer any questions. Judi Gladstone Chair, Edmonds Planning Board Packet Pg. 167 Permanent code amendment for design review processes and building step backs in the CG zone to replace interim Ordinance 4283 (AM D2022-0008) City Council — May 2, 2023 Packet Pg. 168 History of Interim Ordinance 4283 • In August 2017, the city adopted a subarea plan for Highway 99 (Ordinance 4077),0 amended standards/regulations in the General Commercial (CG) zone (Ord. 4078), and established a Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea (Ord. 4079) 0 L f+ • Concerns were raised in 2022 that Ord. 4078 did not properly reflect subarea plan language related to building step backs CU • Interim emergency Ord. 4278 was adopted on October 4, 2022 but later repealed L following additional Council research/discussion • Interim emergency Ord. 4283 incorporated language from Ord. 4278 and added a design 0 review process by the ADB in the CG zone, and was adopted on December 10, 2022 CU • Ord. 4283 was retained by Council on January 24, 2023, after a public hearing on January T 1712023 E • Sent to ADB and PB for work on permanent standards by June 10, 2023 a� Z7 a Packet Pg. 169 Ordinance 4283 Provisions • Requires atwo-phase public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height (ECDC Chapter 20.12) • Buildings less than 35 feet still subject to staff design review process that had been in effect since 2007 • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB (ECDC Chapter 16.60) Packet Pg. 170 Board Work on Permanent Standards *Architectural Design Board • Work Session —January 26, 2023 • Recommendation, Part 1 (Process) — February 23 • Recommendation, Part 2 (Step -back) — March 8 special meeting • Planning Board • Work Sessions — February 8 and February 15 special meeting • Public Hearing — April 12, continued to April 26 • Public comments received were forwarded to Boards or provided in meeting packets a� a m L. 0 d E 0 0 0 0 L C 0 CL L 0 U N M 2 E a Packet Pg. 171 ADB Recommendation — Part 1 (Process) • Maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are adjacent/across street from RS zones (ADB decision after two-phase public hearing) • Create new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height that are not adjacent/across street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice) • All other projects would continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I • Unanimous vote at February 23 meeting Packet Pg. 172 ADB Recommendation — Part 2 (Step -back) • Maintain step back requirement for projects across the street from RS zones (10" step back from required setback above 25' in height and 20' step back from setback above 55), unless deemed not necessary by the ADB • 4-3 vote at March 8 meeting, with minority wanting to maintain the ADB's existing discretion to require step backs during Phase I public hearing process, as opposed to explicitly requiring them and then having the option to waive the requirement • Minority express concerns about additional project costs for creating multiple designs Packet Pg. 173 PB Recommendation • Buildings 55-feet and under are exempt from step back requirement • Require 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55-feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zone • Eliminate ADB review but require Type II -A staff decision with notice for projects adjacent to or across the street from RS zone • All other projects would be reviewed by staff as Type • Unanimous vote at April 26 meeting Packet Pg. 174 Process at Cound • May 2 — Review ADB and PB work and PB recommended language, ask questions • May 16 — Public Hearing. Take public testimony, begin deliberation, request any further code revisions • May 23 — Decision. Conclude deliberation, vote on final ordinance • Council must adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023 when interim Ordinance 4283 expires Packet Pg. 175