The URL can be used to link to this page

20171017 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 17, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor (arrived 9:00 p.m.) Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT S. Gagner, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kemen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Mesaros in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH Council President Mesaros read a proclamation proclaiming October 2017 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the third week of October as YWCA Week Without Violence in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to YWCA Executive Director Mary Anne Dillon and Corporate Relations Officer Alicia Crank. On behalf of the YWCA, Ms. Dillon thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for raising awareness about domestic violence through this proclamation. The YWCA is on a mission to eliminate racism, empower women, help families and strengthen communities. For more than 20 years, YWCAs throughout the country have designated the third week of October as Week Without Violence. Domestic violence is an all -too -common thread in the lives of people the YMCA serves as well as neighbors, friends, relatives and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 1 coworkers. The YWCA partners with advocates and agencies such as Domestic Violence Services, working to end violence against men and women in the community. Together we can commit to ending violence and making the community safer for all. 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW FRANCHISE FOR VERIZON - MCI Mr. Taraday explained this topic was introduced to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee but no Verizon representative was present. This is an opportunity for Verizon to describe their plans to use the City's right-of-way and request a franchise and for the Council to ask questions No action is expected tonight; by state law, the Council cannot take action on a franchise until five days after it is introduced. Louise Popelka, Outside Plan Engineer, Verizon, explained Verizon is proposing a fiber deployment that will include the City of Edmonds in its boundaries. She displayed a map of the area, noting this is not the final map, but offers a view after the high-level design. Some routes may change as permit applications are submitted. She reviewed: 1. This is an infrastructure project A robust wireline telecommunications network consisting primarily of fiber-optic cable to serve Verizon Wireless, and business and government customers • Network will be built in compliance with Edmonds' undergrounding requirements (ECDC 18.05) 2. Services Perspective • Provide fiber-optic connection to cell sites to improve capacity and speed of cell sites • Provide competitive exchange service, internet access, and data transport to business and government customers • Provide opportunities for conduit and dark fiber leasing to other carriers 3. Status of Project • High level design completed on November 11, 2016 • Anticipate starting to file permit applications within 60 days of franchise being effective • Physical construction set to start in first quarter 2018 4. Nature of Agreement • Franchise agreement to allow Verizon to use public right-of-way • Term of franchise: 5 years • Places bonding and insurance burdens on Verizon Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Verizon previously laid cable in Edmonds. Ms. Popelka responded much of that was laid when Verizon was the legacy GTE network. When Verizon purchased MCI and several other legacy companies, they sold the legacy phone company including that cable to Frontier. This is a different franchise agreement with Verizon. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the franchise agreement was only 5 years instead of 20 years. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered five years is standard for recent franchises because the telecommunications industry is changing and regulations affecting it also change rapidly, a 20 -year franchise agreement does not make sense. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the entire cost was borne by Verizon. Ms. Popelka agreed it was. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding this a new network that will be placed 100% underground. Ms. Popelka answered it will be a combination of aerial and underground. Mr. Taraday clarified that was not his understanding; according to the franchise agreement all cable is laid underground. Ms. Popelka said she was not aware of that. Councilmember Teitzel asked if undergrounding would require trenches. Ms. Popelka answered trenching is the primary method used but directional boring is also a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 2 common practice. Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was an opportunity to share trenches with other providers. Ms. Popelka answered they always invite joint opportunities with other carriers going in the same direction. The cost is usually shared which is beneficial to all and there is less construction time in the street. Councilmember Tibbott commented from the routing map it appears one large trunk line will be run through the City and he asked how it will connect to other parts of the city. Ms. Popelka referred to the fiber route map, and described the main connection and areas where laterals will be connected as cell sites need fiber. Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, noting the map shows a large connection through the center of the City and to the west and asked if there were other parts of the network that are not illustrated. Ms. Popelka answered yes, acknowledging it was difficult to see but there will be lateral connections to reach other areas. Councilmember Tibbott referred to her comment that the map was not final and changes may be made. He asked what determined the rerouting of the network. Ms. Popelka answered many things effect routing including the locations they are trying to reach, pavement moratoriums, railroad, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the level of wireless connection. Ms. Popelka said that was difficult to answer; putting fiber optic in the ground can handle any capacity as technology changes. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the purpose was to put fiber optic in the ground so the infrastructure exists as technology changes. Ms. Popelka agreed. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the general purpose was to serve cell users, cell data users, etc. Ms. Popelka answered yes, getting fiber optic to cell sites provides more capacity and bandwidth at cell sites so users experience better coverage, faster speeds, etc. It was the consensus of the Council that approval of the franchise agreement be scheduled on the Consent Agenda. 3. PRESENTATION ON THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM Councilmember Nelson introduced Jim West, Assistant General Manager Customer & Energy Services, and Jessica Matlock, Director of Government & External Affairs, Snohomish PUD. Ms. Matlock reviewed: Snohomish PUD background o Began operations in 1949 following a public vote o Second largest public utility in the Northwest o Twelfth largest public utility in the U.S. o Bonneville Power Administration's largest power customer 0 341,000 customers & growing 0 2,200 square mile service territory 0 6,200 mile network of distribution lines Graph of Customer Consumption & Growth 2010 - 2016 o Average number of customers ■ Average number of customers increasing steadily New service connections totaled 4,510 in 2016 o Customer Consumption (MWh) — residential, commercial, industrial and other o Experiencing minor load decline over the past several years as growth in number of customers offset by lower power consumption per customer Mr. West explained Snohomish PUD is Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) largest wholesale power customer and makes up approximately 83% of Snohomish PUD's power supply. BPA is predominately Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 3 hydro -based, non -greenhouse gas zero carbon emission. Also have a mix of Columbia generating stations and nuclear capacity. He reviewed: + Graph of power supply resources o Renewables (wind, biomass, biogas (5%) o PUD owned hydro (Jackson, Youngs Creek, Woods Creek, Packwood) 6% o BPA Block (fixed amount set by contract) and Slice (variable based on need) — total (83%) o Short Term market purchases (3%) ■ This is where any carbon content is assigned because difficult/impossible to discern the mix of power sources Pie Chart: Snohomish PUD's total power supply — 90% hydro o BPA Hydro — 81 % o PUD Hydro — 8% o Wind — 8% o Landfill gas, biomass, solar, market purchases — 3% Mr. West explained utility power sources generate energy in megawatts (MW). One MW is enough to meet the instantaneous needs of about 1,000 homes. As the chart shows, with a peak capacity of 10 MW, each source has a different level of average output. While valuable to the PUD's energy portfolio, wind and solar are not as well suited as hydropower to meet the PUD's peak winter demand due to the season's reduced sunshine and the inconsistency of wind. He reviewed a chart of Average Output by Power Source (2016) - Peak capacity, average MW output, homes powered with regard to solar, wind, hydro. Ms. Matlock reviewed: Customer interests in solar and renewables o Access to options that help meet a range of customer energy interests + Reduce carbon footprint + Be 100% renewable o Provide "investment" opportunities for solar, at home and in the community o Provide opportunities for all customers to support solar and renewables o Provide options to support local and regional renewable resource development o Do not ask non -participants to subsidize other customers' choices Mr. West displayed and reviewed a Diagram of Estimated US Renewable Attribute Flow, 2012 (-189TWH Total), explaining renewable energy has many sources including wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas, other, and solar. Renewable energy can flow through utilities as green kW hours sold to customers either in states that have a mandatory renewal energy standard or in states where customers want to voluntarily purchase renewable energy. Some renewable generation energy assets are owned by the utilities and sometimes, as in Snohomish PUD's cases with wind generation, it's contracted from independent power producers. Renewable energy has two components, 1) kW hour (electron) and 2) environmental attribute. When customers buy or utilities sell green energy, it consists of the electron plus the environmental attributes. Environmental attributes are often called renewable energy credits (REC), green tags, tradeable renewable certificates. Largely the renewable energy market across the U.S. and increasingly worldwide is based on the REC concept so that selling one hour of green electricity is two components. Most often that is purchased bundled as a green kW hour but the REC can be separated and sold separately. Consumers buy unbundled Recess, often to meet their own sustainability or environmental sensitivity goals. Ms. Matlock commented customers often ask if they can have 100% wind energy to their house. Unfortunately, the energy system flows according to physics so no one can ever have 100% renewable energy in reality unless it is generated at your house and there is a battery attached or unless the entire power mix is 100% renewable which PUD is very close to. She noted a small sliver of PUD's energy is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 4 considered brown because the source of the power in the market is unknown. Because coal plants in the region are closing and gas plants are becoming more efficient, that slice is getting smaller and smaller. Ms. Matlock described Renewable Choices Programs PUD is considering; Renewable Blocks - open to all customers 0 Flexible options to meet customer renewable and/or carbon free goals Open to all customers • Little financial risk to the PUD PUD supplies RECs • Satisfies our requirements under the RCW 19.29A • Aligns pricing with Schedule 90 to internally become more consistent • Ability for customers to showcase effort • Very easy to administer • Helps customer's meet sustainability goals (national customers, etc.) PUD Community Solar Shares PUD customers participate through leasing shares Utility sells or lease solar capacity. Customers are "invested" in the project Customers would purchase shares in a local solar • More cost effective for customers array. The PUD would pay participants for the • More visibility through a community solar value of their shares of the generation_ program • Little financial risk to the PUD with pre -paid shares • Increased community connection • Ability for customer to showcase effort Mr. West commented the intent of PUD's solar offerings it to transform what has been a fairly niche product limited to typically homeowners with a roof with good solar access which omitted a lot of homeowners as well as people in rental properties. Opening the renewable blocks program to all customers and the solar shares program allows any customer to buy into a utility's solar system. Unlike most public power utilities that tend to serve a city, Snohomish PUD serves 14 municipalities in Snohomish County and are interested in working with communities and municipalities to craft solutions to meet their needs, moving away from a one -size -fits -all solution. Council President Mesaros referred to the 3% brown energy and asked how much of that comes from coal power plants in the region. Ms. Matlock answered they actually don't know. When the peak demand cannot be met, traders purchase from the short term market. A lot of the power in those short-term markets are not tagged so the source is unknown. Council President Mesaros commented the network is country wide and Ms. Matlock said the network is mostly the Northwest. Council President Mesaros asked the number of coalfired plants in the Northwest. Ms. Matlock answered two but one is being closed down. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding PUD buys power from BPA via a contract that extends through 2028 and PUD cannot specify to BPA the source of the power. Mr. West agreed that was true under the existing contract. Councilmember Teitzel referred to legacy hydro power and asked whether that is considered renewable. Ms. Matlock responded according to RCW 19.285.030 which provide the definition for the state for renewable energy, Section 21 defines renewable resources as water; wind; solar energy; geothermal energy; landfill gas; wave, ocean or tidal power; gas from sewage treatment facilities; etc. She noted the definition does include water but for purposes of meeting the requirement of the RCW, it does not include legacy hydro; it only allows any incremental increases and efficiencies such as additional energy from upgrades to be counted for purposes of meeting I-937, the Energy Independence Act (EIA). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 5 Mr. West said EIA classifies legacy hydro as the nation's largest renewable source. Washington is about 73% hydro generation; the focus is on developing new renewable rather than relying on an easy way to meet the target by relying on the existing 73%. Councilmember Teitzel said the purpose of his question is Edmonds is targeting 2025 to have 100% of its energy from renewable resources. If legacy hydro power cannot be included in that calculation, it moves the City away from its ability to reach 100% which is one of his concerns. Councilmember Teitzel commented Edmonds supports the Paris Climate Accord which is related to global warming, stopping sea level rise, weather changes, etc. As nuclear power does not create greenhouse gases, he asked if nuclear should be included in the calculation of reaching the goals in the Paris Climate Accord. Ms. Matlock responded other entities across the U.S. looking at climate change are not concerned with renewable power but carbon reduction. If that is the goal, one would think an entity would follow the rules of reducing carbon. She agreed nuclear power is consider a tool in reducing carbon and combating climate change. Councilmember Nelson asked about the RCW regarding EIA. Ms. Matlock answered I-937 was the renewable portfolio energy standards; the EIA requires utilities to have a certain amount of their energy be renewable. Councilmember Nelson said if a city or county passed a resolution stating hydro is considered a renewable, would that be correct. Ms. Matlock answered yes. Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification about the community solar shares program. For example, if the City wanted to make up the gap of its portfolio that was not renewable, it could purchase solar shares. Ms. Matlock said the solar share program is not complete; the thinking today is a share would be $160. However solar prices are going down and there is a tariff issue with the U.S. A decision could be made to make up the gap via a mix of RECs and solar shares. However, due to the interest in solar shares, there will be a cap on how many people can buy. Councilmember Nelson asked if that was a one-time purchase or every year. Ms. Matlock answered a one-time purchase for the shares for the life of the solar panels which is estimated to be 25 years. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Sun Slices program, the solar panels on the Frances Anderson Center and asked if the solar share program would be similar, where members are allowed to mitigate carbon emissions by purchasing shares. Mr. West said in PUD's Solar Shares Program, the system is owned by the utility versus the Sun Slices community solar share which is owned by community shareholders who buy into it. Councilmember Buckshnis said for $25 she can offset her flight to the Midwest; she asked how that would happen with PUD's program. Mr. West said there is a difference between REC and carbon offsets; carbon offsets can be organizations planting trees where the environmental benefit of the trees offsets the carbon created by a vehicle, flight or event. REC is a similar concept but there is a strict accounting, exactly one kW hour of environmental benefit associated with one kW kilowatt hour of electricity and there is a very strictly regulated accounting system. Councilmember Johnson recalled in PUD's presentation four or five years ago, a new concept was being tested with turbines in the water and she asked for an update. Mr. West said from 2006 through 2013 a multi-year research project cost shared with the U.S. Department of Energy researched the feasibility of tidal turbines. The reversible turbines would sit on the bed of Puget Sound and generate electricity when the tide ebbs and flows. The project cleared all the licensing hurdles related to aquatic life, seabed, standard FERC generation licensing, etc. The first phase of the project had a 50/50 cost share agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and the understanding was the next phase would also be a 50/50 share but the Department of Energy did not share that understanding. PUD did not want to burden its ratepayers with the full cost of R&D and decided not to move forward without the knowledge, technical expertise and data from U.S. Department of Energy. The technology looks very viable and a lot was learned during the licensing process which could be utilized by whomever takes on that project next. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 6 Council President Mesaros commented if everyone on a flight purchased RECs, possibly that could offset the carbon, not just one passenger. He agreed with Councilmember Nelson the goal is not to follow the definitions of legacy water power and it was his sense the City was following the spirit of law if not the letter of the law as the City's goal is to reduce its carbon footprint. He noted the region is penalized because it got ahead of the game; the Northwest is fortunate to have good hydro power. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Missi Huff, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of Arlys Loomis, 1134 C Avenue, distributed written materials. Ms. Loomis applied for a right-of-way construction permit to have a tree removed that has outgrown its current location. She hired a surveyor to prove that the tree is in the City right-of-way as well as independent arborist who agreed the tree has outgrown its current location, has been topped and is dangerous. She hired Edmonds Tree Service, a licensed and bonded contractor, to remove the tree. Unfortunately, the City right- of-way construction permit was denied. Ms. Loomis has spent $920 thus far and will be responsible for removal of the tree. Once the permit is approved, Ms. Loomis will be responsible for removal of the tree, the mess the tree creates as well as the damage the tree does to public and private property. The City has removed limbs from one side of the tree to accommodate delivery trucks. Now the City has asked for additional funds for appeals and other processes. She felt denial of the permit was unfair, citing the reason that the tree has not caused enough damage. The tree will continue to grow and cause damage, causing Ms. Loomis to incur more expense to fix the damage. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Council President Mesaros ask Mayor Earling to look at the materials. Dayleann Pepper, Edmonds, a resident of Soundview Apartments on 3`d Avenue, also speaking for Olympic View Apartments, described an area between the apartment property and the City's sidewalk. Soundview Apartments are owned by the Housing Authority. Three years ago, the MSHH Donor Closet requested a disability ramp be installed and was denied by the apartment's management company, Allied. A disabled resident's request was also denied by Allied. Several residents of Soundview and Olympic view as well as nearby residents who walk in the area have fallen and been hurt. She asked how the apartment residents can compel Allied to install a ramp which would benefit the residents of Edmonds, apartment residents as well as the Donor Closet's clients. She described several disabled people who are unable to traverse the area. Council President Mesaros said he will ask Mayor Earling to have a staff person respond to her. Matthew Richardson, Edmonds, agreed climate change is happening, oceans are receding as evidenced by NASA's daily news stream. The northern hemisphere has had record high temperatures although accurate temperature measurements are not available for a long period of time; geologists examine rocks to determine temperature history. The southern hemisphere has experienced record cold temperatures. A recent NASA article reported scientists in Antarctica observed about 100,000 penguins dying of starvation because they cannot reach the edge of Antarctica to feed during the breeding season due to global cooling. As Chair of the Republican Party for 2-3 years, he acknowledged not a lot of people support the Paris Climate Accord and a lot of people do not believe in climate change. He questioned why the City Council was focusing on issues outside their purview and recommended they focus on trees and sidewalks that need to be fixed. The Verizon and PUD presentations are City business and he urged the Council to focus on Edmonds. Carlo Boli, Edmonds, commented the Unites States is the only country in the world where the oil industry has enough influence to pay to brainwash people and climate deniers. He referred to the comment during PUD's presentation that solar does not work well in this region, pointing out Germany has fewer solar hours on average than this region and it is the world leader on residential solar energy. It would have been good to ask the PUD representatives about advances in battery storage technology that can store solar, wind and hydro energy. He was encouraged to see new programs PUD is considering such as community solar shares. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 7 PUD is a public utility, different from PSE which owned by the Macquarie consortium, a large Australian for-profit financial instruction. PSE continues to push natural gas, which is not natural; it is basically methane which is 86 times worse than CO2 with regard to greenhouse gas. Taking into account methane releases and leaks from the point of extraction, transportation and combustion, it is as bad or worse than coal. Two-thirds of natural gas is fraked in the United States. He suggested Edmonds think about using less natural gas and avoid getting electricity from gas powered plants. His house has a natural gas furnace and he cannot afford to replace it with a more energy efficient system. Other cities including Vancouver BC prohibit gas appliances in new residential and commercial buildings. He concluded "don't by the Kool-Aid from PSE." 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY MURPHY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DELORES BJORBACK (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), BURGER KING (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND RAMON RAMOS TINOCO ($150,000.00) 5. AUGUST 2017 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. PERMIT SOFTWARE SYSTEM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) AND BUDGET APPROVAL 7. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE SECTION 23.40.220(C)(8)(A) - SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL 8. SR -524 SPEED REDUCTION 9. UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROVIDENCE/VERDANT HEALTH & SWEDISH/STEVENS CAMPUS 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE RECORDING OF A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ALONG EDMONDS WAY ADJACENT TO 10032 EDMONDS WAY 11. AUTHORIZE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT 7. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE GERDON HOUSE LOCATED AT 209 CASPERS STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 8 Senior Planner Kernen Lien recognized HPC Member Larry Vogel and Chair Tim Raetzloff in the audience as well as property owners Kurt and Cari Campbell for their care of the house and for volunteering to have their house on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He reviewed: • Gerdon House — 209 Caspers Street o Nominated for consideration for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places o Property owners has signed authorization form o Historic photos of house and the area • Effects of listing on the register o Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds o Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission o May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation o Aerial of area Designation criteria o Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds • Associated with early residential growth of Edmonds • Built for Ira Gerdon who lived in the house until 1948 o Has integrity • Largely intact example of a Dutch Colonial style house o At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old • House is 95 years old, built in 1922 o Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A -K — Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction ➢ Largely intact example of Dutch Colonial style house ➢ Mail order kit house from either Montgomery Ward and Gordon Van Tine catalog, mostly likely Montgomery Ward ➢ Timber milled in Chehalis area, wood shipped ready to cut via rail and assembled on site Significant Features of the house o Original structure two-story rectangle o Steep gambrel roof o Continuous dormer on second floor o Central entryway accented by decorative panels bordered by classic columns o Small fan light above the entry and on each end of the house Recommendation o Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on September 14, 2017 o HPC found the nomination meets the criteria and eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places o HPC recommends the property be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places o Ordinance provided in Exhibit 1 Councilmember Tibbott was impressed with how similar the house looks today as it did 95 years ago. He asked how many houses exist in Edmonds that are so well preserved with almost the identical front door, windows, etc. Mr. Lien answered this is the 14" historic property on the Edmonds register and the HPC is continually reaching out to other property owners. The City has had several historic surveys done that identify potential properties for listing on the register. Councilmember Tibbott concluded this house is somewhat rare and its remarkable condition make it a treasure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Teitzel complimented the Campbells for their stewardship, care and love of this house and for keeping the historic character intact and enhancing it. The house is a treasure and is highly visible on 3`d Avenue; he has seen many people stop to take pictures. Council President Mesaros opened public participation portion of the public hearing. Tim Raetzloff, HPC Chair, said research discovered this was a kit house that could be ordered from Montgomery Ward's catalog. It is believed the wood was milled in Chehalis, shipped by railroad to the depot in Edmonds and hauled by truck or wagon to the location. He recognized the late Eric Livingston, HPC Vice Chair who conducted a great deal of the research. He urged the Council to accept the HPC's recommendation to place this lovely house on the register. Hearing no further public comment, Council President Mesaros closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ACCEPT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT I TO PLACE THE GERDON HOUSE ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Mesaros declared a brief recess. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REZONE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS-EDMONDS WAY (BC - EW) Council President Mesaros explained the purpose of the closed recording hearing is for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning Board to approve a site specific rezone from WMU to BC - EW for a parcel located at 9601 Edmonds Way. He opened the closed record hearing and described the hearing procedures. This is a hearing on a rezone initiated by CDA & Pirscher Architects, Inc. It is not an open record hearing and there is no opportunity for public testimony and only oral argument from parties of record is allowed. Parties of record include City staff, the applicant, any person who testified before the Planning Board at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments regarding the application at the time of the open record public hearing. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair but also appear to be fair. He asked if any member of the decision-making body engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issue in this rezone matter outside the public hearing process. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Teitzel, Buckshnis, Nelson, Tibbott, and Johnson and Council President Mesaros said they had not spoken with anyone outside the hearing process and could hear it in a fair and impartial manner. Council President Mesaros asked if any member of the Council had any conflict of interest or could not hear the matter in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Teitzel, Buckshnis, Nelson, Tibbott, and Johnson and Council President Mesaros said they have no conflicts and can hear it in a fair and objective manner. Council President Mesaros asked if there were any objection to his or any Councilmembers' participation as a decision -maker in the hearing. There were no objections voiced. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 10 Council President Mesaros proposed the following procedures: Oral agreement by the applicant and parties of record be limited to five minutes per person. The Council's jurisdiction in this closed record hearing is to determine whether the applicant has met the requirements in ECDC Chapter 20.40. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed: Vicinity map of site and surrounding area Site History o Zoned RM -1.5 until 2007 o Rezoned to BC -EW in 2007 o Rezoned to WMU in 2015 o Site has remained undeveloped Rezone Review Criteria o ECDC 20.40.010, the Planning Board review shall at least consider the following factors in reviewing a proposed rezone • Comprehensive Plan: Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan • Zoning Ordinance: Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district • Surrounding Area: The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property • Changes: Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone • Suitability: Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning • Value: The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners o Comprehensive Plan • Comprehensive Plan Designation - Edmonds Way Corridor • Different Comprehensive Plan Designation than rest of Westgate Area • Compatible Zoning - BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone, RM zones o Zoning Ordinance •+ Two zoning purposes - "to assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan." ECDC 16.00.010.A - "To implement the policies of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor." ECDC 16.05.005.D • Property is in the Edmonds Way Corridor • Explicit purpose of the BC -EW zone is to implement policies for the Edmonds Way Corridor o Surrounding Area ■ Site on eastern edge of Westgate Commercial Area It Residential above site • BC -EW has specific provisions intended to minimize impacts to adjacently zoned Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 11 o Changes • WMU Zone change severely limits development potential ■ Protected slopes, open space and amenity space ■ Only property in Edmonds Way Corridor in WMU zone ■ BC -EW more consistent with City's policies and intent for Edmonds Way Corridor o Suitability ■ WMU restrictions and design standards make it extremely difficult to design and economically feasible project - 340 -foot contour extends into the flat gravel area on the site - WMU zone has specific open space (15% minimum) and amenity space 15% minimum requirements - Area above contour can be counted toward open space requirement but not toward amenity space requirement - Access and parking limit the developable area below the 340 -foot contour line BC -EW contains many features of WMU zone - WMU zone allows 35 feet and BC -EW zone allows up to 40 feet - To achieve 40 feet, development must meet three of following criteria: ➢ LEED gold certification (or comparable green building certification) ➢ Inclusion of Affordable Housing ➢ Public amenities of at least 25% the length of required street setback ➢ Low Impact Development Techniques Critical area regulations to protect slopes - Any development would require geotechnical report BC -EW more suitable than WMU zone o Value ■ Given the difficulties of developing the property under the WMU zone design standards, rezoning the property back to BC -EW will increase (or reestablish) the economic value of the site ■ Public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely impacted by rezoning the property back to BC -EW - Critical area regulations will ensure slope stability is not impacted - Some development standards specific to the BC -EW zone are intended to minimize impacts to adjacent residentially zoned property - Other development regulations also help protect the public health, safety, and welfare Conclusion and Recommendation o WMU zone severely restricts development potential of site o BC -EW zone specifically intended to implement the City's policies for the Edmonds Way Corridor o Critical area regulations will protect slope stability o Planning Board recommends rezone from WMU back to BC -EW Applicant Carl Pirscher, CDA & Pirscher Architects, said he moved to Edmonds when he became aware of changes made in 2015 in this area and wanted to work in an area with vitality and opportunities. He was pleased to see significant and well -conceived projects underway. He has worked on the site a number of times; he is currently the applicant for the rezone request. Previous attempts to develop a project working with other developers ran into issues on the site, particularly the topographic demarcation in the WMU zone. Mr. Pirscher displayed a topographic map that illustrates the difficulty in developing the site under the current zoning. He pointed out the property boundaries, the 340 -foot contour line established by survey, 50 -foot easement on the east property line for utilities, and a 16 -foot easement on the Edmonds Way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 12 corridor. Taking all that as well as the slope into consideration leaves little space on the site under the current zoning for a project that would be the highest and best use and add the most value to the City. The primary reason for the rezone request is to allow more flexibility on the site to successfully develop a quality project. Almost everyone interested in the property in the past wants to do a mixed-use commercial and residential project. The cost of the property is prohibitive to do much less than that. He requested the Council consider the application for rezone as recommended by the Planning Board. He supports the Findings of Fact and Recommendations as approved by the Planning Board. This is a non -project rezone and additional information including a project -related SEPA Checklist, design review, etc. will be occur later in the process. Parties of Record Rachel Ross, Edmonds, reiterated the concerns of neighboring residential properties at the top of the slope and referred to an email attached to the file. She highlighted concerns with the difference in the height limits between the zones, elimination of the boundary restriction with the contour line under the existing zone versus the proposed zoning and allowing buildings to be as high as their property, and the impact that would have on their property values, potentially 4 -story mixed use building. She was also concerned with safety, the amount of traffic on Edmonds Way; difficulty accessing the highway from PCC, Walgreens and the gas station; and numerous accidents at the 95" Place West intersection. She was concerned about the type of development that could be built and whether it makes sense to build something versus leaving the lot empty. She summarized the neighbors' concerns include the type of development, safety of access to/from property, and potential impact on the protected slope areas. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the requirements for the WMU zone. Mr. Lien responded in the WMU zone, a minimum 15% of the entire lot area must be set aside as open space and an additional 15% of the lot area must be set aside as amenity space. The area above the slope can be counted to meet open space requirements but only space below the contour line can be used to meet the amenity space requirement. A building, parking and access make it virtually impossible to meet the amenity space requirement. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about 20% affordable housing. Mr. Lien answered WMU zoning allows 3 stories which is defined as 35 feet. The base height in the BC -EW zone is 25 feet, but up to 40 feet can be achieved if at least 3 of the 4 bulleted items are met (LEED Gold, inclusion of affordable housing (at least 15% of gross number of units proposed), public amenities of at least 25% the length of required street setback and low impact development techniques). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how that compare with the 20% affordable housing standard at 100" & Edmonds Way. Mr. Lien explained the WMU zone was established as an area for the Multifamily Tax Exemption, an incentive to include affordable housing; the WMU zone itself does not require affordable housing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the neighbors' concerns about the slopes and asked how the slope would be protected. Mr. Lien explained the slope is greater than 40% which is a potential landslide hazard area according to the Critical Areas ordinance (CAO). Any development proposal within a potential landslide hazard area or its buffer (50 feet) requires a geotechnical report. Certain findings must be made in the geotechnical report before development is allowed on the site as stated in ECDC 23.80.060 23.80.070. Section 060 which states development, 1) Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2) Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3) Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4) Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. Similar requirements in 070 require, a) The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b) The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c) Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas as well as a development design standard, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 13 The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Mr. Lien explained a geotechnical engineer must evaluate the development slope stability with regard to those standards and specific findings would need to be made before development would be allowed on the site. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that could impact the type of development. Mr. Lien identified the 340 -foot contour line that extends into the graveled area. One of concerns mentioned by the public was an ability to develop up to the edges of the properties above if the zoning were changed. A minimum 15 -foot setback is required from residentially zoned properties and the setback must be fully landscaped with Type 1, the densest landscaping requirement. There are other design standards such as roof modulation facing adjacent property to ensure there is no impact. He pointed out the rezone will return the property to the zoning that existed a few years ago. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about access in/out of the property, noting she is aware access to/from Edmonds Way in that area is getting more difficult. Mr. Lien was unable to comment on specific traffic impacts but explained the allowed uses in the WMU and BC -EW zones, mixed use and multi -family, are similar and the densities are the same so the rezone would not impact traffic. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented the geotechnical report could change the type of development that would be allowed. Mr. Lien said when a development is proposed, in addition to a geotechnical report, a traffic impact analysis is done to evaluate impacts to the corridor. A traffic study the City conducted on the Edmonds Way corridor looked at mitigation measures and there are triggers for implementing those mitigation measures; development on this site could require some of those measures be implemented. For Councilmember Teitzel, Mr. Lien said the BC -EW requires a 15 -foot setback from residentially zoned property. Councilmember Teitzel asked the minimum distance from the toe of the slope (340 -foot contour line) to the property line; Mr. Lien estimated it was 80 feet on the eastern -most edge of the property. Councilmember Teitzel observed to build within 15 feet of the property line, the developer would need to cut into the steep slope and he would be surprised if that was allowed under the CAO. Mr. Lien said that would not be allowed where the easement is located. The zone requires a 15 -foot setback but the geotechnical report would consider how far it would be possible to dig into the hillside without impacting slope stability. Design standards in the criteria for a geotech report include, Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography. He noted slope stability can also be engineered. With regard to the difficulty providing amenity space, Councilmember Teitzel commented providing below -grade parking would free up amenity space. Mr. Lien agreed it would help but the requirement is 15% based on the entire parcel area. The 340 -foot contour line and the easement leave a small space for development, amenity space, access, etc.; even with underground parking, the site would be fairly tight. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed concern that so much time was spent creating the WNW zoning and asked whether other properties will want their zoning changed back to the original zoning or is this such a unique parcel that other parcels will not make a similar request. Mr. Lien answered with the approval of any code, there are unforeseen consequences. There are two properties, this is one of them, that are impacted by the contour lines. He identified a parcel across the street that is completely above the contour line. The site is developed and has been for sale; the City tells interested parties that the existing development above the contour line can be maintained. That is not part of tonight's hearing but will need to be addressed in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the gas station property. Mr. Lien explained when the BC -EW zone was established in 2007, only a few properties along Edmonds Way were zoned BC -EW. He identified properties that were zoned BC -EW zone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 14 Councilmember Buckshnis commented the biggest difference is the building height in the WMU zone is limited to 35 feet but the height in BC -EW can be up to 40 feet; Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the criteria to achieve additional height in BC -EW, noting one of the criteria is low impact development (LID) techniques which are not well defined in the code and it is actually on tonight's agenda. Mr. Lien answered while the code may not define LID well, the stormwater update includes a definition for LID as it pertains to stormwater infiltration, rain gardens, green roofs, etc. It would be difficult to utilize LID on this site other than stormwater or pervious surfaces. Councilmember Nelson asked if the current proposal was mixed use and Mr. Lien said the current proposal is a site-specific rezone to rezone the property from WMU to BC -EW; this is not a development proposal. Councilmember Nelson asked if the intent was mixed use development. Mr. Pirscher answered the property is being marketed for sale and is very expensive. He hoped to be involved in subsequent development of the site and was fairly confident the project would need to be of sufficient size such as a mixed use project to justify the cost of the property. Councilmember Nelson expressed concern with the amount of time, study and analysis done to create and change the zoning and now undoing that. He suggested the Council needed to be very careful due to the amount of effort that went into changing the zoning. Councilmember Tibbott echoed some of Councilmember Buckshnis and Councilmember Nelson's concerns. Recognizing there were no geotechnical reports for this property, he asked how this site was unique from other properties in the WMU zone. Mr. Lien answered the contour line of the slope. Councilmember Tibbott asked for an explanation of a contour line. Mr. Lien explained with the WMU zone, protected slopes were established in three quadrants, one matched an old contract rezone for the site, the contour line for the slope behind Bartell follows the base of the existing retaining wall and the contour on the subject site followed the 340 -foot line and he was uncertain how that was established. On the Bartell site, there is a lot of space between the slope and Edmonds Way, providing more room below the contour line to meet amenity space requirements. On this site, the contour line is close to Edmonds Way and limits the area to provide amenity space. In meeting the amenity space requirement, the entire parcel is included in the 15% calculation but the area where the amenity space can be provided is very limited. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the contour line removes a large piece of the property from usefulness because it is closer to road than the Bartell site. Mr. Lien pointed out the properties on the south side of the WMU zone are also narrow but the property line is basically the location of the contour line. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding nothing could be developed on the easement to the east. Mr. Lien said development of structures would generally be prohibited on top of a utility easement. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the easement to the south and Mr. Lien explained it is a right-of- way easement to WSDOT. There is a sidewalk there and if this property were developed, frontage improvements would be required to bring it up to the City's current standards. Councilmember Tibbott asked if those standards would be similar to the rest of WMU. Mr. Lien said Edmonds Way corridor requires a certain sidewalk width with a planter between the sidewalk and Edmonds Way. Councilmember Tibbott did not want a section of sidewalk that differed from the remainder of the WMU zone. Mr. Lien said the sidewalk standards are the same in that area regardless of the zoning. Councilmember Tibbott expressed concerned with the possibility of another giant retaining wall like the property to the west and asked what process would be required to do that again and whether the new CAO standards or geotechnical reports would address that. Mr. Lien said other than what he cited earlier, no. Councilmember Tibbott commented theoretically there could be another retaining wall and Mr. Lien agreed that was theoretically possible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 15 Councilmember Johnson expressed concern this property was being considered for development as if it were flat. There are physical constraints and although a retaining wall could be built to make it as flat as possible, she was not certain the City Council needed to be concerned with marketability or price of the land. She requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday respond. Mr. Taraday explained one of the factors the Council is allowed to consider in a site-specific rezone is the relative gain to the public, health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in the value to the property owners. He summarized it is not an irrelevant concern because the code does speak to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owner but it is one of several factors the Council should consider in approving a site-specific rezone. Councilmember Johnson asked how this differed from a spot rezone. Mr. Taraday answered this a site- specific rezone; if the Council determines this applicant met the criteria in 20.40.010, then it is not spot zoning. Councilmember Johnson recalled a party of record referred to the height of the potential structure relative to their backyard. It appeared to her the top of the contour zone would be approximately 10 feet taller than the height of the allowed building and asked for verification. Mr. Lien commented there is another difference related to height in the two zones; in the WMU zone, height is measured from the grade at Edmonds Way. In all the other zones throughout the City, height is measured from an average grade; the elevation at four corners of the smallest rectangle around a structure, divided by four results in an average grade and height is measured from that. He identified the 340 -foot contour, Edmonds Way is approximately 336; 35 feet from Edmonds Way would be 370 feet and the property line above is 379 feet. He acknowledged the height of the property behind varied from 363 to 379. However, it is difficult to say what a building on the site would look like without knowing the exact footprint that would be used to calculate the height. Councilmember Johnson referred to the 363 -foot contour which appeared to be the lowest contour for the adjacent neighborhood and asked about the impact on the adjacent neighborhood from the two different zones. Mr. Lien said without knowing the exact footprint of a proposed development, he could not say what the exact impact would be. It could be at least 5 feet above and potentially a little bit more given how average grade is calculated versus measuring height from Edmonds Way. Councilmember Johnson asked how neighbors to the proposed rezone would be protected from impact. Mr. Lien answered the setback from the property is a minimum of 15 feet and he did not envision a building could be built into the slope 15 feet from the property line. The 15 -foot setback must be fully landscaped with a Type 1 landscaping which is the densest landscaping. There are also design standards intended to minimize impact to adjacent property. Councilmember Johnson did not think the densest landscaping would protect a neighbor because the trees would need to be very mature and certain species to provide screening. Mr. Lien said Type 1 requires two rows of evergreens at least 10 -feet wide backed by a 6 -foot solid fence. Another standard that would minimize impact to adjacent property states, where a proposed development abuts a single family residential zone, in addition to complying with subsection a of this footnote (setback), the proposed development shall modulate design of the building facades facing single family residentially zoned properties. Councilmember Tibbott recalled when this zone was developed, allowable heights in some areas were limited to 25 feet. Mr. Lien explained stories were establish in the WMU zone; this property was 3 stories which in the WMU zone is 35 feet. Councilmember Tibbott recalled reading in the Planning Board minutes, a 40 -foot building measured from Edmonds Way would result in a building approximately 15 feet above the slope, similar to a neighbor's roofline. Mr. Lien said because the contours vary, the height would depend. In the middle of the site, the contour is 336; under the WMU zone a building could be 35 feet or 370 feet. In other areas, the building could be 10-15 feet above the slope. Councilmember Tibbott Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 16 summarized the top of the roof would be about even with the top of the slope. Mr. Lien said with the BC - EW zoning, the building could be 40 feet which is 5 feet taller and potentially more because height is measured from average grade. Councilmember Tibbott summarized property owners on the top of the slope would be looking at the top of a roof not into windows. Mr. Lien could not say without knowing the exact development but assured it would be a modulated roof. Mr. Taraday suggested the parties of record have an opportunity to briefly rebut statements made during Q&A. Rebuttal Mr. Pirscher said he found the discussion very interesting. If the rezone is approved, a substantial amount of work needs to be accomplished to move forward including design review, SEPA checklist, engineering, etc. His understanding was they are prohibited from developing any physical improvements on the site above the 340 -foot contour line. Their application package included geotech reports done for an earlier project; a significant amount of engineering will be required to make this site work. The further a project is setback from the slope, the less expensive it will be and require less engineering. He assumed a compact building base due to technical difficulties in developing the site. The 340 -foot contour line plus the amenity space requirements of the WMU zone make it very difficult to undertake a project on the site. Ms. Ross said on her property, the top of a potential structure would be 20 feet above her property line. She would not be looking at roofline but into apartments. She pointed out the original property owner was not concerned with the contour line when the property was rezoned to WMU and they are not present tonight; only the applicant, a potential purchaser, and impacted residents are present. It was her understanding the current zoning limited the type of building that could be constructed. The limited area on the site where building could occur under the current zoning helps mitigate her concerns with traffic safety. Council President Mesaros relayed the question before the Council is whether the applicant has made the showing required by ECDC Chapter 20.40. The City Council must base its decision on evidence in the record, not new evidence presented for the first time presented during the closed record hearing. The City Council may approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the Planning Board. If the City Council wishes to approve the Planning Board recommendation, the ordinance in the packet can be adopted. Councilmember Johnson asked about the rectangles on the map above the contour line. Mr. Lien said they are ecology blocks. Councilmember Johnson asked if the public amenity space could be above the contour line. Mr. Lien said that is specifically prohibited by the code. The difference between open space and amenity space is open space does not have to have access. The amenity space is intended to be usable space and the contour line is intended to protect the slopes. If development is prohibited above the contour line, it is not usable space. Councilmember Johnson identified an area above the contour line that would be suitable for amenity space. Mr. Lien agreed it would be a nice place for amenity space but, according to the WMU zone requirements, that area could not be counted toward the 15% amenity space requirement because area above the contour line cannot be counted. Councilmember Johnson said that would be another way to solve problem. Mr. Lien said that is not the issue before the Council; allowing useable amenity space above the contour line would require changing the WMU zone design standards. Councilmember Johnson commented there is about a 9 - inch difference between 339.6 and 340.3 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis said if she reads 20.40 literally, the applicant has complied with it. She has reservations due to the hours spent on Westgate planning. With regard to complying with three of the four criteria, she reiterated her concern with LID. She asked if the Council could require a development comply with all four criteria. Mr. Taraday said that would be similar to a contract rezone which requires the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 17 applicant propose the conditions as part of an application. The section of code regarding contract rezones states, an applicant may propose conditions to be imposed by a contract on a rezone. If the applicant wishes to take this approach, the proposed conditions shall be reviewed at all public hearings on the rezone. While theoretically that could be could be done, it is not before the Council tonight. Mr. Lien acknowledged one of Councilmember Buckshnis' concerns was LID not well defined in BC -EW zone. He read from Chapter 16.50 regarding the BC -EW zone, "Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use." While the code does not define LID, it includes several examples of LID techniques envisioned for the BC -EW zone. Councilmember Tibbott found the argument that this was a unique property compelling, it is very close to the street and would be very difficult to develop under the WMU requirements. If the zoning is changed back to BC -EW, it removes the requirement for amenity space. Mr. Lien answered there could potentially be amenity space provided to achieve the additional height, 25% of the required setback. While the amenity space requirement of 15% of the entire lot area would not be required under BC -EW, some amenity space may be provided such as a wider sidewalk. etc. Councilmember Tibbott suggested the Council take more time to make a decision. Council President Mesaros asked about options for postponing a decision. Mr. Taraday said the Council is not required to reach a decision tonight but if the decision were delayed to a future meeting, the Council would need to go through the Appearance of Fairness declarations again. If the Council does not want to make a decision tonight, he recommended continuing to a date certain so the applicant and parties of record know when to return. The Council needs to take action on this land use application with reasonable promptness. Council President Mesaros suggested continuing to November 14. Mr. Lien said he would like to be present when the Council considered it again and suggested continuing to October 24 as his last day is November 3. Council President Mesaros said he will not be present next week but all Councilmembers will be present on November 14. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with taking more time to think about it but relayed a concern that the public would begin contacting Councilmembers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unsure it was relevant that all Councilmembers be present. She asked if Mayor Earling could break a tie vote. Mr. Mr. Taraday said no, the Mayor cannot vote on an ordinance. Discussion continued regarding a date. Mr. Taraday explained because this is a closed record review, Councilmembers should not do any further investigation, visit the site, etc. between now and the next meeting. He acknowledged it was a difficult question but was uncertain how the Council would benefit from having an extra week to consider it. Given the possibility of ex parte communication, a delay may make it more difficult. Councilmember Nelson recommended the Council make a decision tonight and asked about options. Mr. Taraday said the Council can approve, modify or reject the Planning Board's recommendation. The ordinance in the packet is related to approval of the Planning Board's recommendation. Modifying the recommendation is not applicable unless there was another zone but that was not considered by the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REJECT APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 18 Council President Mesaros asked if he could vote as he was sitting in for the Mayor and Mr. Taraday said he could. Councilmember Buckshnis said she reread the Planning Board minutes and the Council has made statements similar to Planning Board Members' concerns. If the Council literally follows Chapter 20.40 rezone criteria, she supported approving the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Taraday said if the motion passes, he will need to prepare alternate Findings of Fact for Council consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if application meet the definition of 20.40.010. Mr. Lien referred to the rezone criteria: • Consistent with the comprehensive plan o BC -EW is one of the zones listed for the Edmonds Way Corridor • Consistent with the Zoning Code o One of the specific purposes of the BC zone is to implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor • Surrounding Area o BC -EW zoning existed previously o Similar uses to WMU o Mixed use is one of the specific structures allowed in both the WMU and BC -EW zones o Impacts to the surrounding area are the difference between 35 and 40 feet and how it is measure • Changes o WMU severely limits how development can occur on the site • Suitability o Several developers have considered the site without success o Uses in BC -EW are similar to WMU o CAO apply in both zones • Value o While it may not be undevelopable with WMU zoning, the economic feasibility questionable Mr. Lien summarized in his analysis of the proposal, he felt the applicant met all the review criteria. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented after spending a long time carefully rezoning that area a short time ago, it was difficult to change it. However, she was not confident that was the applicant's fault. If the applicant has met the criteria, she was unsure how their request could be denied. She understood the request to delay the decision but would support the applicant's request although she was still struggling with the decision. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a Planning Board Member's comment that it is either black or white; she did not support the motion. Councilmember Johnson preferred to delay a decision for a week and therefore will abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECONDER. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, THAT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMERCIAL BUSINESS — EDMONDS WAY (BC -EW) (FILE NUMBER PLN2170034). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 19 Mr. Taraday clarified the motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet and Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that was her intent. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND TEITZEL AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Council President Mesaros declared a brief recess. Mayor Earling announced due to the late hour, the Council would consider Agenda Items 8.2, 8.3 and 9.1 and the remaining agenda items would be continued to a future meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ONLY AGENDA ITEMS 8.2, 8.3 AND 9.1 AND CONTINUE THE REMAINING ITEMS TO A FUTURE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 2. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9111 AND 9107 -236TH ST. SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN I (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR (EWQ Associate Planner Brad Shipley reviewed: • Process: Type V Legislative Action o Application o Public hearing before Planning Board o Public hearing before City Council o City Council takes action on all Comprehensive Plan amendments collectively o If Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, applicant may submit for a rezone to a compatible zoning classification • Aerial map of subject site — 236th St SW & Edmonds Way, between Edmonds Way and Madrona School History: o Currently developed with a SFR and legal, non -conforming multi -family residence 0 9107 236th St. SW Developed in 1960 0 9111 236th St. SW Developed in 1958 and 1970 o Parcels were annexed into the City in 1997 Proposal o Change Comp Plan designation from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor o If a change to the Comp Plan designation is approved, the applicant indicated that they would seek a rezone to RM -1.5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Compatible Zoning Classifications Designation Type Edmonds Way Corridor Commercial BP, BN, BC or other similar commercial zone; RM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 20 • Planning Board reviewed the criteria on April 26, 2017 and made the recommendation to approve the proposed Comp Plan amendment. • Today, we are seeking approval to continue with the process with the understanding that final approval will occur at a later date. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Ms. Hope had answered all her questions. Councilmember Tibbott asked how many parcels would be allowed if the property were rezoned to RM 1.5. Mr. Shipley said RM 1.5 allows 1 unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area so approximately 21 units would be allowed. Councilmember Tibbott commented 21 units appeared to be compatible with other multifamily in the area. Mr. Shipley agreed there was multifamily development on three sides and one of the sites is currently developed multifamily although it is a legal non -conforming building. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO APPROVAL CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9111 AND 9107 -236TH ST. SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFU1) TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR (EWC). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this is a request for additional funding for the fishing pier. It was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee who recommended it be presented to the full Council. The project began in spring 2016, the bulk of the improvements were built between spring and December. Improvements were made to the top of the pier deck (shelters, railing, benches, lighting and other amenities) as well as structural repairs to the underside of the pier structure. In May 2016, staff requested additional funding due to the condition of the edge on both sides of the pier. He displayed photographs of the deteriorated concrete and rebar, described the edge repair and displayed a photograph of the alternate edge repair. The edge joint repairs met contract requirements. This funding request is related to the center joint repairs. He displayed a cross-section of the pier illustrating the two piers coming out of the water at an angle and a pile cap on top with two T -cross sections on the pile cap that abut to a joint in the center of the pier. Repair of that j oint was part of the contract and the contractor attempted to make those repairs. He displayed a photograph of the demolition of the existing concrete and prepped for the new concrete patch. The contractor would then have placed a form board under the pier and bottom and poured high strength concrete through bored holes into the void. He displayed a photograph of the finished product showing the deficient center joint repair. During bond strength testing, the first pier bay passed but all subsequent pier bays failed the bond strength test; out of 12 total bays, only #3 passed the bond strength test. Mr. English reviewed: • Construction timeline Feb 2016 Contract awarded to Razz Construction March 2016 NTP provided to Razz April 2016 Edge repairs unforeseen condition May -August 2016 Alternate edge repairs completed, center joint repairs completed Au ust & September Contractor notified of failed tests on center joint Aug -Dec 2016 Contractor com letes remaining improvements Ju!,y 2017 Razz remobilized onsite July & Sept 2017 Razz performs testing on center joint repairs Oct 2017 Razz submits epoxy injection submittal o Contractor's submittal is currently being reviewed. One of the advantages is it would be a much quicker repair than removing the concrete patch. Likely the contractor will do one pier bay and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 21 if it passes the bond strength test, likely he will be allowed to finish the remaining pier bays using that process. I'unding Construction Funding Amount 132 Parks Fund $100,000 Recreation & Conservation Office Funds $800,000 Aquatic Lands Enhance Funds $500,000 Additional RCO Funding $450,000 WDFW Funding $50,000 Total Funding $1,900,000 • Expenditures Construction Costs Amount Contract Award (adiusted for 10.3% tax rate) $1,007,069 Chan e Orders $417,506 Inspection/TestingInspection/Testing Services $193,988 Consultant Construction En ineerin Support $162,042 City Staff (Project m mt. & contract administration) $115,605 Claim Support $10,000 WDFW — project m mt. $6,000 Miscellaneous $2,625 Signage $20,400 Management Reserve $39,765 Estimated Total $1,975,000 Estimated Shortfall (BEET 126 Fund) $75,000 Mr. English advised the contractor has put the City on notice that he plans to file a claim. Even if the work is completed, the amount of legal/claim support that will be required is unknown. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the joint does not impair the safety of the pier and Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the use of the additional $75,000. Mr. English said it will be used for inspection, testing, City staff time, etc. Councilmember Teitzel expressed frustration with the process. Based on his understanding of the facts, this contractor has failed to perform to the terms of the contract and he was mystified why the contractor would file a claim against the City if he failed to meet the contract's terms. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested potential litigation or claims be discussed in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the Council could potentially recover the funds via counter claim. Mr. Taraday suggested that also be discussed in executive session. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the same company would do the work and Mr. Williams said yes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the electricity is out again on the fishing pier, noting there have been constant problems with lighting and electrical outlets not working. She suggested for an expenditure of $2 million the electricity should work. Mr. Williams said staff continues to look into that issue. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE ALLOCATION OF $75,000 ADDITIONAL BUDGET TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that approving the additional funds was not acquiescing to anything. Mr. Williams said these funds will be spent by the City and would not be admitting to anything. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 22 MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:40 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. INTRODUCTION TO LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CODE INTEGRATION Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the stormwater code was adopted recently; these are minor amendments to rest of ECDC to clarify and not discourage low impact development (LID) for stormwater purposes. Engineering Program Manager Jeanne McConnell reviewed: • Why is the code being updated? o Mandated by Department of Ecology o Compliance with 2013-2018 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES) required o City required to review and revise codes, policies and standard details o Eliminate barriers that would prevent incorporation of low impact development principles and best management practices • What is Low Impact Development (LID) o A stormwater management and land development strategy that emphasizes conservation and the use of on-site natural features • Stormwater Minimizing Grading • Solar Opportunities ■ Minimizing Impervious Surface Areas • What is the City doing? o City Stormwater Code — ECDC 18.30 ■ 2016 — New Code approved by City Council 2017 — Stormwater Code Effective • New code requires stormwater runoff to be managed on site where feasible. o Standard Details are being updated o Other development -related codes have been reviewed • Proposed Code Changes o Code language being updated to present opportunities for LID o Encourage permit applicants to think about LID in beginning stages of design o Update terminology • Examples of changes to language o ECC 9.20.010(A) - Streets and Sidewalks, Definitions: "Concrete curbs and gutters" means that portion of the roadway edge of the ..r....i.,,ay constructed to city standards. a 197:7) with tile euib six iflefies in height and the gufteFS vaFying ftem 12 inches to 18 inehes in widtb. o ECDC 18.00.010(B)(4) — Public Works Application Req's: "A site plan, to scale, showing existing and proposed structures, anA improvements and affected streets, utilities, vegetation, LID elements, etc.;" o ECDC 20.11.030(B)(1)—General Design Review Criteria, Site Treatment: Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect Where natural resow-ces, limit disturbance oaf native sails, and eneour = low nnpact developr)ter7l. beauty exists Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 23 o ECDC 20.75.020 - Subdivisions, Purposes: • Add the following new sections: - "To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development" - "To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and geothermal" - "To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks" o ECDC 21.55 - Definitions- "L" Terms: ■ Add definition Low Impact Development (LID): - A stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and the use of on-site natural features. See Title 18.30 Stormwater Management for additional LID related terms, including Impervious Surface, Bioretention, Pervious Surface and On-site Stormwater Management BMP. Ms. Hope said this is an introduction, staff will return for a public hearing and ordinance on November 6. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the status of the code rewrite. Ms. Hope said there are a lot of things in the code to consider but because there is a deadline with regard to stormwater, the focus has been on stormwater. The entire code was reviewed with regard to LID opportunities. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Edmonds being one of 94 cities that has been issued a permit and asked if the City would be penalized if the code were not updated. Ms. Hope said there is currently no penalty but Ecology has indicated they are tentatively satisfied if the City completes this this year. Councilmember Teitzel referred to decision criteria for PRDs that states, minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials through the use of alternate materials or methods such as open cell grid pavers or shared driveways. However, Public Works Requirements Code 18.95.020(C), states parking lots shall be hard surfaced. He asked whether that was a conflict and if the latter section should be revised to read something like, "parking lots shall be hard surfaced but pervious pavers should be used where feasible." Ms. Hope answered the definition of hard surface allows for pervious and impervious surfaces. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the language should be amended to make that clearer. Ms. McConnell said hard surface is specifically defined in the stormwater code and uses terminology directly from Ecology. The terminology previously stated impervious surfaces, it was expanded to say hard surfaces which includes pervious and impervious types of pavement. The remaining agenda items were continued to a future meeting. 2. 2018 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS 10. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 24 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. DAVID 0. EARLING, MAYOR SCOTT PASS EY,CIT'►-C Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 25 Ix wo.