Loading...
2007.09.11 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA City Council Committee Meetings Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds September 11, 2007 6:00 p.m. The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in the following rooms: Community/Development Services Committee (Council Chambers), and Finance Committee (Jury Meeting Room) 1. Community/Development Services Committee A. AM-1160 Continued discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations. (15 Min) B. AM-1162 Follow-up discussion from the July 26 special meeting regarding legislative issues concerning building permit (30 Min) application timelines. C. AM-1150 Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 (15 Min) Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City's regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. 2• Finance Committee A. (15 Min) Update on the Broadband Project. B. AM-1161 Authorization to purchase an Asphalt Grinding Machine for the Public Works Department. (10 Min) 3. Public Safety Committee The Public Safety Committee meeting is cancelled. 4. a A rn Packet Page 1 of 35 AM-1160 LA. Plug-in Hybrid Cars and Charging Stations City Council Committee Meetings Date: 09/11/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For: Noel Miller Time: 15 Minutes Department: Public Works Type: Information Committee: Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Continued discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Assuming the City Council is in favor of appropriating $5,000.00 from the General Fund, the recommendation is to proceed with the installation of an electrical vehicle plug-in station using one of the public parking stalls in the Public Safety Complex parking lot. In addition, adopt an ordinance designating that the parking stall be reserved for a plug-in electric vehicle and establish a monetary charge for electrical power consumption. Previous Council Action The Committee previously discussed this topic at the July 10, 2007 meeting. Narrative Public Works staff has researched this topic and has developed a cost estimate to install a charging station for an electric plug-in vehicle using one of the westerly parking stalls adjacent to the 5th Avenue entrance of the Public Safety parking lot. The location of the stall is shown on the attached drawing. The charging station will provide electricity for either 220 volt or 110 volt systems. The cost estimate is as follows: Transformer (from 220 to 480 volts) $2,600.00 Pedestal & Plug -In Outlets $ 400.00 1500' #4 AWG Wire $1,500.00 Pad $ 250.00 Miscellaneous Conduit/Fittings $ 220.00 Used Parking Meter, Post and Post Cover $ 30.00 Total (roughly with tax) $5,000.00 In addition, this installation will require approximately 80 hours of scarce staff labor. As a way to compensate the City for electrical usage, a used parking meter can be acquired from the City of Seattle. Staff recommends that the user should be required to pay at the pre-set meter rate of $1.50/hr to reimburse the City for the electricity used and to defray installation and operational expenses for providing the plug-in parking stall. The City Council will need to adopt an ordinance designating this parking stall for an electric plug-in vehicle and establishing monetary charges for supplying electric power. Packet Page 2 of 35 In regard to the City leasing an all electrical vehicle, the City's Fleet Manager has had conversations with representatives from the Seattle Electric Car Coalition and other industry contacts. Thus far, he has found no suitable vehicle that could be leased or that fits our need of providing an all electric car at this time. There are only light weight golf cart style vehicles on the market that have a minimal speed (25 MPH) and no crash data. In looking at our replacement schedule for 2007-2008, he does not see any vehicle replacement that fits into an electric car category. The City would have to make a special pilot program; not to mention the fact that no car manufacturer is building any all electric, plug-in vehicles at this time. The vehicle would have to be a modified plug-in built by a private company, possibly at a cost of $40,000.00. Again, leasing is not currently an option. Attached is information on current research and development of plug-in vehicles. The information is encouraging but the earliest projection of having commercially available plug-in electric vehicles in the U.S. is 2009. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Plug -In Stall Location Map Link: Toyota Hybrids Email Link: Business 2.0 Article Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 10:09 AM APRV 2 Mayor Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 10:10 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 10:10 AM APRV Form Started By: Kim Started On: 09/05/2007 03:18 Karas PM Final Approval Date: 09/06/2007 Packet Page 3 of 35 Message Page I of 3 Karas, Kim From: Karas, Kim Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:23 PM To: Miller, Noel Subject: Subject: TOYOTA PLUG-IN HYBRIDS - ---Original Message ----- From: Karas, Kim Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:01 AM To: Miller, Noel Subject: TOYOTA PLUG-IN HYBRIDS -----Original Message ----- From: Wes Gallaugher [mailto:wgallaugher@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:17 AMTo: Carl, Linda; Adriane Martinez; Ben Hines; David Kaufer; HGLANDAU@aoi.com; Janice Freeman; Michael Bowman; Nick Brossoit; Miller, Noel; Roy & Carolyn Chapel; Lider, Sally; Steve Bernheim; Fisher, Steve; Wayne Grotheer Subject: Plug In Hybrids - Toyota's VP Miller Tips Hat to Prius Converters To members of Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, Here is some info on Plug In Hybrids that I thought might be interest, it is from Felix Krainer, founder of Cal -Cars who made the first Prins plug-in conversion. Wes --------------------------------------------------------- It's nice to be appreciated...especially by people whose cars we've green -tuned without permission in order to show how to make good cars better! Here, on the Toyota Open Road Blog, Iry Miller, Toyota Motor Sales Group Vice President - Corporate Communications conveys the company's positive views about conversions. And after you read what he says, you can see that this moderated blog graciously accepted its first public cominents from Jon Wellinghoff about vehicle -to -grid and from us about the broader implications of conversions. TOYOTA OPEN ROAD BLOG July 26, 2007 IRV'S SHEET: Toyota Plug-in Hybrid Testing Comes to the U.S.A.<http://blogs.toyota.com/2007/07/readers-of-this.htiinl> Readers of this blog no doubt will be interested to note Toyota's announcement Tuesday that it will put Toyota plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) prototypes into testing here in the U.S. That's both good, and not at all surprising. It's good because it further demonstrates the company's engineering depth and its eagerness to experiment with, and to continue developing, this important technology. It's not surprising because the plug-in hybrid seems like such a natural avenue of research for Toyota, an extension of Toyota's now decade -long commitment to the concept of the gas -electric hybrid, more widely known as Hybrid Synergy Drive. If you happen to live near California's East Bay area, or in Orange County, keep your eyes peeled. That's where these interesting new cars will be found beginning later this year, when researchers at the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) will begin their assessment of PHEV technology. Packet Page 5 of 35 7/27/2007 Message Page 2 of 3 Unfortunately, these are the only places they'll be found. Toyota's plug-in hybrids will not be available to the public until a great deal of additional research has been done. There are several elements of the upcoming research that will be done. One of therm will involve the overall carbon footprint of the plug-in hybrid. This is of interest because of the potential impact on the nation's power grid of a PHEV fleet. One of the primary selling points of the Prius, and other Toyotas with Hybrid Synergy drive, is that its battery package is kept charged by a combination of the vehicle's efficient gasoline engine and its regenerative braking system. This flexible system will operate in full electric mode, full gasoline mode or in a combination of both modes, taking full advantage of the benefits of the parallel hybrid concept, which unlike a series hybrid builds on the strengths of both types of power sources. The fact that the vehicle's battery never has to be plugged in is a major selling point, one that the driving public appears to have embraced, as witnessed by sales of more than 604,000 Toyota hybrids in the U.S. since 2000, including a projected 175,000 in sales of Toyota hybrids this year. The Toyota PHEV prototypes, which are based on the Prius, work somewhat differently. In addition to the expected gas engine, PHEV prototypes also will carry oversized packs of nickel -metal -hydride (NmH) batteries. These battery packs are intended to simulate the level of performance Toyota expects to achieve when it develops more advanced, compact and powerful battery systems — another area currently being researched. This prototype PHEV system is designed to operate much like the current Prius, switching from pure -electric mode, to gas -engine mode to a combined gas -electric mode. But the PHEV system has an interesting difference: The PHEV's NmH battery pack is capable of storing significantly higher levels of electricity - electricity that is brought on board by plugging the vehicle into a standard wall outlet for periodic charging sessions. With significantly more electric power in reserve as a result of these charging sessions, the PHEV is capable of operating in pure electric mode for longer periods of time, and at higher speeds, than the current Prius. This will result in substantial gains in fuel economy, and a major reduction in total tailpipe emissions, over current conventional hybrid systems. It must be noted, however, that in electric -only driving, PHEV range remains limited - something like seven miles. That's a reality check on the capability of the batteries that are currently available, and on the relative infancy of this technology. But as an aside, we should also point out that seven miles is also well within the range of the weekend chores done in many households. It means that even with this infant technology, many Americans could accomplish weekend shopping, soccer- games, etc., without burning a drop of gasoline. As good as the PHEV concept sounds, there is no free lunch. The electricity that provides the additional charge for the PHEV's batteries roust be generated somewhere. If it's not generated by the PHEV's gas engine, then it's generated either by a hydroelectric plant or by a generating plant that burns coal, natural gas or some other fossil fuel. We're immensely gratified that some enthusiasts, in a tacit endorsement of the hybrid concept, are, on a vehicle -by -vehicle basis, converting Toyota hybrids to plug-in technology. But doing one -by -one conversions is a different kettle of volts from making this technology viable for the sale of hundreds of thousands of cars, at an affordable price, with a reasonable reliability expectations and reasonable warranty, serviceable at any Toyota dealer anywhere. That said, the interest in conversions continues to validate hybrid technology as a core technology that's here to stay. And it should come as no surprise that the further advancement of hybrid technology is a top priority for Toyota. We believe that it's the way forward. So, apparently, do many Americans. Despite decreasing tax credits here in the U.S., demand for vehicles with Hybrid Synergy Drive continues to climb. In fact, a recent study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says hybrids have saved close to 215 Packet Page 6 of 35 7/27/2007 Message Page 3 of 3 million gallons of fuel in the United States since their introduction in 1999. Additionally, Toyota estimates that over the past decade, hybrids worldwide have emitted approximately 3.5 million fewer tons of CO2 than gas -powered vehicles of the same class. As research into this interesting and useful technology by Toyota and its partners continues, and is applied to production vehicles, those figures can only improve. And that can only be good. And, as noted earlier, it's not at all surprising. COMMENTS What about vehicle -to -grid capability for the Toyota PHEV? Is Toyota planning on incorporating this "cash back" hybrid technology into the cars they produce for testing? Studies have demonstrated that PHEV with vehicle -to -grid capability can realize annual payments from electric grid operators of between $1,000 to $3,000. These cash back payments could completely offset the high cost of this technology. What is Toyota doing in this regard? Jon WellinghoffCommissioner Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Thanks to Toyota for going ahead with the first Prius PHEV prototypes! This is a major step forward. And it's very gratifying to CalCars.org (we did the first Prius conversion) to hear Group VP Miller say the company is "gratified" that we've helped make their cars look better -- we've heard much the same thing from representatives at auto shows and from our dealers. We agree that conversions "validate" hybrid technology and its logical end -point: displacing most gasoline with electricity from ever -cleaner sources. And of course, Toyota can do it better than any garage engineers or small aftermarket companies. The future opportunity is two -fold: for Toyota to mass-produce PHEVs and to find some way to "electrify' some of the hundreds of thousands, soon to be millions, of hybrids already on the road. Toyota could sponsor this, for instance, through Toyota Racing Development. And as we report today in CalCars-News, one company, A123Systems/Hymotion, has invited the California Air Resources Board to award future ZEV credits to the maker of the original car for conversions. We hope this is an issue Toyota will explore.-- -- Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative (CalCars.org) Felix Krasner fkramer@calcars.org Founder California Cars Initiative http://www.calcuL.org http://www.calears.orginews-archive.httnl Packet Page 7 of 35 7/27/2007 Have You Driven a Three pinstriped London investors stand out- side an electric car factory in the green fields of the Norwegian countryside, waiting their turns to test-drive a stylish two-seater called the Think City. But first, Think CEO Jan -Olaf Willums takes the wheel. While the money - men fiddle with their BlackBerrys, Willums, looking slightly rumpled like the academic he once was, turns the ignition, and the stub -nosed coupe silently rolls toward an open stretch of pavement. Suddenly he punches the pedal, and the car takes off like a shot, the AC motor in- stantaneously transferring power to the wheels. The only sound is the squealing of tires as Willums throws the little car into a tight turn and barrels back toward his startled guests. "That looks fun," Frode Aschim of Range Cap- ital Partners says with a grin. Minutes later, he slides into the driver's seat and speeds away. Did someone hill the electric car? You wouldn't know it on this bright May morning :takes in Scandinavia, where the idea of a mass- produced battery -powered vehicle is being res- urrected and actual cars are scheduled to begin rolling off the production line by year's end. The London VCs are just the latest visitors to make the trek to Think to meet Willums, a one- time oilman turned venture capitalist, sus- tainability guru, and solar entrepreneur. Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard flew to Oslo to take a spin and sent back his people to hammer out a deal to supply Think with high -power lithium -ion batteries. An executive from PG&E, the giant California utility, dropped by during his vacation to talk about giving Think a foothold in the Golden State. Dean Kamen, in- ventor of the Segway scooter, paid a visit, be- came an investor, and is now working on what could be the next breakthrough in automotive technology (more on that later). Shuttling between Oslo and California, Willums has raised $78 million from Silicon BY It M WOON - - _ 54 BU 12.0 • AUGUST 2007. PHOTOGRAPH BY MONA ODEG Packet Page 8 of 35 - -w- �vq 'Mi � - 71P 7*1 �12 , z THINKING DIFFFRFHT WHIUMS will sell the City but lease its battery as part of a "mobility fee" that may include insurance and Wi-Fiaccess. Packet Page, grY�T, r, H7,3, � �MDirtiiy,?J Valley and European investors captivated by the genial, soft- spoken Norwegian's vision of a carbon -neutral urban car. You might spot him at Buck's, the VC hangout in Woodside, or at a tech conference in Napa. Four months after Willums's in- vestment group acquired Think last year, he was hammering out its strategy at a brainstorming session hosted by Google. Willums's pitch is this: He's not just selling an electric car; he's upending a century -old automotive paradigm, aiming to change the way cars are made, sold, owned, and driven. Tak- ing a cue from Dell, the company will sell cars online, built to order. It will forgo showrooms and seed the market thmugh car - sharing services like Zipcar. Every car will be Internet- and Wi-Fi-enabled, becoming, ac- cording to Willums, a rolling computer that can communi- .�._ i cate wirelessly with its driver, o ; other Think owners, and the power grid. In other words, it's Web 2.0 on wheels. "We want to sell mobility," Willums says. "We don't want to sell a thing called the Think." That's a lot to ride on one tiny car. And it's a big gamble for consumers, particularly freeway -driving, SUV-loving Americans. But global warm- ing, the boom in green energy, and the changing economics of electric car production — doing for $100 million what Detroit does for $1 billion — have unleashed forces that RECHARGE~� BATTERY"? a � t. Think owner text -messages his car and discovers that its j battery needs charging. won't be as easy to crush as the EV1 electric car scrapped T" by General Motors in 2003.} "There is a fundamental shift happening that is going to require new business models," says Ed Kjaer, an electric vehicle veteran who runs the EV program for Southern California Edison. "The timing is right. We are on a path now toward electric cars, and there is no going back." e've been down this road before, of course, most famously in the 1990s, when General Motors spent upwards of $1 billion to develop the EV1, a t~ teardrop -shaped electric car designed to comply with a California zero -emissions regulation. Less well-known was Ford's foray into the electric car market —the one that led directly to Willums. Lagging its Detroit rival, Ford in 1999 had acquired Norwe- gian electric car startup Pivco, which it renamed Think Nordic. In the mid-'90s, Pivco had produced a small urban EV called the Citi, about 40 of which were sent to San Francisco as part of a pilot car -sharing program. "They were horrible little vehicles," recalls Tom Turrentine, a research scientist at the University of California at Davis's Institute of Transportation Studies. But just before Ford bought the company, Pivco had rolled out a new version of the car. Renamed the City, it was a big step up. Among those leasing the car was a former Stanford graduate student named Sergey Brie. "We drove one a long time ago," Google co-founder Larry Page says. "Sort of a milk - carton -material car." With its eye on the California market, Ford pumped $150 million into the company to design a next -generation City that met European and U.S. safety standards. But when it looked like the automakers were going to kill the California regulation, Ford promptly sold Think to a s _ , energy I%:. Swiss electronics company. �rii►►*y� By 2006, Think was in bankruptcy. Willums, mean- Ez while, was about to leave his firm for private foundation work, having made a mint from his investment in REC, an $8 billion Norwegian so- • • • lar energy company. But the • little electric car manufacturer caught his eye. "So I called the w two other key investors in REC R` about buying Think," says Willums, 60. "We didn't know anything about the car busi- ness. But we knew how to build successful businesses." • .r Willums picked up Think, its factory, and Ford's nearly completed design for a new- - model City for the fire -sale •• • a price of about $15 million. That freed him to think about how to create a 21st-century car company. Much had changed since Ford sold Think: Global warming was dominating the headlines, the Iraq war had -Americans on edge about energy security, and governments were beginning to provide generous tax breaks for electric cars. "We felt it would be more fun and more profitable to think radically different," Willums says. One week after his offer for Think was accepted in March 2006, Willums happened to be in Berkeley, where he hooked up with Joel Makower, a well-connected Bay Area green busi- ness consultant. Through contacts at Google, Makower arranged for Thin]: to hold a brainstorming session at the Googleplex in Mountain View. The question on the table, Makower says, was this: "If you could build a car company from the ground up, with all we know about the Web and mass customization and social responsibility and localization and sustainability and viral marketing, what would that look like?" 5£ • BUSINESS 2.0 - AUGUST 2007 Packet Page 10 of 35 hink's factory in the ,j The MY is built from prefabrii rural town of AurOK parts, al1mving Think to place - ii factories near key markets, IV skog is more remi- niscent of Ikea thanof Henry Ford, with its lou- vered wood exterior, bright r i in open spaces, and shiny sur- faces. There's nary a drop of oil or smudge of grease on the factory floor. This is an as- sembly plant, and the com- pany Puts together the Think City much the way a child builds a model car. "It's a rather low investment," says Think managing director Ole Fretheim. "We can put up t new factories quite easily." He points to the black steel chassis of a City standing on a nearby pallet; it's shipped preassembled from Thailand. At one station, workers attach the car's Ni aluminum frame —made in Denmark —and drop IDEA Bui A [d a in a French motor. At another station, prefabri- novel s cated rust- and dent -resistant polymer -plastic around body panels produced in Turkey are hung on the tional K frame of a nearly completed car. The modular design means that Think can change body styles —a proto- type of a sporty convertible is parked in one corner of the fac- tory ---without major retooling. It also means that Think can set up shop near its primary markets so it doesn't have to export the finished cars. I get behind the wheel of one of 10 prototype coupes. With baby -seal -eye headlights and a rakish rear, the black test car is about 2 feet shorter than a Mini Cooper but 6 inches taller, giving it a surprisingly spacious feeling —an effect that is mag- nified by the glass hatch that stretches from roof to bumper and that makes parking just about idiotproof. Start the car up, and the only sound is the annoying hum of its vacuum -pump -powered hydraulic brakes (to be replaced on the production version). Put the pedal to the metal and the City zooms off. It's no Tesla Roadster —the current battery is speed -limited to 62 miles an hour. But it is nimble and quick and goes about 112 miles on a single charge. And it hits the red line on the fun quotient. Which is the point, according to Willums. "The customers 0 0 0 0 r are the trendsetters, the early adopters, the peo- ple who had to have a Prius," he says in lilting, Z�' Norwegian -accented English. "We're definitely lite of vices not the only car you own. The main thing we tradi- Want to sell is not a car but a whole concept )duct. around the car: carefree, carbon -free mobility." That means no showrooms or obnoxious sales- people. Want to test-drive the City? Send a text message to find the nearest Think About car -sharing franchise. If you like what you see, you customize and order'your City online. "The idea of the future is, Never build a car before it's paid for," Willums says. "Once you have the image that yours is a car to be dis- covered, people will be happy to wait for just the right car," Because each vehicle is Internet -ready, you can text -message your vehicle to, say, check its battery charge. The City will e-mail you when it's time for it to be serviced. "If someone has a great idea for a software link to the Think, we say bring it," Willums says. "It's the users who come up with those fea- tures. We just give them the platform." Think plans to sell the car but lease the battery as a way to overcome one of the biggest conundrums of electric cars. The battery is by far the most expensive component of the City, which will list for about $34,000 in Norway. Take the battery out of the equation, and Willums says he can sell the car for about $15,000 to $17,000 in the United States, with a "mobility fee" of $100 to $200 a month that might also include Packet Page 11 of 35 Have Ya @2riven a Fjrd L t# } services like insurance and wireless Internet access. Each car will come equipped with a Web -enabled "blaekbox" to mon- itor the battery's performance. When the car loses some of its range as the battery degrades, Think will offer buyers the option of replacing it at the same cost or paying a lower monthly fee. Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto private equity firm that has invested in both Think and Tesla, intends to launch a battery -leasing company to jump-start that market. "You have a natural way to create a total maintenance pack - I age," says Capricorn co-founder and partner Ion Yadigarolu. "You're not going to pay the gas station, you'll pay us a month- ly fee to use a battery that our company owns, which can be replaced in later years." Where's the market for the old batteries? One answer might reside in the basement of PG&E's corporate headquarters in downtown San Francisco. Against one wall, a nickel metal hydride battery salvaged from a wrecked Prins sits plugged into a standard utility meter. When a switch is thrown, the II meter begins to spin backward as the battery feeds electricity into the grid. PG&E plans to buy thousands of plug-in hybrid and elec- tric car batteries that have outlived their usefulness for trans- portation but still retain capacity. The utility will 11-1 install them in the basements of office towers and Zr at electrical substations to store green energy pro- _ duced by wind farms and solar arrays.. "It will j make vehicle batteries cheaper," says Sven The- sen, PG&E's supervisor for clean -air transporta- ;pep NO tion, who recently visited Willums in Norway to When rr discuss collaborating with Think. conditic Mass production will also lower the cost of bat- change, teries. In May, Think cut a $43 million deal with a ccarlee Silicon Valley electric car startup Tesla to buy a Was ME version of the lithium -ion battery packs that the its time. California company is using to power its forth- ; coming Roadster. Like Tesla„ Think is capitalizing on the bil- lions spent to create such batteries for laptops and mobile phones. "I think those guys are very savvy businesspeople and are likely to pull it off," Tesla CEO Eberhard says of Willums at al. Tesla's batteries will not Only bestow some Sil- icon Valley cachet on Think —Brie and Page are Tesla in- vestors —but also give the City the oomph to do 85 to 95 mph on the highway, according to Willums. But better batteries are only the beginning. If Dean Kamen has his way, the Think will change our relationship with the energy grid itself. hen I reach the top of a winding driveway leading to Westwind, Kamen's estate outside Manchester, N.H., I'm greeted by an employee rolling along on a Segway. Then Kamen, dressed in jeans and short sleeves, a smartphone holstered on his hip, comes whipping around a corner on a small black motorcycle that sounds like the starship Enterprise going to warp factor 8. It's an electric scoot- er equipped with a Stirling heat engine that is charging the ve- hicle's battery, providing virtually greenhouse -gas -free travel. The iconoclastic inventor, who made his first fortune de- veloping medical devices, has spent more than $40 million creating Stirling engines that can tap almost any fuel source, from restaurant grease to cow dung. He wants to equip the City with one, extending its range by hundreds of miles. Kamen met Willums about a year ago and later visited Think in Norway. "He's a fum, gregarious, good guy," Kamen says. "Next thing I know, I'm getting sucked into this, and he's send- ing me a car, and —son of a bitch —I've got this car here and I'm putting a Stirling engine in!" The navy blue City is parked next to a 1913 Model T and an 1898 steam -driven car. Kamen opens a panel in the floor of the City's cargo area to reveal a silver cylindrical object —a larger version of the Stirling engine that powers his scooter. "You can plug the car into the wall to charge the batteries, or you can plug into this," Kamen says, noting that when it's connected to the City, his Stirling engine will meet indoor air- , 22; quality standards. iarket Kamen takes the City for a drive. "This little ,ns sucker will move," he says, talking a mile a revive minute as he accelerates past his wind turbine pt that and down a hill. Right now this is just a hobby for ad of the inventor, but Kamen thinks the car could be the killer app to move toward his vision of the fu- ture: mass-produced Stirling engines powering the world's off -the -grid villages. If Kamen makes the Stirling work in an electric vehicle, Willums will get another power plant for his open -source car and a way to overcome drivers' fears that they'll run out of electrons in the middle of nowhere. And that's just the start. Both men see the City as part of a network of mobile generators that can draw energy from the power grid and sand electricity back during periods of peak de- mand. "If you have enough Thinks out there, you would lit- erally change the architecture of the grid," Kamen says. But for that to happen, you need a partner accustomed to managing vast amounts of data over global networks, a com- 6B • 9!l51NESS 2.0 • AUGUST 2007 Packet Page 12 of 35 pany like the one run by Ka.men's pals Brin and Page, A couple of days after my visit to his New Hampshire home, Kamen flies to California to have dinner with the Google guys, carrying the schematics of his Think/Stirling hybrid. "They're interested," Kamen tells me the next week. "Sergey loved his old Think. He's way enthusiastic about the new car." rin and Page took the first step toward Googling the © grid on a sunny day in May when the search giant p unveiled the vehicle-tu-grid charging stations it had built with PG&E in a solar -panel -covered carport at the Googleplex. While a gaggle of reporters looked on, Brin plugged a retractable power cord into a converted Toyota Prins. When he pressed a key on a laptop, a wireless signal instructed the car to send electricity stored in its battery back to PG&E. "People haven't been thinking of this on a large scale," Page says. "If you have a million of these cars, or tens of millions, it'll have a huge impact." Google.org, the company's philanthropic arm, is creating a fleet of plug-in hybrids for an employee car -sharing program. Dan Reicher, Google.org's director of climate and energy ini- tiatives, says he would consider including the Think City. "It's a very coal car," he says. That's music to Wiilums's ears. He might describe the City as a computer on wheels, but in truth what he's selling is a rolling iPod—a hip, desirable chunk of plastic and metal with Zen - like simplicity. Think plans to roll out its first cars in Norway in early 2008, then expand to other European countries. The Continent should be a rich market for Willums, given that 'electric car owners there often qualify for generous tax breaks and such perks as free parking. The U.S. market, where he hopes to sell the City in se- lected cities in 2009, is more problematic. Tiurentine, the UC Davis EV expert, wonders if the City can hold its own on U.S, highways. Even the com- pany's supporters hesitate when asked about the prospects of selling an urban two-seater EV in the land of the SUV. "I don't know. I don't know," says Tes- la's Eberhard. "I'd like them to, obviously, because I want to sell truckloads of batteries to them. It could do well in San Francisco. It could do well in Manhattan. 11 One key hurdle: creating an infrastructure of charging sta- tions. Hal LaFlash, PG&E's director of emerging clean - technology policy, thinks EV owners could well end up charg- ing their cars at their office parking lots. Car -sharing services like Zipcar and Flexcar offer another opportunity. "The car - sharing market has certain pickup points, and we can work with them on charging infrastructure," La1?lash says. Back in his Oslo office, Willums acknowledges those chal- lenges. But he senses a shift in the wind --one that Detroit and Tokyo have been slow to pick up on. The British and Norwe- gians, eager to prove their green cred, want to place fleet orders, he says. And one U.S. company, which he declines to identi- fy, would like 400 cars. His goals are modesty he's tailing about making 20,000 Citys a year. But even that would make Think the world's biggest electric car company. Perhaps one indicator of people's willingness to think dif- ferently about cars is sitting outside in the parking lot. It's the dusty old -model Think in which Willums has been tooling around Oslo for the past four years. "I drive two can, a Volvo station wagon and the Think," says Willums, a car collector whose stable includes a '61 Austin Healey. "I use the Think - every day. The others stay in the garage." ■ Todd Woody (twoody®business2.com) is the assistant man- aging editor at Business 2.0. Packet Page 13 of 35 AM-1162 Report on 7/26/07 CS/DS Meeting City Council Committee Meetings Date: 09/11/2007 Submitted By: Duane Bowman, Development Services Time: 30 Minutes Department: Development Services Type: Information Committee: Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Follow-up discussion from the July 26 special meeting regarding legislative issues concerning building permit application timelines. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action On July 26, 2007, CS/DS Committee conducted a special meeting regarding the Development Services Department and issues relating to permit review. LB. Narrative Attached is a memorandum in response to the issues raised at the July 26, 2007 CS/DS meeting. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - 7/26/07 CS/DS Minutes Link: Exhibit 2 - Memo fron Development Services Director Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2007 12:07 PM APRV 2 Mayor Sandy Chase 09/07/2007 12:07 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/07/2007 12:07 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Started On: 09/07/2007 11:53 Bowman AM Final Approval Date: 09/07/2007 Packet Page 14 of 35 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting Special Meetin_g July 26, 2007 Elected Officials Present: Members of the Public Present: Mauri Moore, Council member Tony Shapiro Richard Marin, Committee Chair Steve Waite Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President* Eric Theusen ("Arrived at 8:40 p.m.) Rick Cuevas Staff Present: Bea O'Rourke Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Rob Michel Sandy Chase, City Clerk Scott Schlumberger John Bissell 1. Public comment related to legislative issues concerning building permit application timelines and any other topics pertinent to the Committee's area of responsibility. Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. He stated that he was particularly interested in looking for areas of concern that the City Council can address legislatively. He commented that the Committee is here to listen to everything; everyone will have a chance to talk, and there is no particular order. Councilmember Moore explained she requested this hearing because since being elected she has heard stories from home owners, small and big business owners, about the problems, delays and the good things that were going on related to the Development Services Department. It is the most talked about department because there is so much at stake in the permitting process. Ms. Moore wanted the chance for at least one other Councilmember to gather facts along with her so that issues could be put on the table to see if there is anything the Council can do to help the process along. The citizens present raised the following issues: • Working relationship has eroded to point of no confidence; lack of trust. • Lack of properly managed staff; staff not given a chance to grow. • Hesitancy in dealing with this department in a forthright manner because of fear of retribution. • Undue harassment of legitimate businesses (tenants) in a fashion that seems unreasonable. Difficulties experienced by tenants trying to locate in Edmonds. • The staff on the second floor are operating in a vacuum and do not understand the cost/value involved in delaying a project to the applicant. • "Subject to Field Inspection Permit" needed for projects that are simple (over the counter permit). This concept is absent in the department. Packet Page 15 of 35 CS/DS Committee Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 2 • Concept of "equity" is used in the department for all permits, taking applications in fair order. However, some permits require lengthy review, some less. If it is going to take a long period of time, people will do work without permits and then there are life safety issues. • Turnover of staff; no institutional memory. This leads to consistency problems. • Policy and procedure manuals in writing are needed. • Check lists needed. • If applicant does not like Planner's interpretation of the Code, the applicant must appeal the matter to the Hearing Examiner, and pay money to find out the interpretation was wrong. • Suggest use of technology to help filter the process to avoid inconsistencies, to make it more predictable for the builders and the city. • Review periods need to be shorter. • Training issue — understanding case law. Read the material in the Code; do not expound on it; if vague or ambiguous, it goes in favor of the applicant unless there is a written policy. • Time, consistency, relevance and transparency are the key issues. Applicant needs to understand what the department is looking for. Cited examples of drawings being delayed time after time for reasons that are not relevant. • Architectural Design Board (ADB) is loaded with so much malarkey that does not pertain to the objective of the ADB (example, preliminary drainage report needs to be submitted for ADB review). • Concern with the minutia that staff provides the ADB that the ADB does not want to get bogged down with. • We have asked for two reviews. It all comes down to time. • There is a good opportunity with the new planners for training regarding customer attitude, being consistent. • All present stated they have never had just two reviews. It has become extremely complicated. • The three divisions in the department do not communicate with each other. • Minutia required by Edmonds to be included on drawings, not required by other cities. • Requested to review check lists, but was denied (claiming it was project work product). • The pre -application process is appreciated for its thoroughness. • Planning and Engineering Bulletins are at best shorthand; with submittal, everything on the bulletin is covered; should not have to wait 28 days for a completeness letter. • Suggested there be a city attorney accessible at the counter; less expensive than contract law firm. • Suggested certain planners work on smaller permits, and then more experienced planners work on the bigger permits. • Concern with the hours the department is open (opens at 9 a.m., closes from 12 to 1 p.m.; closes at 4 p.m., permits cannot be submitted after 3:30 p.m.). It is unusual that a city would restrict contact. Has there been an increase in productivity by the staff not dealing with citizens during these periods? No other city shuts down like this. • The public cannot use the restroom on the second floor of city hall. Why? • Applying for a business license as a tenant ended up being drawn into a mire of issues with the department. • What kind of welcome do we have for businesses coming to our city? Economic development element. • Offer to assist with the Code rewrite that is currently taking place; there are a lot of talented people in the community who could assist. Let's work together. • Question about how Building permit fees are used? Are the fees balanced fairly? Interested in obtaining enough funds into the department if it is needed to help solve problems with delays in approval of permits. Packet Page 16 of 35 CS/DS Committee Minutes July 26, 2007 Page 3 • The difficulty in finding employees was noted; however, the department needs to be dynamic and run like a business. • Employees are in need of training in dealing with customers; employees are told to walk away from an irate customer; they have missed an opportunity to win someone over. • Some of the reasons for the attrition that is occurring with staff has to do with work conditions. • "Common sense" is not used; training needed. Councilmembers Moore and Marin summarized the following issues as follow-up: • Look at the employee training policy. • Citizen committee to be formed to help rewrite the Code (Chapters 18 and 20). • Check lists — where is it? Can it be put on line? • Explore a policy about how many reviews an application goes through before a meeting is held. • Policy and Procedure Manual. • Concept of "Subject to Field Inspection." • Check list as part of Policy Manual. • Permit Coordinator and Planner on duty with check list for a 10 to 15 minute review. • Solicit input from this group. • Review Renton and Tacoma Mission Statements. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Packet Page 17 of 35 MEMORANDUM `nc. 18yv To: Mayor Haakenson CityC=rfl From: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Date: September 6, 2007 Re: Response to the July 26, 2007 Community/Development Services Meeting On July 26, 2007, the CS/DS Committee held a special meeting to take comments regarding legislative issues concerning building permit application timelines. First, I welcome comments from the public regarding the operation of the Development Services Department. While I may not totally agree with everything that was raised at the meeting (there are always two sides to every story), it opens up areas for the Department to look for making changes. Since I became the Director in 2000, the Development Services Department has been on a constant quest to look at how we do things and whether there are ways to do things better given our limited staffing resources. Some examples of this include implementing a new permit tracking system which also has on-line information available to permit applicants; creating a number of new handouts and brochures; responding to concerns raised by new businesses regarding tenant improvement permits, and developing a new handout to clearly explain the tenant improvement process with help from the business community. In 2003, the Department faced some very difficult times and cut three positions. One of those positions has since been able to be restored. Two clerical positions were not restored. The city continues to grow but the Department is not growing with it. The fact of life in Edmonds is that the City does more with less staff than surrounding cities. This has been true the entire 18 years I have worked for the City of Edmonds. The past two years have seen the Department lose a number of good employees to higher paying jobs in the private sector. In one case, the employee went to work for another city for more pay, a very short commute and job advancement opportunity. Further, two employees reached that time in their lives where it was time to move onto the next phases of their lives and they retired. The demand for experienced professionals in the planning, building and engineering fields is high. What impact has that had on the Department? The replacement staff is young and inexperienced. One key position, our senior building inspector is still vacant. This has City of Edmonds c!s Development Services Packet Page 18 of 35 placed greater demands on senior staff to mentor the new staff and cover for the required work. After reviewing the comments made at the July 26, 2007 meeting, I condensed the comments down to two major topics: • Timely, thorough permit reviews and approvals • Code re -write Timely, thorough permit reviews and approvals What most permit applicants don't understand is that the Development Services Department does more than just permit processing. While permit processing is a very key component of our work, it is not the only thing the Department is responsible for. The Development Services Department is primarily responsible for: • preparing the City's Capital Improvement, and Transportation Improvement Plans • managing capital projects, • comprehensive planning, code development and interagency coordination, • managing, organizing and maintaining the emergency operations center, • responding to public records requests, • maintaining the street files, • maintaining utility mapping, • reviewing building permits, land use permits and business licenses, • conducting pre -application meetings, • conducting building, engineering and land use inspections, • staffing the various Boards and Commissions (ADB, Hearing Examiner, Historic Preservation, Planning Board) , • supporting various committees (Transportation Committee, Chamber Economic Development, Parking) • providing staff support to City Council on land use and permit issues • providing telephone and counter customer service, and • responding to complaints and code enforcement actions. Considering all this, it is amazing to me sometimes that we get anything done but we do. The chief complaint that I receive is it takes too long to get my permit. Lately, the Packet Page 19 of 35 Engineering Division has experienced the biggest backlog due to the loss of experienced staff. To address the issue of erasing the backlog of overdue reviews, the Department ran an experiment the weeks of August 13"' and August 20"'. We closed the permit counter down on Wednesday August 15t" and August 22nd. We had our phones lines open and the receptionist took calls but staff had their phones on voice mail except me and the Division Managers. We continued to provide building inspections but not engineering inspections. We had scheduled pre -application meetings on both Wednesdays that we held. I ran a report on the Tuesday's before the closure to determine the number of overdue reviews and how many were completed. The results were impressive but not surprising. We stated with 79 overdue reviews on August 14"' and, when we finished the experiment on August 22nd, only 7 remained. What this experiment clearly demonstrated was that, when given substantial concentrated quiet time, staff plan reviewers were able to accomplish a significant amount of work. The Department training budget is minimal. Even so we take advantage of technical training opportunities that present themselves that we can fit into our budgets. Each Division conducts weekly staff meetings to go over work issues, schedules and project status. Career progression steps have been established for positions such as the Engineering Technician I, II, & III and Permit Coordinators I, I1,1I1 to retain experienced employees. The concept of subject to field inspection is not practical and should only be used in very few cases. The problem that this presents is, what happens when the field inspector does not believe the improvement complies with code. How does the situation resolve itself without protracted negotiations? Further with recent court decisions, the permit is what the permit is; vague conditions would likely be held invalid. Plan review at the counter is totally out of the question. It is difficult enough now to staff the counter for general counter duty; to then add doing plan reviews at the counter is not feasible. The actual review checklist for staff are the adopted codes. Trying to consolidate all the codes into a review checklist is not practical and further we would be challenged if we somehow left something off the checklist, even if we had a disclaimer (this happens already on our handouts). It is the applicant's responsibility to review the applicable code and submit an application that complies with code. We review for code compliance. I concur that we should eliminate the discretionary 28 day planning application completeness process. If an applicant has everything we require to accept an application, we should start the review clock upon acceptance of the application. However if they don't have everything, they should be turned away. Code Re -Write I lobbied the City Council from 2001 until 2006 to finally get the code re -write funded and started. The re -write process is now underway. I have no objection to getting suggestions and feedback on code changes from a citizen or developer group. Packet Page 20 of 35 Recommendations • Establish a process to share code sections on-line to allow feedback on code re- write chapters. • Do a code change to eliminate the 28 day planning application completeness process. Open the Development Services Department to match City Hall hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p. in. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, with no permit applications accepted after 4 p.m. On Wednesdays, the counter would be closed all day but phone calls would be taken and directed to voice mail. Building inspections would take place. This day would be devoted to plan review with emphasis on overdue reviews to be completed first. • Develop a process for meeting with a permit applicant if more than two reviews occur, if necessary. Packet Page 21 of 35 AM-1150 I.C. Amend Chapter 18.40 Grading/Retaining Walls & ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section City Council Committee Meetings Date: 09/11/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Department: Engineering Committee: Community/Development Services Information Subject Title Time: 15 Minutes Type: Action Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City's regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff CS/DS Committee forward the proposed ordinance to the full Council for adoption on consent agenda. Previous Council Action On June 19, 2007, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3651, revising Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including adoption of the 2006 International Building and Supplemental Codes. Narrative On June 19, 2007, Council adopted revisions to Title 19, Building Codes, of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), effective July 1, 2007. The revised Title 19 includes revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, including exempting the construction of rockeries from the requirement for a building permit. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements, also addresses grading, retaining walls and rockeries in Chapter 18.40, primarily to address situations not covered by the building codes, such as site improvements for subdivisions and short plats. Now Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with the revised Title 19. The rationale for exempting rockeries from the requirement for a building permit was that rockeries are primarily utilized for erosion protection of free-standing cut slopes in firm, stable, undisturbed and competent native soil, or as landscaping features. As such, the City ofEdmonds does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls or to raise issues of critical public interest or safety, if properly located and less than a certain height. However, in recent years, the City has prohibited construction of rockeries in certain situations where, if erected, they could pose a threat to the public interest and/or safety. These situations where construction of rockeries has been prohibited have been enforced through the process of requiring permits for rockery construction. With the revised Title 19 now exempting rockeries Packet Page 22 of 35 from the requirement for a permit, Staff recommends that these situations where construction of rockeries has been prohibited within the City of Edmonds in recent years should be formally adopted in code. The situations/conditions under which it is proposed that construction of rockeries be prohibited in Edmonds are as follows: 1. Rockeries that encroach or are located in, on, or over (developed or undeveloped) City right-of-way. Rockeries on private property adjacent to City right-of-way must be set back from the City right-of-way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery. 2. Rockeries constructed over public utility easements. 3. Rockeries constructed in a manner that will adversely affect drainage, or create a sight distance hazard. 4. Rockeries that support a surcharge. 5. Rockeries that impound flammable materials. 6. Rockeries exceeding three feet in Setback Area Height within a setback. (Setback Area Height is defined as the height measured vertically from the original grade to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) 7. Rockeries placed against fill, when rockery exceeds three (3) feet in height. (Rockery height is defined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) 8. Rockeries constructed in designated geologically hazardous areas other than erosion hazard areas, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. 9. Rockeries constructed within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of North Edmonds. 10. Rockeries exceeding twelve (12) feet in height. (Rockery height is defined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) All of the above situations except #8 and #9 are situations where construction of rockeries has previously been prohibited by the City of Edmonds. Although not prohibited in the past, construction of rockeries in situations #8 and #9 has been very tightly controlled and limited through our permit process. Staff recommends that construction of rockeries should also be prohibited in these situations. Compliance with the City's prohibitions for rockeries will be enforced on an exception or complaint basis. Attached is a proposed ordinance revising ECDC Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030, Nuisance Section, to ensure consistency with the revised Title 19 and to codify the above prohibited rockeries. Link: Ordinance Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routinu/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 08/28/2007 02:34 PM APRV Packet Page 23 of 35 City Clerk Mayor Final Approval Form Started By: Dave Gebert Final Approval Date: 09/05/2007 Sandy Chase 09/04/2007 09:18 AM APRV Sandy Chase 09/05/2007 03:46 PM APRV Sandy Chase 09/05/2007 03:46 PM APRV Started On: 08/28/2007 01:47 PM Packet Page 24 of 35 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 3/14/07 R.8/24/07gjz ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC 20.110.030 NUISANCE SECTION, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY' S REGULATION OF ROCKERIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3651, the City Council adopted revisions to Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including adoption of the International Building Code; and WHEREAS, the revised Title 19 adopted by Ordinance No. 3651 included revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, and WHEREAS, in practice, the erection of rockeries is a craft and is primarily utilized for erosion protection of cut slopes and as landscaping features, and as such, the City does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in adopting Ordinance No. 3 65 1, amended Title 19 to deregulate the construction of rockeries in order to recognize the utility of rockeries as erosion protection measures and as landscaping features which, if properly located and less than a certain height, do not raise issues of critical public interest and therefore, should not be subject to regulations, and {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 25 of 35 WHEREAS, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, now also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with the revised Title 19, and WHEREAS, there are certain conditions where rockeries, if erected, could pose a threat to the public interest and/or safety and should, therefore, be prohibited within the City of Edmonds; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining walls is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: Sections: 18.40.000 Grading 18.40.010 Retaining walls 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries 18.40.000 Grading A. Grading defined. Grading shall be as defined in the International Building Code. B. Permit required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010 and below, no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a permit from the building official. For grading proposed in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, a separate grading permit is not required; however, grading plans and details shall be included on the subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan approval by the City Engineer will constitute approval of the grading. C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal requirements for application, review and approval of grading permits. For grading proposed in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, as a minimum, all submittal requirements established by the building official for grading permits shall be included on or submitted with the subdivision or short plat civil plans; and grading plans and calculations shall be prepared, {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 26 of 35 stamped and signed by a Washington State licensed professional engineer. l 8.40.010 Retaining walls. A. Retaining walls defined. Retaining walls, including shoring structures, are structural systems that provide lateral support for vertical or near -vertical slopes in soil, including fill. The term "retaining wall" shall not include a rockery, and the City of Edmonds does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls. A rockery is a combination of rocks intended for erosion control or protection of a free-standing cut slope in firm, stable, undisturbed and competent native soil, or as a landscaping feature. B. Permit Required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010 and herein below, no person shall erect a retaining wall without first obtaining a permit from the building official. For retaining walls proposed for construction in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, a separate retaining wall permit is not required; however, retaining wall details shall be included on the subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan approval by the City Engineer will constitute retaining wall approval. C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal requirements for application, review and approval of retaining wall permits. For retaining walls proposed for construction in conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, as a minimum, all submittal requirements established by the building official for retaining wall permits shall be included on or submitted with the subdivision or short plat civil plans. 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries. A. The following types of rockeries are prohibited. No person shall construct a rockery within the City of Edmonds under the following circumstances or in the following situations: 1. No rockery may encroach into or be located in, over or on any City right of way. The term "right of way" shall include developed or undeveloped rights of way. Rockeries on private property adjacent to city right of way must be set back from the city right of way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery. 2. No rockery shall be constructed over a public utility easement (recorded or prescribed). {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 27 of 35 3. No rockery shall be constructed in a manner which adversely affects drainage or creates a sight distance hazard as determined by the City Engineer. 4. No rockery shall support a surcharge. The term "surcharge" shall have that meaning assigned in the State adopted Building Code. 5. No rockery shall impound flammable materials. Flammable materials are materials as regulated by the State adopted Fire Code. 6 No rockery may exceed three feet in setback area height within a setback. The term "setback area height" is defined as the height measured vertically from the original grade of the soil to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to verify original grade and compliance with setback area height by submitting a professional land surveyor letter and section view when an enforcement action is initiated due to a violation of this section. 7. No rockery shall be placed against fill where the rockery exceeds three feet in height. The height of a rockery shall be determined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to establish a defense to any enforcement action initiated due to a violation of this section by verifying the finished grade and compliance with maximum allowable height by submittal of a professional land surveyor letter and section view. 8. Rockeries are prohibited in designated geologically hazardous areas other than erosion hazard areas as defined in Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of North Edmonds unless as provided by ECDC 19.10.070E. 9. No rockery shall exceed twelve feet in height. The height of a rockery shall be determined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner's responsibility to verify finished grade and compliance with maximum allowable height by submitting a professional land surveyor letter and section view when an enforcement action is initiated due to a violation of this section. {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 - Packet Page 28 of 35 B. No person shall construct a prohibited rockery in the City of Edmonds. The violation of any provisions of this section shall be punishable as a misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds City Code. It shall be a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any provision of this section is committed or allowed to continue. Construction of a rockery prior to September 1, 2007 shall be an affirmative defense to an enforcement action for violation of this section. C. In addition to the preceding criminal remedy, the construction of a prohibited rockery after September 1, 2007 shall be considered a nuisance and shall be subject to abatement in accordance with the civil enforcement procedures of Chapter 20.110 ECDC. Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.110.030 Nuisance Section is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (J) relating to rockeries to read as follows: 20.110.030 Nuisance section. J. Violations of the provisions of ECDC 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 - Packet Page 29 of 35 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 6 - Packet Page 30 of 35 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC 20.110.030 NUISANCE SECTION, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY'S REGULATION OF ROCKERIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/1- 7 - Packet Page 31 of 35 AM-1161 Authorization to Purchase an Asphalt Grinding Machine City Council Committee Meetings Date: 09/11/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For: Noel Miller Department: Public Works Committee: Finance Time: 10 Minutes Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to purchase an Asphalt Grinding Machine for the Public Works Department. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the purchase of an Asphalt Zipper Machine for the Public Works Department at an estimated cost of $79,950.00 plus applicable sales tax. Previous Council Action NONE Narrative The Public Works Department is requesting the authorization to purchase an asphalt grinding device called a "Zipper". This machine is used for open trench work requiring the removal of the paved surface to do underground work such as storm system and water main installation and/or repairs. The machine will mount to the bucket of the front end loader as well as either of the backhoes that Public Works already has in its fleet. The Zipper pulverizes the asphalt creating a usable material suitable for road base and filling potholes in alleyways. The following points are reasons to consider allowing this expenditure: • Labor savings are significant in comparison to the current methods of saw cutting, jack hammering, hauling and disposal of the asphalt pavement. i • The environmental impacts would be reduced. The ground pavement can be stockpiled and reused for a temporary trench patch. Thus the need for the use of cold mix asphalt which is now considered hazardous waste and costly to dispose of can be eliminated. • The equipment should significantly decrease the use of jackhammers. Jackhammers have the highest incident of back injuries than any other worker activity in Public Works. As a result, the city can expect a reduction in L & I premiums. Packet Page 32 of 35 Based upon the attached cost comparison sheet, the annual savings exceeds the cost of the equipment. This of course is unrealistic for the Public Works Department. I estimate that the equipment would be used on average of approximately four (4) hours per week, throughout the year for drainage, water and sewer repairs and installation. This equates to five (5) full weeks per year, which results in an annual savings of $17,660.00. However, another savings of approximately $8,000.00 per year is realized in the elimination of the hauling and disposal of asphalt pavement and the hauling and disposal of the temporary cold mix patch material. At a total annual savings of $25,660.00, the estimated payback for the Zipper at a cost of $87,000.00 including sales tax is 3.4 years. Council should also be aware that this equipment is proprietary so staff will not be able to obtain quotes from other vendors. However, based upon the overall cost savings to the City, it appears to be in the public's best interest to purchase this equipment on a sole source basis. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $87,000.00 Fiscal Impact: Attarhmenta Link: Asphalt Zipper Quotation & Information Link: Sole Source Letter Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 03:40 PM APRV 2 Mayor Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 03:40 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/06/2007 03:40 PM APRV Form Started By: Kim Started On: 09/05/2007 04:28 Karas PM Final Approval Date: 09/06/2007 Packet Page 33 of 35 Asphalt Zipper, Inc. 310 West 700 South Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 tel: 1-888-ZIPPER-8 (947-7378), fax: 801-772-0909 PROPOSAL*/ORDER CONFIRMATION Today's Date: 9/7/2007 Customer: City of Edmonds Tel: 425-771-0235 Address: 7110 210 St. SW Fax: 425-744-6057 City, State, zip: Edmonds, WA 98026 Contact: Chuck Hiatt Inside Rep: Shane Beck outside Rep: Bill Smythe Qty Item Description Cost Extended 1 AZ-300 AZ-360HD Asphalt Zipper AZ-300 (up to 30" Cut), John Deere 99HP TD engine (Tier 2), Trailer, spraybar, extra bits, blocks & slide -hammer $ 79 950.00 $ 79,950.00 AZ - 480HD AZ-500 bit puller (Delivery Included) 18" Ci' 1 30" Cut ZL - 30 " Cutter Head Included Included 48" Cut 3" Extra Cut 4" Extra Cut Y Extra Cut 3" Extra Cut 3" Extra Cut WAP CUT' Bits Bits Blocks Blocks Spraybar Packet Page 34 of 35 Asphalt Tipper September 7, 2007 City of Edmonds Chuck Hiatt 7110 210 St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Sole Source Justification for the Purchase of an Asphalt Zipper Machine Dear Mr. Hiatt: Asphalt Zipper, Inc. is the sole manufacturer of the Asphalt Zipper bucket -mounted AZ 300, AZ 360HD, AZ 480HD, AZ 480S, AZ 500 and AZ550 portable asphalt pulverizing / recycling / trenching machines. These unique and very capable machines are sold through our sales representatives and exclusive Independent Manufacturers Representatives direct to each customer. Because we sell "factory direct" to the customer, we are able to provide these machines to the end customer at the lowest possible price. The proprietary designs, features and manufacture of all Asphalt Zipper machines are protected by United States Patents and other patents pending to include; U.S. Patents #5388893, #7036252, #7066555 and #7144087 with other U.S. and Canadian patents pending. The vast majority of our customers report complete satisfaction with the capability and affordability of owning and operating their Asphalt Zipper machines. We would be pleased to provide additional information as needed. Sincerely, Shane Beck Shane Beck Factory Area Manger Asphalt Zipper, Inc. Packet Page 35 of 35 310 West 700 South, Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062 • 1-888-ZIPPER-8 Fax 801-772-0909 • www.asphaltzipper.com