Loading...
2017-01-17 City Council - Full Agenda-1816o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JANUARY 17, 2017, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2017 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2017 3. Claim for Damages from Elana Shippen (amount undetermined). 4. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 5. Confirmation of Harold Williams II Appointment to the Sister City Commission 6. Budget Carryforward Information Memo 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing (60 min.) 2. Public Hearing of the Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan (20 minutes) 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Discussion regarding Council Retreat Agenda (15 min.) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda January 17, 2017 Page 1 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2017 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 01-10-2017 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 2 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2017 Elected Officials Present Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Elected Officials Absent Mayor Earling 1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM At 6:45 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room and interviewed Alex Witenberg, a candidate for appointment to the position of Planning Board — Alternate. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2017 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 01-10-2017 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 4 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 10, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thomas Mesaros, Mayor Pro Tern Michael Nelson, Council President Pro Tern Kristiana Johnson, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT J. Shier, Police Officer K. Ploeger, Police Sergeant Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Mike Cawrse, Stormwater Eng. Technician 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 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern 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 BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDATION LETTER AS ITEM 7.6 AND MOVE EDMONDS SAFE CITY RESOLUTION TO ITEM 7.1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Pro Tem Nelson requested Item 4.5, Confirmation of Alex Witenberg to the Position of Planning Board Alternate, be removed from the Consent Agenda and scheduled on a later date. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARLIN PHELPS ($3,500.00) AND JANIS I. CUNNINGHAM ($2,000.00) 4. NOVEMBER 2016 MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. CITY ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORT City Attorney Jeff Taraday described the big picture, the City's relationship between: • Lighthouse Law Group — handles vast majority of civil legal work including all civil litigation not covered by Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) • WCIA • Bond counsel • Zachor Thomas — handles criminal prosecution Mr. Taraday reviewed: • Who is the client? o RPC 1.13(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents. o Attorney — Client Relationship o Attorney C*Organizational Client C*Duly Authorized Constituents • Duly Authorized Constituents? o Lighthouse Law Group ■ City of Edmonds - Individual Councilmembers - Boards and Commissions - Mayor - Directors - Staff - Judge What about your constituents, the citizens? o Attorney C*City (City Council, Mayor, Judge) G*Citizens ■ Same concept applies with all City legal relationships (Lighthouse, WCIA, bond counsel and Zachor and Thomas Mr. Taraday commented on the lighthouse's role with regard to oversight • Duty to investigate? o RPC 2.1, comment 5: A lawyer ordinarily has no duty to initiate investigation of a client's affairs or to give advice that the client has indicated is unwanted, but a lawyer may initiate advice to a client when doing so appears to be in the client's interest. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a Request to investigate o The RPCs do contemplate that lawyers will be asked on occasion to investigate alleged violation of law. What if lawyer knows of violation? o RPC 1.13(b): If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter ... that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization... . ■ Summary: If a lawyer knows of a legal violation, he must act in the best interest of the City. Sometimes that means reporting up. Reporting Up: o RPC 1.13(b):... Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law. Highest authority o RPC 1.13 [comment 5]: The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body. What if "reporting up" doesn't work? o RPC 1.13(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if (1) despite the lawyer's efforts ... the highest authority ... insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization. Then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. ■ Summary: In very rare instances, a matter is report all the way to the City Council and the City Council refuses to act in a manner that is necessary to protect the interests of the City, he would be authorized to reveal information to a third party but only if doing so would prevent substantial injury to the City. Lawyer as a decision -maker? o RPC 1.13, comment 3: When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer's province. Lawyer not decision -maker, but... o ... when the lawyer knows that the organization is likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization or is in violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Special rules for City Attorney? o RPC 1.13, comment 9: ... in a matter involving the conduct of government officials, a government lawyer may have authority under applicable law to question such conduct more extensively than that of a lawyer for a private organization in similar circumstances. Thus, when the client is a governmental organization, a different balance may be appropriate between maintaining confidentiality and assuring that the wrongful act is prevented or rectified, for public business is involved. So you aren't the client ... are your communications still confidential? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 o RPC 1.13, comment 2: When one of the constituents of an organizational client communicates with the organization's lawyer in that person's organizational capacity, the communication is protected by Rule 1.6.... This does not mean, however, that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may not disclose to such constituents information relating to the representation except for disclosures explicitly or impliedly authorized by the organizational client in order to carry out the representation or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6. ■ For example: It is not uncommon for a Councilmember to tell him something he/she does not want everyone else to know about; this rule requires he keep communications confidential except when he is expressly/impliedly authorized to share. That duty does not go beyond confidentiality. Advisor o In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation. Mr. Taraday reviewed the City Attorney Team and areas handled by each: • Jeff Taraday o City Council meetings o Elected official advice o Land use o Litigation o Coordination/special project o Office hours twice a week Sharon Cates o Labor and employment o Contracts and ILAs o Bidding and procurement o Litigation o Disability Board o Office hours once a week Patricia Taraday o Public Records Act o Code enforcement o Litigation o Office hours once a week Beth Ford o Research o Writing legal memos o Briefing o Other litigation work o Backup meeting coverage Mr. Taraday reviewed 0 City Attorney Team Stats January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016: 0 2,942 hour worked o $511,680 in legal fees ■ Flat monthly fee regardless of hours worked o $174 average effective hourly rate • 2016 Top 10 Matters by hours worked (number in parentheses 2016 ranking) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a 10. Wall v. Edmonds (6) 84 hours 9. Finance & Admin (5) 87 hours 8. Public Works (NR) 118 hours 7. City Clerk (7) 225 hours 6. Human Resource (2) 241 hours 5. Development Services (3) 283 hours 4. Mayor's Office (10) 297 hours * includes FD 1 negotiations 3. Police (4) 305 hours 2. Blomenkamp LUPA (NR) 440 hours 1. City Council (1) 518 hours 2016 Top 6 Litigation Matters (by hours worked) 6. Bernsein (Decl/Injunc Relief) 17 hours 5. Ronald Wastewater 25 hours 4. John S. Ryan (trustee sale) 26 hours 3. 70h @ 212th (condemnation) 33 hours 2. Wall (LUPA) 84 hours 1. Blomenkamp (LUPA) 440 hours • Litigation completed by Lighthouse in 2016 and result o Wall v. Edmonds LUPA ■ Dismissed after hearing on the merits o Three Graces Condemnation (76th & 212th) ■ Settled for $273,000 o RJ Willy Condemnation (228th Street) ■ Settled for $65,000 o John S Ryan ■ Stipulation resulting in payment of city's lien o Deutsch Bank Trust Co ■ Stipulation resulting in payment of city's lien o Green Tree Servicing ■ Stipulation resulting in payment of city's lien o US Bank v. Yamasaki ■ Stipulation resulting in payment of city's lien Pending litigation with Lighthouse o Blomenkamp v. Edmonds ■ Blomenkamp's appeal of superior court decision in favor of city pending before Division 1 of the Washington State Court of Appeals o Bernstein v. Edmonds ■ City's motion to dismiss was drafted but not filed; case put on hold; seeking voluntary dismissal o Ronald Wastewater ■ City's motion to intervene in King County Superior Court case granted; currently waiting on Growth Management Hearings Board decision before case proceeds further... WCIA Coverage o Claims arising from alleged: o Employment related action, e.g. retaliation and harassment o Police excessive force o Land use damage o Auto liability o Defective street or sidewalk Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a o Sewer obstruction o Premises liability o Other negligence WCIA Pending Litigation o Soule: Claim of excessive force; tried this November in federal court; verdict for City; Plaintiff's attorneys have withdrawn; Plaintiff Pro Se has filed a notice of appeal. o Sackville: Claim of discrimination against police officer by other officers; MSJ of defendants to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Trial is set for June 5, 2017. o Matera: Claim of injury and emotional damages from her having sex with former police officer while in custody; Snohomish County Superior Court; no trial date set. o La Porte: Claim related to flood damage to residence at 921 Daley St. o Sly: Claim of injured bicyclist that City had duty to maintain trail. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Taraday for including the insurance claims, information citizens have requested in the past. She asked if he had any fiduciary responsibility to disclose the amount of money or was that disclosed once the claim was settled. Mr. Taraday answered with regard to pending litigation, he is happy to discuss it in executive session or to coordinate with WCIA's appointed counsel to attend an executive session or provide him an update. He has a duty to inform the Council about settlement offers. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a citizen's request to disclose the cost once cases are completed. She was interested in how much was spent on public records requests, noting the City recently received a very large request. Mr. Taraday responded the slide regarding the top 10 matters in 2016 is intended to illustrate how the City Attorney resources are used. He noted the vast majority of the 225 attorney hours for the City Clerk's Office in 2016 were related to public records. That amount does not include the hours spent by the full-time person in the Clerk's Office who responds to public records requests or the City Clerk who oversees that process. He agreed public records requests were a fairly significant utilizer of resources. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in the costs. Mr. Taraday advised WCIA provides a quarterly or annual report with all their open claims and attorney fees incurred by WCIA's appointed counsel. That report could be provided to the City Council attached to a confidential memo. Most of that information would not be appropriate for release to the public. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the City is able to recover attorney fees or court costs when there is a settlement in the City's favor. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on the nature of the lawsuit. There are few instances where the City Attorney can collect legal fees for prevailing in lawsuits. There is a rule in land use litigation that if the City prevails at three successive stages, after winning at the third stage, attorney fees are available but he believed it was only for the final stage. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Taraday answered under CR 11, the court can award attorney fees or sanctions or both for frivolously filed lawsuits. Councilmember Tibbott asked how Edmonds' cases compared to other cities. Mr. Taraday referred to the list of WCIA pending litigation, explaining although he represented other municipal clients, he did not represent enough other cities to be able speak at a macro level. He recalled a WCIA representative provided a report at a previous Council retreat regarding how Edmonds compared to other cities of its size. If the Council was interested in hearing that again, WCIA could make a presentation to the Council or provide a report. In establishing premiums, WCIA compares the risk profile, risk history, etc. of cities of similar size. The risk history does not include only judgments but also attorney fees WCIA paid to their appointed law firms; even if the city won the case, attorney fees are counted against its loss history. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 4.2.a Councilmember Tibbott summarized WCIA would be a good resource for that information. Mr. Taraday agreed, especially if the Council was interested in that information at a macro level and how Edmonds compared to other cities. For example the strength of the Planning Department in fighting off land use judgments; he noted there has not been a land use damage claim judgment since Lighthouse has been the City Attorney. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Laura Johnson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for considering the Safe City Resolution condemning bullying, intimidation, profiling, harassment, or any other acts of hate based on age, faith, race, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, ability, ethnicity, housing status, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other social status. She thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for standing up for all residents of Edmonds and introducing this resolution. She gave special thanks to Councilmember Teitzel, recalling when he was campaigning for City Council, he enlightened her on the challenges faced in Edmonds by the homeless population and the large Ethiopian immigrant community. She appreciated his work with both communities and recognized the importance of the resolution to him. She said the resolution is a very necessary statement because hate crimes are on the rise. When hate has been emboldened, we must stand up and speak out against it. Sadly, this type of hateful rhetoric, anti - immigrant and anti -Islamic behavior is present in Edmonds. It is inherent on each of us to take a stand against this type of behavior creeping into the community and to loudly proclaim we will not accept it; this resolution does just that. She asked audience members present in support of a loving, inclusive, diverse and accepting Edmonds to stand; many members of the audience stood. She commented this was her kind of Edmonds; a community where we stand up for all our neighbors. Carol McMahon, Lynnwood, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer for Lynnwood 7, the 32nd Legislative District Democrat PCO Coordinator for Lynnwood, Snohomish County Democratic Central Committee Woman for 32nd Legislative District Democrats and member of South Snohomish County Diversity Council, retired, and head of a multigenerational household shared her concerns as neighbors and regular consumers of business services sold by Edmonds merchants. Although her family does not always think alike, they vote and as voters they agree on one thing, human rights that include social economic, racial and environmental justice. The school district is currently reinforcing anti -bullying and the Pledge of Allegiance, which enforce human rights. She expects it from others and will defend it for others. The company from which she recently retired takes leadership very seriously; every project/program begins with the leader setting the tone of what will take place. It is critical to do so because it aligns those who are working together toward success of a common goal. The U.S. President- elect will do the same in the next couple days, setting the tone for his administration's goals for the next four years, some say a generation or more. It appears the tone he has set has normalized or legitimized racist and violent behavior, not what she and her family value. She cited a key passage in resolution, condemn bullying, intimidation, profiling, harassment, or any other acts of hate that are based on age, faith, race, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, ability, ethnicity, housing status, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other social status. The City Council as leaders have this opportunity to set the tone for Edmond and to influence the surrounding communities. She urged the Council to pass the resolution. Lala Wakefield, Edmonds, explained she and her husband chose to purchase a home in Edmonds about five years ago to raise their family. Her husband accepted a job in downtown Edmonds, her two children will attend Edmonds public schools, she is starting a business in Edmonds, her family shops and recreates in Edmonds, and she has served on the preschool board and fundraised for the preschool. She provided this information about her life to describe who she is, not an activist or a liberal but a neighbor. The resolution is very powerful for someone like her, a woman of color with mixed race children and who has experienced racist bigotry in this community. This resolution is a start toward something meaningful so she can walk with her head held high and continue to feel confident in her neighborhood. For any in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 4.2.a opposition, she asked them to consider her, as their neighbor, and stand with her, a person like them with the same concerns and goals. Anne Ostrom, Lynnwood, commented she knows the people in this area and their values and has watched the area grow and become more diverse. People teach their children to be safe, that there is no room for bullying, discrimination due to race, county origin, religion, gender choice, or any other difference. In 2001 the U.S. suffered a devastating attack from a foreign country. As the U.S. began to heal, safeguards were instituted to prevent another attack and since then there have been no attack by a foreign entity on U.S. soil. There have been lone wolves who commit crimes and try to put the face of Muslim people on it, but that is a lie. Of the 30 major mass murders in U.S. history since 1949, only one was committed by a Muslim; Muslims are not the problem. Transgender people are blamed for crimes that do not exist, people are excluded because of their race or religion, and people try to protect themselves from contact with cultures they do not know enough about but that needs to stop; we are more alike than different. A paraeducator in the Edmonds School District, she sees the diversity of the population. In looking at the children and their families, she does not see them as a threat. The threat in society today is racism, discrimination, hate and intolerance. This community has the opportunity to stand up and say we respect and accept everyone regardless of who they are, where they came from or what god they pray to. She cited the inscription on the Statute of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest -tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" She commented we are the gold door; Edmonds has the rare opportunity to make a similar statement, openly embrace diversity, condemn racism, prejudice, intolerance and hate. Edmonds can lead by example by treating all its citizens and visitors equally and let everyone know Edmonds is a place to celebrate diversity. She urge citizens, City Council and everyone here to declare in one voice that this City values all of its citizens. Kassie Goforth and son Jack, Edmonds, expressed her support for the resolution. To people in the audience who may be opposed to the resolution and may have felt rejection when audience members stood, she was hopeful they would not feel that way by the end of the meeting. The resolution is for everyone in Edmonds, people of all faiths, political persuasions, and ethnicities; it is as inclusive for those who disagree as people who agree. She referred to her 8-year old son, commenting she also has a 1-year old son who is a person of color. She saw the resolution helping her in her worries for her sons and preparing her son who is a person of color for the things he may face, things she will never have to prepare her 8-year old son for. This resolution shows that her community supports her son who is a person of color as much as it supports her 8-year old son and that both can feel safe in the community. The resolution is nothing extreme; it gives children an equal opportunity and values them for who they are. Many schools, communities and counties have adopted similar resolutions and she supported the Council adopting a resolution similar to the one that children are required to abide by in school. She thanked the City Council for supporting her 1-year old and her 8-year old in considering this resolution. Mushkir Davig, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to the resolution, not because she was opposed to the American values it cites but because it is already implied, the U.S. is a sanctuary country and a sanctuary city is unnecessary. She was opposed to and insulted by the resolution because the premise behind the resolution is that America is a terrible and unjust place and Edmonds is going to protect everyone from this terrible country. The United States is a great country and the world see us as a sanctuary country; the poor, the downtrodden, the persecuted come to the U.S. If the U.S. is such a terrible country, why is there an immigration problem and why don't thousands want to leave the U.S.? The U.S. is a wonderful and just country; it is not perfect because humans create flawed things. She acknowledged there are occasional problems and discrimination but there are laws to address that. She felt the resolution was a Sanctuary City Resolution and there was an implied threat that if the City Council did not like the federal law, they would not follow it. She agreed legal immigrants have enriched the culture and our lives and made our country strong. She felt the premise of the resolution was insulting Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 4.2.a to veterans who have fought for the country and she found the timing very suspect. If this country is so awful, she questioned why the resolution was not proposed eight years ago. She anticipated the people supporting the resolution were angry about the election results and under the delusion that the democratic election process was only valid if their guy/gal/law won. She reported having her tires flattened and her Trump sign vandalized. She often hears how awful Trump is, commenting people have been misled and need to look further than what they have been told. She found the resolution very insulting, commenting no one is against human rights and this country is not against human rights. Ed Dorame, Edmonds, Chair of Diversity Commission, voiced support for the Safe City Resolution. He believed approving the resolution gives the Council the opportunity to send a hopeful message to the citizens of Edmonds that the City will condemn bullying, intimidation, profiling, harassment, or any other acts of hate that are based on age, faith, race, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, physical ability, ethnicity, housing status, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other social status. He posed several questions as examples: • Have you ever been harassed or bullied because of the color of your skin? Some citizens have. • Have you ever been told you do not belong in Edmonds because of your nationality or religion? Same citizens have. • Have you ever been harassed or bullied because of who you love and the person you married? This has happened and is a reality for some gay citizens. • Have you ever been not waited on or taken to the back of a restaurant because of your nationality or color of your skin. Some citizens have. • Have you ever been refused service by an Uber driver because they did not want your seeing eye dog in their car? This happened to a former Diversity Commission member. He also had a bus driver drive by him knowing he couldn't see and anticipating he would not make a ruckus. He concluded these are some of the stories he has heard this past year as a member of the Diversity Commission and he was sure there were many more stories. Although the resolution is mostly a symbolic gesture, it's important because it lets Edmonds citizens know that the Council believes Edmonds is a welcoming, inclusive and safe community for all who live, work and visit. He urged the Council to approve the resolution. Rhienn Davis, Edmonds, urged the Council to adopt the Safe City Resolution as this designation sends the important message that Edmonds welcomes diversity, respects and loves all people regardless of ethnicity, lifestyle, creed or religion. Multicultural families like hers and those of her friends and neighbors live this message daily and wish to make it a formal declaration. Regardless of one's political leanings, living in fear of those we deem "others," people who may not look, believe or even speak like we do, only serves to isolate and divide the community and encourage discrimination. She urged the Council to send the message that Edmonds is a loving, diverse, inclusive community by designating Edmonds as a safe city. Julie Shayne, Edmonds, an 11-year resident with 2 children in the Edmonds School District, and a professor at the University of Washington Bothell, thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for introducing this resolution. She did not think the resolution goes far enough and despite what another speaker said, it is not a sanctuary resolution. She said Edmonds as well as the State of Washington should declare themselves as sanctuaries. She said the Southern Poverty Law Center received 1,094 reports of bias -related incidents in the month immediately following the election. The student body at UW Bothell is incredibly diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, social class and citizenship; she has been terrified for her students, especial her Muslim women and undocumented students. No one should have to live in fear simply because of the way they look, the religion they practice or the nations from which they hail. The Safe City Resolution is entirely symbolic, but in the face of such a real climate of hate, a citywide statement of safety matters. She read two points from the resolution, written in their opposite form, and asked Councilmembers to think about whether that was that the City stood for, "We do not recognize an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 13 4.2.a uphold the rights of individuals to be treated fairly and to live their lives with dignity free from discrimination or profiling because of their faith, race, national origin or immigration status. We strongly support bullying, intimidation, profiling, harassment, or any other acts of hate that are based on age, faith, race, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, physical ability, ethnicity, housing status, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other social status." If those revisions sound offensive to the Council, she urged them to support the resolution as presented as a non -partisan vote of empathy and compassion. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS A SAFE CITY Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read the resolution into the record, commenting there has been a lot of misinformation in the past 4-5 days regarding the resolution: A resolution declaring the City of Edmonds to be an equitable, safe, and inviting community for everyone who lives in, works in, and visits Edmonds WHEREAS, as City Council of the City of Edmonds, it is an honor and privilege to serve our community, and it is our utmost responsibility to uphold the rights and freedoms of the families and individuals we represent, and WHEREAS, we have heard from community members who have concerns about their safety and wellbeing and the safety and wellbeing of their family members, friends, and neighbors, and WHEREAS, with this Resolution, we affirm the following commitments to our residents: • We believe that the strength and vitality of our community comes from our rich diversity of cultures, experiences, and faiths and we celebrate thatdiversity. • We recognize and uphold the rights of individuals to be treated fairly and to live their lives with dignity, free from discrimination or profiling because of their faith, race, national origin, or immigration status. • We are committed to ensuring that Edmonds remains a welcoming, inclusive, and safe community for all who live, work, and visitEdmonds. • We strongly condemn bullying, intimidation, profiling, harassment, or any other acts of hate that are based on age, faith, race, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, ability, ethnicity, housing status, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other social status. • We will continue to work, in cooperation with our community partners, to ensure our services and social programs are accessible and open to all individuals. • We believe that, as elected representatives of the people of Edmonds, we have a special responsibility to speak out against hate and discrimination against any of our residents, and we choose to be a leader in protecting human rights, equity, public safety, and social wellbeing; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the above -cited commitments, we created the Edmonds Diversity Commission in 2015 and continue to support the Commission's programs and activities intended to carry out its mission, which is codified at ECC 10.65.040 as follows: A. Serve as a commission for city government and the community byproviding information, education, and communication that facilitates understanding of diversity and to celebrate and respect individual differences. B. Recommend to the mayor and city council diversity opportunities to promote programs, and provide guidance to assure an accessible, safe, welcoming and inclusive government and community. C. Support, challenge, and guide government and the community to eliminate and prevent all forms ofdiscrimination. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 14 4.2.a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL as follows: Section 1. The City Council is committed to making Edmonds an equitable, safe, and inviting community for everyone who lives in, works in, or visits Edmonds. Section 2. The City Council is committed to joining with the people of Edmonds in opposing hate, violence, or any acts of intolerance committed against our community members. Section 3. The City Council is committed to continuing our work to reach out to and connect with all members of our community to ensure that our programs and services are accessible and open to all individuals. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1381, A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO BE AN EQUITABLE, SAFE, AND INVITING COMMUNITY FOR EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN, WORKS IN, AND VISITS EDMONDS TO Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was sorry Ms. Davig had her personal possessions vandalized, stating Edmonds was no place for that regardless of which side someone is on any issue; violence and harassment was not acceptable. As a member of the Diversity Commission, she proposed this resolution due to a number of vandalism incidents in Edmonds in schools and on private property by individuals "splurting" hate. The resolution is one way the Council can stand up for citizens' expectation that the Council stands against that kind of behavior. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who attended the meeting and those who spoke. She read all the emails; after being gone for the weekend, she returned to find 78 emails. She noted some may have confused sanctuary city with safe city. She thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for bringing the resolution forward. She supported the resolution which is intended for all to feel safe. Councilmember Teitzel agreed everything Edmonds does should be based on the notion of acceptance, respect and inclusion. Whether someone is a resident or visitor, they deserve human dignity. He asked for clarification that the intent of the resolution was not intended to be a Sanctuary City Resolution. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed. Councilmember Teitzel asked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas the practical effect of the resolution, whether the Police Department would be asked to take any particular action. For example, some cities have said they will not do the federal government's work with regard to monitoring whether an immigrant is documented or not. It was his understanding the resolution did not address that issue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the resolution is not a Sanctuary City Resolution. With regard to what the Council will do, the Council will write articles, call department heads, and do whatever needs to be done to protect citizens; the resolution does not give direction to anyone except the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel said he also received a large number emails, many in support and some in opposition who were concerned about sanctuary city. He emphasized this is not a Sanctuary City Resolution; it is a Safe City Resolution and he supported the resolution's vision of acceptance, respect and inclusion. Council President Pro Tem Nelson thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for introducing the resolution, finding it very timely and important and he wholeheartedly supported it. He shared an excerpt from an Edmonds citizen's email who had concerns about the resolution, "I strongly feel Edmonds should fix potholes, balance the budget and keep the water flowing and not concern itself with social engineering. If some Edmonds residents want to help out undocumented non -citizens, they can quietly invite them to live in their homes, not involve City government in their mission." To that person, Council President Pro Tem Nelson said this is America, we don't leave people on the side of the road. We lend a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a hand, we help one another, we love thy neighbor. A city government does not get to choose who to help, we are obligated to protect all who come into the city limits, especially those who need more protection, not less. Those that are currently being targeted because they look different or sound different, are being harassed, threatened and hurt. People in our city and in neighboring communities have been exposed to hatred from perfect strangers because of their race. Some bystanders have sat silently witnessing this; others have looked the other way. Any community who has suffered acts of hate will tell you, silence signals acceptance. He assured he would not be silent and look the other way; he will speak up for those who are afraid to speak, stand up for them and say, you are in Edmonds now, our city is safe for all our residents regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or immigration status. For anyone who wants to spew hate and fear, he will tell them to go somewhere else, not in our town and not on my watch. Councilmember Tibbott said the resolution affirms what he has seen in every Councilmember; although Councilmembers have differences and voice them with energy, the Council stands for and affirms the statements in the resolution. He was proud to support the resolution, and was thankful if he stood to stop an incident, his fellow Councilmember would be with him. He was concerned there would be an implication on law enforcement and inquired with Police Chief Compaan whether the resolution would have any impact on law enforcement. Chief Compaan said no, and stated in all the years he has worked in Edmonds, there has never been a sustained complaint of any discriminatory or profiling activity; it is simply not part of the culture of the agency. The Edmonds Police Department has a diverse police force with various ages, colors and persuasions. Councilmember Tibbott said he also received many emails including some who wanted to go further and adopt a sanctuary statement. He urged those citizens to continue to lead the way, do their work as a private citizens, invite refugees and immigrants into their homes, do what they can as a citizen and involve their neighbors in extending the rights and privileges of American citizens. Councilmember Johnson thanked everyone who attended tonight's meeting and those who expressed their views. She received 53 emails and comments of which 10 were absolutely opposed. Part of the opposition was they did not want Edmonds to be a sanctuary city, they did not want Edmonds to be lawless, ignore federal laws and harbor illegal refugees. She assured that is not what this resolution is about. The resolution is a baby step, reaffirming the values and the general nature of the City of Edmonds, the friendliest city in the state that has always been tolerant and welcoming. She hoped everyone would leave the meeting with a sense of inclusion. She expressed her support for the resolution. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged the public to read the article Police Chief Compaan wrote about a month ago in the local newspaper. She has heard the call for a sanctuary city and urged one step at a time, slow down and consider what you are really trying to improve. She anticipated the issue of a sanctuary city could arise in the future as another Councilmember was interested in forming a sanctuary city. She thanked the audience for attending, recognizing how hard it is to attend on a weeknight. She appreciated the members of other cities who attended, commenting all as one is how we will make the world a better place to live. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros declared a brief recess. 2. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT Economic Development/Community explained the Snohomish Health District, founded in 1959, provides public health -related services throughout Snohomish County. From 1967 until the early 1990s local municipalities provided per -capita contributions to help fund the Health District, after which time the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 16 4.2.a County assumed financial responsibility for the Health District, relying on a portion of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues. In 2000 the Washington State Legislature repealed the MVET and backfilled only 90% of the lost public health funds. As a result, together with population growth, inflationary costs for services, etc., the Health District has experienced a 22% decrease in funding since 2005 while the county population has increased by 14% since then. Consequently, the Snohomish Health District ranks 34th out of 35 local health districts in the state. In order to continue to provide vital public health -related services to communities throughout the County, including Edmonds, in 2016 the Health District approached the County and each of the cities with a request for a per -capita financial contributions for 2017. As a result of deliberations during the budget process, the Council -approved 2017 Budget includes an appropriation of $40,900 (equaling $1 per capita of the Edmonds population per the April 2016 OFM population estimate) to the Snohomish Health District. The attached Interlocal Agreement between the Snohomish Health District and the City of Edmonds formalizes the City's contribution to the Health District for 2017, with no additional future commitment at this time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR EARLING TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was elected Chair of the Health District for 2017 and will be able to provide information later this year regarding the Health District's finances. She summarized things may be improving. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. EDMONDS FISHING PIER OWNERSHIP Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is the first discussion at Council to consider ownership of the Edmonds Fishing Pier. The City has been in partnership with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) since 1976 for operation of the pier, originally a three-way partnership between the Port, City and WDFW. The fishing pier was originally on Port property and is now located on an WDFW easement. WDFW built the pier and the City has maintained it since 1976. WDFW has been interested in giving the fishing pier to the City of Edmonds. Although the pier has been a huge asset to the community, the City declined discussions about ownership in recent years due to the need for capital repairs. Following a successful partnership with WDFW over the past 3-4 to secure $1.9 million to make the necessary repairs, the City is in a better place to consider ownership of the pier. The biggest benefit to the City in taking over ownership is local control. When funding was being sought for the repairs during the past 3-4 years and when a funding source for costs overruns was unknown, WDFW mentioned closing pier if it could not be repaired. Closing the pier would be huge a loss to the waterfront and downtown community. The repairs are nearly completed with the exception of 1-2 punchlist items. She sought direction from the Council whether to explore transfer of the fishing pier with WDFW and to present the Council appropriate paperwork. She displayed several photographs of rehabilitated pier and relayed an anecdotal story that during squid fishing season the past month, there have been 300-500 people on the pier at night between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. fishing for squid which required staffing. It is a hugely popular pier, provide opportunity for a lot of fishing and it brings people to Edmonds. Councilmember Teitzel asked what happens if the City declines to take ownership of the pier and it is subsequently damaged, whether the State would demolish it. Ms. Hite answered the pier has another 40 year lifespan due to the repairs that were made. At the end of 40 years, it would be up to the State whether Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a to pursue grants to repair it again. At that point, there would be discussion similar to what has occurred over the past couple years when WDFW said they would close the pier unless funding could be identified for the repairs. Councilmember Teitzel asked what additional capital expenses the City would be obligated to if the City takes over ownership. Ms. Hite answered neither the City nor WDFW have made any major capital contributions since 1976. The City does the daily maintenance including replacing some electrical wiring, plumbing, and benches. The primary capital cost of the pier is the structure; now that the structural rehabilitation has been completed, the pier is expected last another 40 years. She did not expect a large amount of capital 'investment over the next 40 years. In 40 years the City will need to identify funding such as pursuing grants. The pier is a regional asset and as one of last fishing piers on Puget Sound from Seattle to Everett, there is a great deal of support from the State. Other options include setting aside capital funds annually so that funds are available for rehab in 40 years or continuing to maintain it and in 30 years, begin a process of identifying a financial package to rehab the pier. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented when cleaning out her refrigerator today, she discovered a bowl of squid. She acknowledged the dock is well used for crabbing, shrimping, fishing for salmon and bottom fish, etc. Another advantage to City ownership of the pier would be the City establishing the rules. Ms. Hite agreed, noting it would still be under the jurisdiction of WDFW for licensing and WDFW will continue to enforce licensing. She agreed the City would have control of the hours, behavior on the pier, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the fishing pier is an asset to the City; hundreds use the pier, many of whom come into the city and spend money. Council President Pro Tern Nelson said the fishing pier is a wonderful addition to City. The City already maintains it and might as well have local control of it. The pier has just been retrofitted and he supported the City doing whatever it could to acquire it. Councilmember Johnson said she is very fond of the fishing pier, having spent many long nights jigging for squid with young relatives. She inquired about a more balanced cost benefit analysis, expressing interest in more information about liability. She referred to recreational immunity and inquired who had that liability now. She was also interested in the cost to maintain the pier over 40 years, commenting the fact that it was not maintained for 40 years resulted in a large expenditure at the end for the retrofit. Ms. Hite assured the City has been maintaining the pier for the past 40 years. Councilmember Johnson suggested if major reconstruction is anticipated, the City should set aside funds. Ms. Hite agreed that was a policy question for the Council. Councilmember Johnson asked if the City's ownership of the pier would require more security and who provides that, the Parks Department or the Police Department. She supported the function the pier provides, an opportunity to fish for people without a boat. Ms. Hite answered the City's ownership of the pier would not require any more security than it does today. The City currently operates, maintains and secures the pier; WDFW is an absent owner. The pier is covered under the recreational immunity law; a claim made a year ago from a person who fell on the pier was rejected by WCIA due to recreational immunity. With regard to a cost benefit analysis, staff could provide the cost of annual maintenance as well as cost out the $1.9 million over 40 years and how much would need to be set aside annually. Ms. Hite summarized the Council's direction was to explore City ownership with the State and bring back financial information as well as information to authorize the transfer of ownership. 4. PRESENTATION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.a Public Works Director Williams explained the City has been working on an Edmonds -specific Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The City recently applied for a FEMA grant; the City needs to have an approved HMP to be eligible for the grant. Jason Biermann, Director, Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management, provided an overview of the County's planning process: • Snohomish County process began in mid-2013 • Snohomish County initial mitigation planning in 2005 • Plan required to be updated every five years o Updated in 2010 o Process began in 2013 to update the plan with anticipation of completion in 2015 • Plan is not regulatory or binding o Depending on the city, has no inherent fiscal connotations o Merely a vehicle for jurisdictions to reduce vulnerability to disasters o Opportunity to build resilience within the community o Opportunity for communities to leverage each other • Snohomish County's Plan is multijurisdictional o 38 planning partners, led by Department of Emergency Management in conjunction with Snohomish County Public Works Department ■ 18 jurisdictions/municipalities including Tribal entities ■ 16 special purpose districts • Current status of plan o FEMA approved Edmond's Annex to the Snohomish County HMP, pending local adoption • Goals of multijurisdictional team o Reduce natural hazard related injury and loss of life o Reduce property damage o Promote a sustainable community o Maintain, enhance and restore the natural environment's capacity to absorb and reduce the impacts of natural hazard events o Increase public awareness and readiness for disasters. Stormwater Engineering Technician Mike Cawrse explained the previous HMP was developed by a consortium of south Snohomish County and north King County cities and coordinated by ESCA. That plan expired in 2014. He reviewed: • Plan development o Kick off meeting with county, directors ■ Risk rating - Occurrence X impact to people/property/economy o Write the Plan ■ Review initiatives from previous HMP ■ Develop new initiatives ■ Prioritize and compile o Open house - public comment o Review of Plan by county, state, FEMA o Adoption by Council Risk priorities TABLE 6.2 Hazard Risk Rankin Risk Rating Score Description of Risk Rank Hazard Type (Probability X (Describe the community impacts) Impact) 1 Earthquake 54 Property damage to buildings and infrastructure Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 19 4.2.a 2 Severe Weather 48 Property damage due to extreme winds, rain, and flooding 3 Climate Change 18 Flooding and property damage due to sea level rise along shorelines and waterfront/downtown 3 Flood 18 Flooding and property damage along urban creeks, Lake Ballinger, shorelines and waterfront/downtown 3 Landslide Mass/ Movement 18 Property damage/loss in landslide hazard area in North Edmonds and along critical/steep slopes 4 Tsunami/Seiche 12 Property damage and flooding along shoreline and waterfront/downtown 5 Volcano 9 This risk rating pertains to ash fallout. N/A Avalanche 0 N/A Dam Failure 0 N/A Wildland Fire 0 Plan Initiatives — Table 6-7 0 23 projects; 14 from previous plan, 9 new o Programs and projects from all Departments o Proposed to mitigate variety of hazards including earthquake, severe weather, and climate change o Range of costs, variety of funding sources o Includes ongoing programs as well as short and long term proposals FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant — Dayton/SR104 Stormwater Lift Station o Mitigate climate change, flooding, and severe weather o Installed to reduce flooding in Harbor Square/Dayton St., ferry terminals, Port of Edmonds o Preliminary cost estimate of $1.5 million o Grant application for $500,000 o FEMA-approved HMP required o FEMA currently reviewing Mr. Williams said the next step is adoption of the resolution in the packet. A public hearing on the resolution and Council approval of the resolution is scheduled at next week's Council meeting. Minor tweaks can be made to the resolution; a few changes submitted by Councilmember Teitzel will be incorporated into the Plan. Major changes would require the Plan to be reviewed again by FEMA which he preferred not to do. The City's HMP must be approved by the City Council for the City to be eligible for grants. Council President Pro Tern Nelson recalled following last year's disaster drill, Cascadia Rising, the largest disaster drill ever done in the Pacific Northwest, Washington State officials said we're grossly and inadequately prepared in terms of planning and now individual citizens/residents should be prepared to provide themselves with food and water for two weeks. He acknowledged earthquake was the number one threat in Edmonds and asked if that was considered in mitigation planning. Mr. Biermann answered the Cascadia subduction zone is a large consideration in the State. He also highlighted the Crestal Fault Line, the South Whidbey Fault Line, noting study, analysis and exercises began in 2010. Quite a bit of work has been done on earthquake preparedness and response, including in the HMP, to minimize the effect of an earthquake. The Cascadia Rising outcomes were reflective of the State's realization of how epic a catastrophe that would be; local planning for earthquakes began years ago as reflected in the HMP and in response and recovery plans. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the materials indicate the Emergency Response Plan was adopted in 1981 and updated in 1998 and questioned whether that needed to be updated again. Mr. Williams said that was updated more recently, approximately three years ago. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 20 W m 3 C c r a� m c 0 c.� 0 M 0 L a a Q 00 LO ti 4.2.a document refers to the update adopted by Ordinance No. 3196. Mr. Williams said there are several documents associated with this topic including the Disaster Degree Management Plan, emergency preparedness, etc. They overlap and interrelate but are distinctive from a planning standpoint. This is the hazard mitigation piece, identifying things that could be fixed, strengthened, etc. so that when an event happens, there is less damage. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her interest in the educational aspect of emergency preparedness. Mr. Williams said it was obvious at the public meeting, despite best efforts to distinguish hazard mitigation from emergency preparedness, a lot of the questions were related to preparedness and what do during/following a disaster but were not germane to the development of the HMP. Mr. Biermann said this plan covers a distinct phase of emergency management, reducing vulnerability. His staff met with Chief Compaan during the last year to discuss the City's Emergency Response Plan and the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized some of the dates and reference to ESCA in the document may need to be updated. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether seismic retrofits would happen in the context of the CIP or in the HMP. He acknowledged some of the City's buildings were not constructed with earthquakes in mind. Mr. Williams agreed, noting the best example is the Frances Anderson Center, built in 1929 although it has had some seismic retrofits. Staff has also considered the vulnerability of the utility infrastructure and makes improvements as they are possible. Some of the City's newer buildings have a higher level of compliance for seismic vulnerability. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the plan for seismic retrofits. Mr. Williams explained as an example, during preliminary engineering for a coating project for the Five Corners reservoirs, the seismic design was researched to determine necessary updates. It was difficult to find the relevant documents and there was concern at times that one or more of the reservoirs would need to be torn down. Staff recently found sufficient documentation to avoid that and will continue with the coating project. He summarized it is facility by facility and asset by asset. As those projects are identified, they will be added to the CIP. Councilmember Tibbott summarized his understanding was seismic retrofits were part of the maintenance schedule. Mr. Williams answered often it can be delayed until the asset is replaced or has a major upgrade. Mr. Biermann said the HMP allows Edmonds to compete for mitigation funding for those projects. Mr. Williams referred to the City's waterline replacement program, most of which are cast iron. hi an event like was anticipated in Cascadia Rising, cast iron pipes could shatter. As that replacement program proceeds, more of the City's waterlines will be ductal iron pipe which is far more resistant. Councilmember Johnson referred to the $500,000 grant and asked the source of the other $1 million. Mr. Williams said the project is at 60% design and it is assumed construction will be $1.5 million. The City has already secured $500,000 via a low interest loan from Snohomish County and the remaining $500,000 will come from currently available stormwater rate revenue. Councilmember Johnson asked the timeline for implementation. Mr. Williams anticipated design will be completed in the first half of 2017 and a request for bids will follow. Councilmember Johnson referred to Table 6.3, Legal and Regulatory Capability, noting three subject areas indicate there is not an adopted plan, the first, a Floodplain or Basin Plan. Mr. Cawrse said Building Inspector Leif Bjorback said the City does not have those plans. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the table is intended to indicate regulatory capability and she was interested in the local regulatory capability. She recalled discussions a few years ago about doing a floodplain analysis for the Edmonds Marsh but those funds were reallocated to another project. That would be important information especially due to efforts to daylight Willow Creek and improve stormwater controls. Mr. Williams said the project is identified in the HMP. The pump station will assist with structure flooding in that area and will score well in the grant process. Mr. Cawrse said one of initiatives is to seek updated floodplain information. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 17 Packet Pg. 21 4.2.a Development Services Director Shane Hope said there are floodplain regulations in the building code. Mr. Cawrse offered to confer will Mr. Bjorback. Councilmember Johnson commented Table 6.3 also indicates there is no adopted habitat conservation plan and suggested that be investigated further. The table also indicates there are no adopted regulations related to real estate disclosure. Mr. Cawrse offered to research. Councilmember Johnson commented the highest ranked projects are related to climate change, flood and severe weather which she found a good focus due to the City's location in a seismically active and coastal area. Councilmember Teitzel observed the hazards in this context are natural disasters. He noted another hazard in Edmonds is the explosion of an oil train on the waterfront. He asked if there was a nexus in planning for natural hazards and a hazard such as an oil train explosion. Mr. Cawrse advised that would be addressed in the Emergency Preparedness Plan as it would be related to response versus planning. Mr. Biermann said there was a conscious decision made with the HMP to focus on natural hazards. 5. REVIEW OF APPOINTMENT PROCESS IN CHAPTER 10.95 ECC FOR TREE BOARD Development Services Director Shane Hope Tree Board explained staff is seeking direction to amend the code to clarify the Tree Board appointment process. The Edmonds Citizen Tree Board was created in late 2010 by an ordinance codified in the Edmonds municipal code as Chapter 10.95. Per the code, each City Councilmember was to appoint one citizen to the Tree Board and the Council President or Mayor would appoint an alternate. For the first two years, it appeared this process was followed. Then a new process began that was not consistent with the code whereby the full Council appointed each Tree Board position that arose. Another issue is the term of appointment; the existing code language is somewhat confusing, in one place stating subsequent terms will be four years and also stating each subsequent term shall conform with the appointing Councilmember. The packet contains the existing code chapter as well as the appointment history and several questions to guide revisions to the code such who makes appointments (individual Councilmembers or full Council), term of appointments (2 or 4 years or tied to the appointing Councilmember), and whether the number of terms are limited. If the Council wants to have the full Council make appointments, consideration could also be given to whether to continue with the same number of Tree Board members. Councilmember Buckshnis said her preference is no term limits, using the example of Dale Hoggins who served on the Cemetery Board for 20 years. With regard to the appointment process, she had no problem with each Councilmember making an appointment but also would not have a problem with the Tree Board selecting board members which is done by the Diversity Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the process for removing a board member if there were no term limits. Ms. Hope answered it would be the same process for all boards and commissions such as unexcused absence or other inappropriate action. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the Tree Board wants to do. Ms. Hope answered they were not asked because it was viewed as a Council decision. All the existing Tree Board members are enthusiastic and interested in continuing. There are currently seven members; the appointments of four have expired and one position and the alternate are vacant. She suggested once the code is revised, the four board members be reappointed to clarify their terms. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said one of reasons the Diversity Commission appoints their own members is to ensure there is balance. The Diversity Commission is the only commission that self - appoints. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 18 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.a Councilmember Tibbott referred to code language regarding board members having interest/experience in in urban forestry, horticulture, etc. and could be arborists, botanists, horticulturists, etc. As the Tree Board is also involved in community engagement, planning events and has an educational component, he suggested in addition to those interests, it may be valuable to have board members with the capability/interest in community engagement. He recommend adding that to the list of experience/interest. Councilmember Tibbott asked what size board would be the most functional for carrying out the Tree Board's mission, envisioning 7-9 members may be larger than necessary. He would be completely satisfied with appointments being made by Council at large versus by individual Councilmembers. With regard to term limits, Councilmember Tibbott said it may be beneficial to have a reapplication every four years to allow new members to interject new vision and interest into the Tree Board. In his experience serving on boards with members with unlimited terms, some lost imagination, strategic vision, etc. after a period of time. Ms. Hope explained currently, at the end of their term, existing board members are invited to continue. If they wish to continue, the renewal is forwarded to the appointing person. Some members have chosen not to renew. That issue is addressed under the existing code. Councilmember Tibbott asked about opening the opportunity for other citizens to participate. Ms. Hope said there is always opportunity for the public to participate. Councilmember Tibbott asked Councilmember Buckshnis if the reappointment process had been working for the Tree Board. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Tree Board has had a revolving door; there has not been a lot of consistency. One person who has been on the board for more than two years would like to stay another few years. She preferred if a board member wanted to remain, they be allowed to continue. During the past year, the Tree Board removed two members due to absences. The Tree Board seeks help from citizens for events like Arbor Day. Councilmember Johnson did not have a preference and preferred to do what was expedient. Her overriding concern was the inconsistency between all boards and commissions and preferred to continue to finetune so that there was more consistency. She noted the Arts Commission also self -nominates. Whatever works now for the Tree Board was okay with her but she wanted the appointment process for all to be consistent. She suggested the Council/Legislative Assistant could do an analysis of all boards and commissions. Ms. Hope commented it would be appropriate to research the City's codes regarding boards and commission but not necessarily all at once. She pointed out it was a delicate balance and there were reasons not to have consistency. Another issue with the Tree Board is the meeting location is not specified in the code; the location needs to be specified so meetings are not considered special meetings. Councilmember Johnson said the analysis would be helpful to remind the Council who makes the appointments. Ms. Hope said most boards and commission have a staff member who takes the lead in preparing information. For a while the Tree Board did not have that consistency; there is now a process but some gaps in the code need to be clarified. Council President Pro Tem Nelson commented if all Tree Board members had been serving for ten years, he might be interested in term limits. However, turnover provides an opportunity for new board members and he did not find term limits necessary. With regard to the one -size -fits -all approach, he recognized some differences may be necessary. Ms. Hope asked for consensus regarding who appoints Tree Board members, whether individual Councilmembers or the full Council. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the most important thing was not having term limits. Either way of making appointments was okay with her. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 19 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a Ms. Hope relayed what she heard was continuing with individual appointments, four year renewable terms, no limit on the number of terms, and any technical corrections such as adding the meeting location. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested instead of individual Council appointments, the Council confirm appointments. She had no opinion regarding whether they self -appoint or submit an application. Councilmember Tibbott asked what was the right size for the Tree Board. If the right number is seven, each Councilmember can make an appointment. The Board may prefer to self -appoint based on experience/education as individual Councilmembers may not have enough knowledge of Tree Board activities to know what expertise is needed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her suggestion was not individual Council appointments. She preferred to use the same process that is used for most appointments where the Council confirms appointments. With regard to the size of the board, she recalled in the past, it was rare that more than 4-5 members attended meetings. Councilmember Buckshnis commented board members attend most meetings. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding she would appoint the vacant position for a four year term. Ms. Hope said Councilmember Johnson could make the appointment tonight and after the code is adopted, all the positions could be reappointed. In the interim, the Board is not taking any official action. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred once an individual Councilmember selects someone, the Council interview the person and they are confirmed on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Tibbott recalled for the Planning Board vacancy, a notice was published, citizens applied and were interviewed by Mayor Earling, Mayor Earling made a recommendation, and the individual was interviewed and confirmed by the Council. Ms. Hope said there are 2-3 different ways commission/board members are appoint. For example, some are interviewed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council; for the Economic Development Commission, individual Councilmembers make appointments. Councilmember Tibbott asked what would work best for the Tree Board, individual Councilmember appointment or the process used for the Planning Board. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the easiest would be to have individual Councilmembers appoint Tree Board members and the alternate selected by the current Council President. Once the selection is made, the person can meet with the Council and the appointment confirmed. That process was the consensus of the Council. 6. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECOMMENDATION LETTER Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros relayed the City received a letter from the Department of Ecology today regarding the Shoreline Management Program. The January 24 agenda includes a presentation from Ecology on the letter. Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed Ecology staff briefed her, Senior Planner Kemen Lien, Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros and Council President Pro Tem Nelson. The letter received today states Ecology is okay with the recommendations from City Council regarding proposed changes to the draft SMP other than the buffers affecting the Harbor Square area where Ecology would like to have something more flexible at this stage and lock in more certainty with scientific study at the time of a development proposal. In some ways that corresponds to what was said by the public and Councilmembers, having a site specific, science based study without locking in the exact buffers in the plan. That would be subject to Council discussion. Ecology has requested a response by March 30, 2017. Ecology is eager to get the City's SMP updated; the current SMP is dated 2000, 17 years old. The SMP followed a huge amount of work and is acknowledged by nearly everyone to be of high quality, helping to improve conditions in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 20 Packet Pg. 24 4.2.a community to deal with climate change and other issues. Ecology staff will be present to explain and answer questions at the January 24 meeting and the Council can decide how to proceed. Councilmember Johnson recalled during the SMP process a new report was discovered and it was agreed consideration needed to be given to updating the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO). She asked about the timeline for that update. Ms. Hope assumed it would be done mid -late 2017 because there are so many other things going on. Perhaps at the retreat, the Council could discuss how it ranks with other priorities. Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros requested all Councilmembers be provided a copy of Ecology's letter. Ms. Hope advised the letter was emailed to all Councilmembers and staff also issued a press release. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE - 2017 ALTEC 40FT BUCKET TRUCK Public Works Director Phil Williams advised this is a normal replacement of a vehicle with a 17-year old lift. The new bucket truck will be purchased from Altec with funds in 51113 replacement fund. The cost including shipping is $131,300. The reason for accomplishing this at one meeting is the truck has a 330 day build quote and the intent is to have it done by the end of 2017. Council President Pro Tern Nelson asked why it takes 330 days to build the bucket truck and whether it will be customized. Mr. Williams answered none of the trucks are built in advance. Most City vehicles include custom options. Lynnwood bought the same truck last year through this national purchasing organization. The truck could be purchased under the Washington State contract but this method was less expensive. Councilmember Teitzel observed the truck will be slightly larger than the truck it replaces. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Teitzel asked if there were jobs that could not be done with the smaller truck. Mr. Williams answered yes, recalling changing the lights in two sets of signals on Highway 99 required the lift to be straight up and the technician to stand on three telephone books, not a safe situation. The new truck has four more feet of lift, making changing the lights in those signals much safer. There are more and more uses for this equipment including exterior maintenance on City buildings, decorating the Christmas tree, etc. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PURCHASE (1) 2017 ALTEC BUCKET TRUCK FROM ALTEC THROUGH NJPA PURCHASING GROUP UNDER NJPA CONTRACT #031014-ALT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros commented his debut performance as Council President was actually as Mayor Pro Tern and said he enjoyed running tonight's meeting. As Council President, he appointed Gail Lovell as the Tree Board alternate under the current process. He was pleased to serve as the Council President and was working on the agenda for the upcoming retreat. He invited input on retreat topics. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Pro Tem Nelson commended Mayor Pro Tern Mesaros for his smooth operation of the complicated sound system. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 21 Packet Pg. 25 4.2.a Councilmember Teitzel echoed Council President Pro Tem Nelson commendation of Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros. Councilmember Teitzel reported on a presentation by the Department of Ecology last week sponsored by the League of Women Voters regarding the 2015 Oil Transportation Safety Act, HB1449 that was enacted in October 2016. HB 1449 provides for advance notification to first responders when oil is transported on railways. First responders need to request they be informed; he will follow up with FDL The HB also provides for an equipment cash grant program so that equipment and supplies can be pre - staged in areas along the railway with dense population clusters to allow quick response. This is a unique bill in the nation. Councilmember Tibbott reported on an emergency preparedness meeting he attended hosted by FD 1 and a newsletter he is now subscribed to. He recommended Councilmembers and citizens subscribe to FD1's newsletter that describes how families can prepare for emergencies. One of the simple items on the to-do list is to get to know your immediate neighbors and learn their skill sets. Councilmember Johnson appointed Frank Caruso to a 4-year term on the Tree Board. She and Councilmember Teitzel interviewed him; he is highly qualified, has a PhD in plant pathology, is a Snohomish County Master Gardner, is knowledgeable about botany, horticulture, plant pathology, entomology, soils, etc. and will be an excellent addition to the Tree Board. Mayor Pro Tem Mesaros thanked the citizens who attended tonight's meeting and voiced their thoughts regarding safe cities, the City Attorney for his presentation and staff for their presentations. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 22 Packet Pg. 26 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Claim for Damages from Elana Shippen (amount undetermined). Staff Lead: Linda Hynd Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 (amount undetermined) Attachments: Shippen Claim for Damages Packet Pg. 27 RECEIVED 4.3.a JA N 0 6 M7 EDMONDS CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Rac _G -eived by City --- Please take note that C who currently resides at maifin address SO�W" home phoneqV—_77_X_—AKL3 hone #�s _ ,and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth IsQ l' is claiming damages against in the sum of $�j�P arising ut oft the fallowing circurn tances listed below �fi �i S �`i- Y►tie �� .�Qc�-v+•a1t1Y�i 5 11�ln Cer�ti DATE OF OCCURRENCE: Z I TIME: LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DESCRIPTION: Describe the conduct and circumstance tha`t brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. ..'R'- C4_ I . Ca v o U-.•ai - C_k o iv,, 5 'i a i ►a �l e_ Cc bw.p. o_ �[►� tit' �t �� t ie.Vo�s- �� �y iS I Y11 QD \ rfl 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if a able, to the ac�urren�including ame��s a d esse , and�hon`Lrbers5� l � pP p J �1 11 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. CSC_ r 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes Now If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: _ License Plate # Type Auto: (year) DRIVER: Address: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (make) (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: m E L 0 E Q Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 Packet Pg. 28 4.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * i 1' �J'm, , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the abo cow the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosyle pursuant to RCW 42.5& x x State of Washington County ofs 'gyp YY1.1.5 Signature of Claimant(s) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatFLarla t15E( X ] is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 0 l 06, ,01 r} ........, ''. Sign re k�v1�-1 U --, 'r� = ' NOTARY POBIIC" Title �jo -A V—y Pohl t C MY APPOINTMENT My appointment expires: 1 r1r,1111 S►lii� Please present the completed claim form to City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 Packet Pg. 29 4.3.a Date: January 6, 2017 Summary of Events (City of Edmonds compromising the Shippens' critical steep slope) February 2002 An application was submitted to the City of Edmonds for a Steep Slope Exemption by Anthony Shapiro to build a house on the property located at 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds (adjacent to the Shippens' property, located at 18101 Sunset Way, in Edmonds). Both the Shippens' and Shapiros' properties contain critical steep slopes. We (the Shippens) submitted a letter of concern to the City of Edmonds Planning department and raised questions/concerns regarding the slope stability and impact on our steep slope resulting from development of the adjacent lot. Independent geotech engineer, John Zipper, hired by the City of Edmonds visited the adjacent lot and studied the slope. He denied the Steep Slope Exemption, citing the location "un-buildable". March 2002 Tony Shapiro withdrew his Steep Slope Exemption application and instead applied for Reasonable Use Exemption. This type of application did not require an independent geotech engineer to review the request. April 2002 Mr. Shapiro's arborist and geotech engineers (Golder Associates) provided reports offering a plan that included extensive replanting of the construction site to stabilize the steep hill. The City of Edmonds granted Mr. Shapiro with Reasonable Use Exemption, stating that the replanting plan will stabilize the slope. I (Elana Shippen) attended the meeting with the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds on April 18, 2002 (meeting minutes/Proceeding before Donald B. Largen, Edmonds City Hearing Examiner, dated April 18, 2002 are attached). During this meeting David Cotton, Shapiro's geotech engineer, acknowledged that there was a strong concern regarding slope stability. The hearing examiner also acknowledged that the City of Edmonds would be required to take care of it (damages) under the City code. July 2002 We sent a letter of concern to the City of Edmonds on July 15, 2002 (Subject: Appeal of the "Determination of Non -significance", file No. PC-02-222letter attached). October 2002 We noticed several new large cracks on our property. We filed a land use complaint with the City of Edmonds Planning and Building department regarding the new cracks on our property, caused by the construction in Mr. Shapiro's property. The City of Edmonds Planning and Building department never responded to this complaint. m IM cc E c `o E M Go 1- IIPage. Packet Pg. 30 4.3.a October 2002, Cont., Since we never heard back from the City, we hired PanGeo geotechnical engineering firm and Scott D. Baker Consulting firm (certified arborist) to visit our property and determine the cause of the new cracks and the impact of the adjacent construction on the trees/plants on our steep slope. The following are excerpts from PanGeo geotechnical engineering firm conclusions (see attached report, dated October 14, 2002): • "The observed cracks appear to have developed recently." • "Because of the lack of natural forces that result in the formation of the cracks (i.e. significant earthquake activity or rainfall), we conclude that the E cracks developed in response to the vibration of construction equipment cc operating on the adjacent Shapiro and Colwill property to the east. " ,o • "The observed tension cracks, however, may fill with water during intense E rainstorms, which may result in,round movenrent that could affect Qlvm is 0 View Drive. " M 00 1- The following are excerpts from Scott Baker Consulting, certified arborist conclusions (see attached report, dated October 25, 2002: "The clearing of the adjacent property has caused a significant disturbance along the property line east of the Shippen's house... I would expect to see the impact to the trees show up as declining foliage density. Parts of the trees might die, and the likelihood of attack by insect pests or other pathogens increase when trees are stressed. This is due to the loss of approximately 35% of the trees' root system... " June 2004 Mr. Shapiro finished building his house but he never complied with his geotech and arborist's recommended plan to re -plant the steep slope. We filed a complaint with the City of Edmonds Planning and Building department and the City assured us in writing (see attached letters, in particular letter dated July 19, 2004) that they would make sure the planting is completed by October 2004 as Mr. Shapiro could not do his planting until the rainy season in the Fall. The City never followed through to make sure the planting was done, and the replanting did not happen. June 2009 We heard sounds of chain saws from the sloped part of our property. We saw four people with their chain saws cutting trees on our steep slope. Their foreman informed us that Mr. Shapiro had hired them to cut all the trees our steep slope, which blocked his view. He said that Mr. Shapiro had told him that our property belonged to him and NOT us. We asked the tree cutters to stop immediately. Our trees partially blocked Mr. Shapiros' view, and he had attempted several times to cut them illegally. He was caught and each time we were reimbursed as a result of court rulings. 21 Page Packet Pg. 31 4.3.a June 2009, Cont., Several days after the illegal tree cutting attempt failed, Shapiro contacted the City of Edmonds and asked them to cut our trees. Chuck Hyatt from the City of Edmonds' Public Works contacted us and notified us that Mr. Shapiro is very concerned about our trees in case of a storm and were worried that the trees will be a liability for the City of Edmonds (not because by cutting them, the City will provide Mr. Shapiro with an improved view). Within ONLY DAYS, the City of Edmonds ordered and paid for a survey, hired an arborist, and concluded that those trees were partially on the City property, and immediately proceeded to remove them. The City promised to replace the trees they removed (correspondence attached). cc After 15 months the cut trees were not replaced, despite the previous commitments o made by the City. When we contacted the City after failing for 15 months to replace — the trees, we were told there were no trees available at the time and they would be cc replaced when the trees became available. It is unimaginable that the City could not v get replacement trees for 15 month —even though the City knew that our steep slope Go was compromised. The City of Edmonds was able to inquire about our trees, order a survey, hire an arborist, and remove the trees for Mr. Shapiro —all within one month, but it could not fulfill its promise and obligation to replant the slope for 15 months and only replanted eventually because of our repeated complaints. Five years after the Shapiros moved to their new home, they still had not complied with their arborist's and geotech's plan to re -plant the steep slope. The City never cited them for their non -compliance —even though as recorded in the minutes from the office of hearing examiner for the city of Edmonds, dated April 18, 2002 it was stated that the replanting would ensure the stabilization of the steep slope. We filed another complaint with the City of Edmonds Planning and Building department (FIVE YEARS AFTER WE WERE TOLD THE SLOPE WOULD BE STABILIZED) to inquire why the city never held the Shapiros responsible and thereby endangering our steep slope. The City did not take any action —AGAIN- despite telling us (in writing — correspondence attached) that the replanting would be completed by October 2004. EVEN TODAY, 12 YEARS AFTER THE SHAPIROS MOVED INTO THEIR HOME, THE ORIGINAL REPLANTING PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, AIMED AT STABILIZING THE CRITICAL STEEP SLOPE, HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. 31 Page Packet Pg. 32 September --December 2010 We noticed that Mr. Shapiro had removed approximately 25 feet of our cyclone fence. The Shapiros started storing their personal items on our property (construction material, a large number of planting pots, and other personal items and debris). When our attorney asked the Shapiros for an explanation, Tony Shapiro responded that the City's sewer line easement ran 12 feet inside our property and his house's sewer line also connected to our home's sewer line within the City's easement and he wrongly claimed that therefore it was his right to enter and use our property, as he wished. We were shocked by this claim as we had no idea that any portion of the Shapiros' sewer line was inside our property and connected to our sewer line. We contacted the City promptly and we were told that the City had granted permission to the Shapiros to install 12 feet of their sewer line on our property. This would help the Shapiros avoid o paying for a longer line that would connect to the City's sewer line below their property. `o The City provided us with a copy of the utility easement it has on our property. The _ easement states the following: U "The City agrees to restore bluff, correct erosion, ditch drainage to the west 00 and restake lot line along easement ... The City agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during construction... " ITHIS WAS NEVER DUNE] 2) Therefore, not only did the city not restore the slope, neither did Mr. Shapiro —even though he cut three large trees on our property to install his sewer line. November 2016 We hired PanGeo again to visit the site and prepared another report (dated January 6, 2017—full report attached). In conclusion of the PanGeo report, it is stated: "...In our opinion, the slide occurred on a previously compromised slope due to some combination of natural land slide processes and man-made conditions. In particular, the heavy rains of October and early November likely played a large role in causing the slide. Clearly, however, the slide originated on the right-of- way of the City of Edmonds, and therefore stabilization and remediation is in our opinion the responsibility of the City of Edmonds. " Our worst fears have been realized and our steep slope, which was severely compromised by the City of Edmonds' mismanagement of the adjacent construction project, has finally resulted in what we had feared —a landslide that blocked Olympic View Drive for four days. 41 Page Packet Pg. 33 k 2 o c, - To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn.: Star Campbell Cc: Mayor Gary Haakenson Subject: Steep Slope Exemption for the Edmonds Property, located at 18105 Sunset Way The subject property is adjacent to our house and has been up for sale for nearly three years. We recently received a notice from the City of Edmonds, regarding the possibility of granting a steep slope exemption for this lot, to allow the construction of a single- family residence. The subject property is situated on one of the steepest slopes in Edmonds. In addition, a E small stream crosses this property. Originally, the lot was filled with trees and shrubs, but a couple of months ago a builder came in and cleared some of the trees and shrubs ° without permission from the city. Jason Tourtellot form the City of Edmonds served the E builder with a violation and asked the builder to cover the cleared areas with hay. The builder did put down a small amount of hay and responded that they needed to clear parts00 M of the land to perform geological testing, however this was done without permission from the city and therefore resulting in the violation. We are extremely concerned that clearing the majority of the trees and shrubs on this property, and building a home on such a steep slope, will adversely affect the stability of our property. In the past several years, we have watched our bank slowly erode, even though our lot is far more level than the subject lot. We believe that allowing to build on this lot will result in further deterioration of the soil and may cause significant damage to our property. Therefore, we strongly object to granting a steep slope exemption for the purpose of building a single family residence at 18105 Sunset Way in Edmonds. In the event that a steep slope exemption is granted by the city, we would like to have assurance from the City of Edmonds that our concerns are addressed regarding the possible harm and adverse effects that the development of the adjacent property may cause to our property. In addition, we need assurance that if any harm is caused to our property, in any way, due to the development of the adjacent lot, that the City, the builder, and the property owner will be held responsible for any and all damages. Sincerely, Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel: (425)778-6413 Packet Pg. 34 4.3.a To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn.: Star Campbell Cc: Mayor Gary Haakenson Subject: Steep Slope Exemption for the Edmonds Property, located at 18105 Sunset Way The subject property is adjacent to our house and has been up for sale for nearly three years. We recently received a notice from the City of Edmonds, regarding the possibility of granting a steep slope exemption for this lot, to allow the construction of a single- family residence. The subject property is situated on one of the steepest slopes in Edmonds. In addition, a a� a� E small stream crosses this property. Originally, the lot was filled with trees and shrubs, but 0 a couple of months ago a builder came in and cleared some of the trees and shrubs ° without permission from the city. Jason Tourtellot form the City of Edmonds served the E builder with a violation and asked the builder to cover the cleared areas with hay. The builder did put down a small amount of hay and responded that they needed to clear parts ; of the land to perform geological testing, however this was done without permission from c° the city and therefore resulting in the violation. We are extremely concerned that clearing the majority of the trees and shrubs on this property, and building a home on such a steep slope, will adversely affect the stability of our property. In the past several years, we have watched our bank slowly erode, even though our lot is far more level than the subject lot. We believe that allowing to build on this lot will result in further deterioration of the soil and may cause significant damage to our property. Therefore, we strongly object to granting a steep slope exemption for the purpose of building a single family residence at 18105 Sunset Way in Edmonds. In the event that a steep slope exemption is granted by the city, we would like to have assurance from the City of Edmonds that our concerns are addressed regarding the possible harm and adverse effects that the development of the adjacent property may cause to our property. In addition, we need assurance that if any harm is caused to our property, in any way, due to the development of the adjacent lot, that the City, the builder, and the property owner will be held responsible for any and all damages. Sincerely, Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Tel: (425)778-6413 Packet Pg. 35 4.3.a � � N � o ■� �. Oo A � �. O CAD Q. C m CD CD y Q �4 CCD CDO p 't3 'C .% O < : tJ p CD CD A O CD =* A f-Pk 0 nma b CD CD CD N A tj tlj CD O D A O 0 z 0 rb �o ° CDC° � .� ° dM O a CD a n ° Op M �(D � `D CD to .Oh Z eye ••• su - , M CD Cr b � a A •tic �. � o IZ ' y CD a eD Cn ti CS Sv p y Cn N CD C- 3 CD M CD b A C: � ►� �CD -4 CD 3 N O a� A a O CCDD y N a 0 0-0 -0 i• oo o CU o C s 6CD -� CD O cn -0 or a D -o z — 0 O 0 0 0 0 z z D (n -7 n M D 1 y O art3 (D --p - o :3 r* 3 3 N rt rt rt 0 O C N ~` .< (n O O O O lD rt 0 0 En m O O fl) O —h flJ C) C)p (On � (D O a O � , `G ���( Mrt rn (D (D 0' ��•I O 3 O N (D O O. �. O �• (n r\j(D - 0' E3 CD �' rn _0D CD 0 C" v C7 O 3 cn m o CD C CD c o m < Q- O• � a • g v -D CD a cD CDcn CD N � 3 p CD 3 Cn c CD .+ 0 Q vcn 0 0 v 0 0 v 0 C C= (D rt rt O O COD 3 (D m C) C) N n 3 � rt Ln _0 rt 3 J CD 1 3 O .n 3 O N n � D E O Q —h 0 U O (D Co Z I. . 0 rn X- N N (D v D o OCR '- O m E N � flJ c C) N O 9 r c N E (D n cn' a Packet Pg. 36 1 2 5 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 7 IN RE.- Steep Slope Reasonable Use Exception 1 NO. V-2002-42 Critical Areas Variance. PARTIAL VERBATIM Tony Shapiro, Applicant TRANSCRIPT 18105 Sunset Way Edmonds, Washington, location Proc eeding before Donald B. Largen, Edmonds City Hearing Examiner, held on April 18, 2002 Hearing Examiner (Examiner) - Would anyone else like to speak? Come on up, Elana Shippen: My name is Elana Shippen and we live at 181 f01 Sunset Way, which is right next to this property. Examiner. Help me out here. Spell your first name? Elana: And Shippen is my last name. Examiner., Shipman? Elana, 'pep, S-h-i-p-p-e-n, And we have metvvith Tony and Mimi Schwartz and we have reviewed all the reports., the geotech reports, and we feel more confident now about the slope being stabilize'C at the end of this project, PARTIAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT -- Page Packet Pg. 37 ATTACAJA IM r. A 1 0 4.3.a i Examiner: Excuse me, you're: the neighbor to the east? Elana: Neighbor to the west. 3 Examiner: Test, pardon me. Elana: Yes. However, what we are concerned about because of the steep slope area is that during the construction how the vibration from the construction and all that worm is going to impact our structure and also our -- because we also have a steep slope although it's not nearly as steep, itys Mostly flat where, I mean; flat where our house is, Sri that"s kind of our main concern, is during construction i 0 and the effect that it would have to ours. I do definitely agree with the ueotech report that at the end it will stabilize the site more than it is today, but for the duration? And so what I'm kind of wanting, and my husband and I are concerned about, what the city and the applicant are going to do indicates there is any impact to us and LL how - our main thing is that we don't Want an impa,ctl Examiner: Right, Elana. In the first place, and that"s what we want to address. L � Examiner: Okay. Thank you, Elana. 9 Elana: Thank you. 0 Examiner: David, come on up and let me ask you a question. This issue has been raised in a few ether bearings I've had in other communities and I always like to ask the engineer to provide a response to that very question. David Cotton. Yeah, it's an issue and it's a concern we deal with all the time. and both inside and outside landslide hazard areas. The neighbors' concern is legitimate ire that, y'kncw, without a� IM cc E L O E ci M Go 1- N d tM to E 4- U C N 0. t Co C E a f PARTIAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT - page ? Packet Pg. 38 really knowing the true impacts, they know they're in a steep slope area and they don't want those steep slopes unstabilized by the activity. I think it's safe to say that from a starting condition and an end condition we will provide a condition for all property owners in the area the safety and assurance they want. It's always the transition on time, going from where we are to where we are now, and in looking at that we actually looked at the sequence of construction and discussed at length with Jamie and Tony and said that, y'kncw, as we develop this site we actually, y'know- , you can actually 'Lake it to temporary conditions that are less stable than what they are flow as long as those periods are short to be in condition, which is better. But under the condition what we felt was that it would be best to actually continually to improve the overall condition as the excavation's made, so what we agreed was that this sequencing of construction would be initially to provide that fill in the lower area and rather than, y'know, some sequences of construction would be to start cutting before the lower slope areas were in fact' filled and stabilized, so we have what we call an interim stability analysis that you:ve seen in our report, and it shows we go from actually 1.31 to I think 1A, and what that's meant to implicate is that the agreed -upon stage and sequence of construction would be filling first before cutting and re- shaping for the house excavation was done. So I think we've covered that part of it. The other part that you can't E 0 E CO ti 0 E C 2am E PARTIAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT - Page 3 Packet Pg. 39 6 S. 9 3 really totally mitigate, and I guess I would want the neighbor to know and.the other neighbors should know is that depending upon the size of the equipment that Jamie uses there may be some vibration felt actually, during the day, during construction. That's just something that you — I think the idea is always to minimize that or eliminate it just based on the equipment and the means and methods that are being used, so I know Jamie is here, he's a very experienced contractor, he's been a builder all his life and he may wish to comment on specifically what type of equipment he plans to use up there but there's going to be some track equipment down below for the grading necessary to place the fill and that actually might, there might be some vibrations felt but I would regard it as probably minimal, and not, not destructive or—, Examiner' In your experience and being part of these projects have you ever had any kind of catastrophic failure of a slope as a result of the vibrations from the equipment? David: Vibrations? No. Examiner- No. David: No, just, it's that very disconcerting feeling by people who aren't used to being around construction noise and vibrations all of a sudden waking up one day or sitting around drinking coffee and y'know, feel the vibrations going an next door. That can be disconcerting to somebody who's just not familiar with It or comfortable with it. E 0 E CO as ti 0 4- E U C Q. PARTIAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT - Page 4 I Packet Pg. 40 A Examiner: Understood. Okay. Thank you. David.- Yes. Examiner: Would anyone else like to speak? Please come on up. Elana: So_ Examiner: Please state your name again. Elana: Elana Shippen. Examiner: Thank you. Elana.-SO ifsomething does happen, though, during this — I mean it sounds like you should be really E Examiner: Thay would be required to take care of it under city code. 0 E Elana., Thanks, sir Examiner.- You bet. With that, if there are no more comments I'd like to close 00 the hearing an Case No- V02-42 at 9:54 a.m. and I thank the applicants for carving and taking up Your time, E I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 0 4- E Washington that the foregoing is a true and correct transcription prepared from tape recordings Prepared by the City of Edmonds of a portion of the hearing of CL CO April 18, 2002 before the City of Edmunds Hearing Examiner, Dated this 1 sday of November, 2002. E Car'_,1_C_o_ho_e IARTIAL VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT - Page I!::,: Packet Pg. 41 4.3.a SCOTT C. BAKER CONSULTING TO: Ms. Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 JOB SITE: 18101 Sunset Way FROM: Scott D. Baker Consulting SUBJECT: Evaluation of damage to trees from development on adjacent property. DATE: 10/25/02 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Baker, Certified Arborist, Member American Society of Consulting Arborists Contents Summary Assignment & Scope of Report Observations Analysis and Testing Discussion and Conclusions Recommendations Glossary References Attachments: Site sketches Photographs Summary The development of the property located to the east of the Shippen's property has resulted in grade changes very near to the property line. A row of 8 mature Cedar (Thuja occidentals sp?) located along the south end of the east property line have been damaged due to removal of a portion of their root systems. These trees need care and monitoring to attempt to reverse the negative impacts of the damage. These trees are very valuable to the Shippen property. They have been damaged and are showing signs of stress from the loss of roots to the east. Action to protect and improve the remaining root zone of the trees is needed immediately. (206) 528.4670 7018 47`h Avenue NE • Seattle • WA , 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 42 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTIN( Along the north end of the east property line, tree removal on the property under development has exposed trees on the Shippen's property that were formerly protected by the forest that has been removed. The developer has raised issues with these trees as they apparently block a portion of the view from the home to be constructed on the development property. I inspected these trees and found no serious problems with them. Some pruning would be helpful for the maple, and several of the smaller alders should be removed due to concern over breakage. The risk from these trees would be to the property next door and is the result of the removal of the forest on that property. Due to the potential for erosion on the slope below the Shippens' yard where these trees grow the trees should be preserved, as they help stabilize the slope. c L While I was on the site, excavation was in progress next door. I could feel ° vibration from the equipment. l observed a fresh crack in the soil near the corner E of the Shippen's rear yard that I thought might be related to the earthwork next door. Assignment & Scope of Report I was asked to visit the above addressed site to document the tree -related issues related to the development of the adjacent property. This report outlines the site inspection by Scott D. Baker Consulting on 10/9/02. Included are observations and recommendations for subject trees located at 18101 Sunset Way in Edmonds, WA. Ms. Shippen requested these services because of her concern over the impact of the activities next door to her home. Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future. Observations I visited the site and met with Ms. Shippen. I reviewed the situation with her and she showed me the boundaries of her property. I also reviewed a report prepared by Anthony Shoffner of Arboricultural Consulting for A.D. Shapiro Architects pertaining to the development project next door to Shippen's property. I made a sketch of the site and took some photographs that I have attached to this report. (206) 528.4670 7018 47th Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 ttnal.doc www.sdbca.com Page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 43 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING The Shippen's property is located in a residential neighborhood in the City of Edmonds WA. The Shippen home and rear yard is located on a property that slopes gently to the north. A fence surrounds the rear yard. The property extends beyond the fence, sloping steeply down to Olympic View Drive. Immediately adjacent to the east of the Shippen property, a large parcel of land has been completely cleared and, at the time of my visit, extensive grading and filling was under way. No actual construction was underway and I could not tell if further work would occur that might cause additional impacts to the Shippen property. walked the property line east of the Shippen's house. A new access road has been cut from the street (Sunset Way) to gain access to the development site. The cut for the new road runs very close to the property line and within 3' of a 0 row of mature cedar trees. This planting is a row of eight cedar cultivars with a `o narrow upright form that are quite old, likely planted soon after the Shippen E house was constructed. (See attached photographs) E U This row of trees has had approximately 35% of the root system removed by the 00 excavation and grading on the adjacent property. Several trees were showing signs of stress; loosing more needles than would normally occur in the fall season and off-color foliage in the crown of the trees. E I took several photographs that show the damage to the root system of these o trees. I also noticed minor damage to a section of wood fence located on the ,o Shippen's property. P continued my observations descending the property line and inspecting all of the trees within 30' of the cleared areas. I noted these trees; 10 Red Alders (Alnus rubra) and one bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), on my sketch. All but three of the alder trees are young small trees with very slender trunk structure typical of trees growing in a thick forest. The three larger stems #8, 9 &10, are more mature trees with good taper in the lower trunk. The maple tree has had some damage in the past and there are some dead branches within the crown. This is typical of the species. The damaged areas are surrounded by new wood tissue growth (reaction wood) and the tree appears vigorous and stable. At the northeast corner of the Shippen's rear yard, I looped at a recent planting of Leyland Cypress (Chamecyparis lawsoniana x Cupressocyparis Leylandil). Several of these trees had minor damage sustained during the clearing of the adjacent property. Also damaged was 8-10' of 4' wood fence at the corner of the Shippen property. (206) 528,4670 7018 47"' Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 44 4.3.a SCOTT D. RACER CONSULTING In this area, I noted heavy vibration from the equipment next door and noted fresh cracks in the soil along the fence line at the rear of the Shipppen's yard. Analysis and Testing did no testing or sampling on this site. Discussion and Conclusions The clearing of the adjacent property has caused a significant disturbance along the property lind east of the Shippen's house. I was surprised to see that not a single tree had been preserved on the development site. Although I did not observe the site prior to clearing, it seems unlikely to me that it was impossible to retain a few native trees on the site. The loss of such a large area of canopy regardless of tree species or condition has caused a significant impact to the surrounding properties and to the City. Increased runoff, particularly during heavy precipitation, is one such impact. There was a large amount of earthwork underway and I understood from Ms. Shippen that fill had been brought in as part of the site work. Clearly, given what saw of the permitted work underway on the site, it would not have been feasible to retain any existing trees. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that this site might have been developed with a less aggressive plan that allowed some areas of native vegetation, especially small conifers and bigleaf maples, preserved. I was unable to tell from observation what the final layout of the site next door will be. It is possible that further impact to the Shippen property may result from the continued development of the new house and foundations. Ms. Shippen informed me that the developer, apparently with the permission of the owner, also removed several trees on the property above the new house site. The row of cedars that grows to the east of the Shippen house has suffered a severe impact due to the loss of roots from the grading and excavation. No attempt was made to protect these trees, which, in my opinion, benefit both properties. I would expect to see the impact to the trees show up as declining foliage density. Parts of the trees might die, and the likelihood of attack by insect pests or other pathogens increases when trees are stressed. This is due to the loss of approximately 35% of the trees' root system. c .° E M 00 1- (206) 528 4670 7018 47"' Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 tlnal.doc www.sdbca.com Page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 45 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING It is most important that these trees receive immediate care to mitigate the impact to the rooting area of the trees. Mulch applied with a mild fertilizer and a soil inoculant will provide an area for new root growth and help the trees recover. Valuation Replacement of the cedars would be very expensive. I looked for exact replacements and was unable to locate any specimens of this size. Similar plants large enough to replace the screen are available. They would have large root balls, which is the dominant factor in cost of a large transplant, and installed cost would run approximately $1, 000.00 per tree or $8, 000.00. I performed a trunk formula method calculation to obtain values for the row of cedar trees. The trunk formula method is described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition published by the International Society of Arboriculture in cooperation with the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The trunk formula method is used to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Determination of the value of a tree is based on the cost of the largest commonly available tree and its cost of installation, plus the increase in value due to the larger size of the tree being appraised. These values are adjusted according to the species of the tree and its physical condition and landscape location (an average of site, contribution, and placement). The trunk formula calculation uses the following conditions: Appraised Value = Basic Tree Cost x Species % x Condition % x Location %. Basic Tree Cost = Trunk Area Increase of the appraised tree x Unit Tree Cost + Installed Tree Cost. Location = (Site % + Contribution % + Placement %)/3. (From Guide for Plant Appraisal Edition) For this tree I used the Pacific Northwest Species Rating for treespecies which is 75%. 1 rated the condition of the tree at 90%. My location factor of 85% is the average of site 85%, contribution 85% and placement 85%. My basic tree cost reflects a 4" caliper ball and burlap replacement tree and the cost of installation (2.5 x wholesale cost). I calculated an appraised value for the row of cedar based on the average diameter of 8° and found a value of $1,298.00 per tree or $10,384.00. 1 used the percentage of roots that I estimate were lost (35%) as a percentage loss against the total value of the trees to calculate damage to the trees valued at $3634.40. The cost of the recommended work to treat the root zone of the damaged trees is: Air spade area to break up soil: $750.00 (five hours at $150.00) (206) 528.4670 7018 47th Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 46 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING Install 2" mulch: $520.00 (labor $240, Materials $280.00) Apply drench of Blend and Plant Success: $250.00 (labor and materials) Total: $1520.00 plus tax Recommendations Apply a 2" layer of composted mulch beneath the cedars over as much of the root zone as possible. Irrigate the trees to keep the soil moist through this dry season and for the next several years during dry weather. E Apply a drench of the fertilizer "Blend" and the soil inoculant "Plant Success" to 0 increase the production of fine roots. ,o E Monitor the trees for three years. Depending on what will eventually lie along the lower property line, several of the ti very skinny alders may have to be removed. Glossary canopy (crown): the leaves and branches of a tree (Matheny et al. 1998) critical root area: the soil volume within which roots grow that are essential to the health of the plant (Dunster 1996) reaction wood: wood formed in leaning or crooked stems, or on lower or upper sides of branches (Lilly 2001) soil inoculant: The planned introduction of material containing or believed to contain, living or killed organisms, generally microorganisms, into a new environment (e.g. soils) (Dunster 1996) References Craul, Phillip J., Urban Soil in Landscape Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992. Harris, Richard W., James R. Clark, and Nelda P Matheny. Arboriculture: Integrated management of Landsca a Trees Shrubs and Vines 3`d Ed, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999. Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development.. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. (206) 528.4670 7018 47�h Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 47 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant A raisal 9t Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Watson, Dr. Gary VV. and Dr. Dan Neely, editors, The Landscape Below Ground: Proceedin s of an International VVorkshop on Tree Root Deveio ment in Urban Soils. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Watson, Dr. Gary W. and Dr. Dan Neely, editors, The Landscape Below Ground 11: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Attachments Site sketch(s) Photographs Shippen house with new access road and cut along row of cedars. (206) 528.4670 7018 471" Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 48 4.3.a BCOTT Q. BAKER CONSULTING Property marker along east edge of Shippen off Sunset Way. Shows area where cedar roots were removed. `� �' •i�+r;; .act,,, _ _ 'fit •e•.��- r pry .��r" ;; •': e. .� - •r }.r.�+. •-. ..�: :.ram ••�.: ;? ,rwi '' �;wn: .f. ... � . Severed cedar along edge of new grade. m (206) 528.4670 7018,47 Avenue NE - Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25--02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 49 E 0 0 U M 00 ti (n a) tM M �° E .2 U c a� Q i N M V lC Q SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING ,a 4 V Temporary fence and damaged trees. i Northeast corner of Shippen rear yard shown cypress planting, damaged fence, and skinny alders left along lower property line. IM cc E 0 E CV) 00 1- tM cc E cc a 2 0 4- E 0. co a a) E 00 ' o Aviz;t 4 i uv-�, N F 15, :zY c.,•:Aid b,q�a"b i.,cx) ul Shi� ( 1 C)"I 10-2,5-10:2 -,C) of I D Packet Pg. 50 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER COP-jSUL.TMG ti Damaged fence corner and cypress planting. Soil crack along rear edge of Shippen rear yard at north east corner (206) 528.4670 7018 47t" Avenue NE - Seattle • WA . 98115 scottdb t@t attbi.coin Shipprn report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 51 4.3.a Date: July 15, 2002 To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn.: Rob Chave, City of Edmonds Planning Manager Cc: Star Campbell, City of Edmonds Planner Anthony Shapiro, Applicant Subject: Appeal of the "Determination of Non -significance", file No. PC-02-222 Location: 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds as a� We live adjacent to the subject property, which is the planned site for a single-family E residence in the near future. Earlier this year, the applicant, Mr. Anthony Shapiro applied o for a Steep Slope Exemption in order to build a single-family residence on the adjacent ,0 property. The City of Edmonds asked an independent geotech to review this application. E The independent geotech turned down the application for a steep slope exemption on the v hazardous slope area where the subject property is situated. Consequently Mr. Shapiro M applied for a Reasonable tlse Exception. This process does not require an independent 00 geotech review and the City of Edmonds granted the Reasonable Use Exception. Mr. Shapiro argued that building a house on the subject property would enhance the stability of the hillside and would help stabilize the slope. On Tuesday, July, 9, 2002, we met with the applicant, Anthony Shapiro and his landscape o architect to discuss the upcoming construction and landscape plans. We discussed the E upcoming grading of approximately 3141 cubic yards and the associated tree cutting on the property. Mr. Shapiro proposed removing the trees on our slope and to replace them v with small Leyland Cypress trees at the bottom of our property, along Olympic View a Drive. The trees on our slope are well -established native trees, which help greatly in °- stabilizing our slope. Mr. Shapiro stated that the reason for this proposal is that once the N trees are removed from his property. the trees on our slope and consequently our slope will be jeopardized. We were puzzled by this statement, because all the material that Mr. E Shapiro has submitted to the City of Edmonds so far, state repeatedly that the construction of his house will greatly stabilize the slope more effectively. a We also discussed the required procedures to protect the trees along our property line, by following the procedures specified on Mr. Shapiro's arborologist's report, listed in the Tree Protection Standards section on pages 7 and 8, a copy of which has been submitted with this appeal. Mr. Shapiro stated that he was not aware of any requirements to protect the adjacent vegetation and trees from the trucks and equipment that will be used for the purpose of grading and filling the property. Packet Pg. 52 4.3.a We are filing this written appeal in order to voice our great concerns with the upcoming construction and the adverse impact that it will likely have on our property. We are extremely concerned that clearing the majority of the trees and shrubs on the subject property, and building a home on such a steep slope, will adversely affect the stability of the slope and our property. In the past several years, we have had drainage problems and have also watched our bank slowly erode, even though our lot is far more level than the subject lot. We believe that allowing building on this property will result in further deterioration of the soil and could cause significant damage to our property. As we stated in our letter to the City of Edmonds on February 11, 2002, we would like to have assurance fi-om the City of Edmonds that our concerns are addressed regarding the possible harm and adverse erects that the development of the adjacent property could E cause to our property. In addition, we need assurance that if any harm is caused to our o property, in any way, due to the development of the adjacent lot, that the City, the ,o builder, and the property owner will be held responsible for any and all damages. E U Sincerely, M 00 ti Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 E Tel: (425)778-6413 Attachment: Pages 7 & 8 of the `free Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement: Plan, submitted by Arboricultural Consulting Packet Pg. 53 4.3.a n o coo ti E m All� o —cam. c �Lt �J vim•- U N f Packet Pg. 54 4.3.a PanGEO) I N C O R P O R A T i D Geofechnical &Earthquake Engineering Consultants October 14, 2002 File No. 02-063 Ms. Elena Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Ground Cracks on Property 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Elena, At your request, Mr. Steve Evans, an engineering geologist with our firm, performed a reconnaissance of your property to review ground cracks that had formed in the hillside north of your residence to determine if the cracks were related ground vibration from the earthmoving activity at the adjacent property to the east (Shapiro residence) and if the observed cracks might be an indicator of ground movement that could affect Olympic View Drive. The following summarizes our observations and conclusions. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Our site reconnaissance was conducted on Friday, October 11, 2002. At approximately 08:30, Mr. Evans arrived on site and observed that there was no earthmoving construction equipment present at the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Evans observed the ground cracks at the property and noted the following: 1. The cracks appeared to be arranged in a linear trend oriented roughly east -west, sub -parallel to the Olympic View Drive and the top of the north -facing slope below the Shippen backyard. The cracks appeared to follow a topographic break in slope, where the level yard area begins to slope northward. 2. The cracks were up to a few inches wide and 1'/z feet deep. They were observed to extend about 50 feet west from the east property line. The cracks were 8 to 10 feet south of the fence line, and they appeared to approach the top of the slope further to the west. 3. Cracking was most pronounced in the northeast corner of the Shippen yard. In this area, several cracks were noted that were parallel and at 900 to the top of the main slope. Ms. Shippen informed us that some fill material had been placed in this area for landscaping purposes. A timber wall was observed on the slope 3414 NE 551° Street Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 262-0370 Packet Pg. 55 4.3.a Ms. Elena Shippen Geotechnical Review October 14, 2002 below the northeast corner, which was in poor condition. This wall appeared to extend about 15 feet west from the east property line of the Shippen property. The 20 foot high slope below the Shippen property is heavily overgrown with blackberries and other brushy vegetation. The slope appears to be at a 2H:1 V slope, and is underlain by material with a till -like composition. Slopes of this gradient are normally stable, even when inadequately compacted. Numerous animal burrows were observed near the base of slope. No seepage or other indications of groundwater were observed along Olympic View Drive. Based on the geomorphology of the site, we believe that a wedge of fill was probably placed on the top of the slope of the Shippen property to increase the backyard area. The fill may have been placed with minimal slope preparation and compaction. Additional o fill appears to have been recently placed in the northeast corner of the property. This ,o recently filled area may have experienced previous settlement. E U CONCLUSIONS M 00 Based on our site observations, we have reached the following conclusions: 1. The observed tension cracks at the crest of the fill placed on the north side of the Shippen residence indicates that the fill is marginally stable. 2. The observed cracks appear to have developed recently. 3. Because of the lack of natural forces that could result in the formation of the cracks (i.e. significant earthquake activity or rainfall), we conclude that the cracks developed in response to the vibration of construction equipment operating on the adjacent Shapiro and Colwill property to the east. 4. The existence of the cracks does not appear to be affecting the house on the Shippen property. 5. The observed tension cracks, however, may fill with water during intense rainstorms, which may result in ground movement that could affect Olympic View Drive. 6. Surface sealing of these cracks would help to reduce the potential for ground movement initiated as a result of surficial runoff. 02-063 Report Page 2 PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 56 4.3.a Ms. Elena Shippen Geotechnical Review October 14, 2002 In summary, while the fill on the north side of your property is marginally stable as evidenced by signs of prior creep or slow movement, the ground cracks recently observed on the slope likely developed as a result of construction vibration (compaction equipment) on adjacent property. The existence of these cracks may provide an opportunity for ground failure that could affect Olympic View Drive below. Monitoring the movement of these cracks and sealing these cracks after the major earthwork activity on the adjacent property would reduce the potential for future movement triggered by surficial runoff. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Siew L. Tan, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer SHE:SLT:WPG:she 02-063 Report Page 3 W. Paul Grant, P.E. Principal PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 57 4.3.a E U Q Packet Pg. 58 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING TO: Ms, Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 JOB SITE: 18101 Sunset Way FROM: Scott D. Baker Consulting SUBJECT: Evaluation of damage to trees from development on adjacent property. DATE: 10/25/02 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Baker, Certified Arborist, Member American Society of Consulting Arborists Contents Summary Assignment & Scope of Report Observations Analysis and Testing Discussion and Conclusions Recommendations Glossary References Attachments: Site sketches Photographs Summary The development of the property located to the east of the Shippen's property has resulted in grade changes very near to the property line. A row of 8 mature Cedar (Thuja occidentals sp?) located along the south end of the east property line have been damaged due to removal of a portion of their root systems. These trees need care and monitoring to attempt to reverse the negative impacts of the damage. These trees are very valuable to the Shippen property. They have been damaged and are showing signs of stress from the loss of roots to the east. Action to protect and improve the remaining root zone of the trees is needed immediately. `')?•. _ ; t: rail:: �'i 1. :;f r Avenue w a,i. V'iA �5-_2 fitn aj.•'c); �V4P1l+,aC 'c$.C:C}tie E c `o E M Go 1- Packet Pg. 59 4.3.a SCO T D. BAKER CONSULTING Along the north end of the east property line, tree removal on the property under development has exposed trees on the Shippen's property that were formerly protected by the forest that has been removed. The developer has raised issues with these trees as they apparently block a portion of the view from the home to be constructed on the development property. I inspected these trees and found no serious problems with them. Some pruning would be helpful for the maple, and several of the smaller alders should be removed due to concern over breakage. The risk from these trees would be to the property next door and is the result of the removal of the forest on that property. Due to the potential for erosion on the slope below the Shippens' yard where these trees grow the trees should be preserved, as they help stabilize the slope. E c While I was on the site, excavation was in progress next door. I could feel ,o vibration from the equipment. I observed a fresh crack in the soil near the corner E of the Shippen's rear yard that I thought might be related to the earthwork next door. M 00 ti Assignment & Scope of Report 1 was asked to visit the above addressed site to document the tree -related issues related to the development of the adjacent property. This report outlines the site inspection by Scott D. Baker Consulting on 1019i02. Included are observations and recommendations for subject trees located at 18101 Sunset Way in Edmonds, WA. Ms. Shippen requested these services because of her concern over the impact of the activities next door to her home. Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future. Observations I visited the site and met with Ms. Shippen. I reviewed the situation with her and she showed me the boundaries of her property. I also reviewed a report prepared by Anthony Shoffner of Arboricultural Consulting for A.D. Shapiro Architects pertaining to the development project next door to Shippen's property. I made a sketch of the site and took some photographs that I have attached to this report. scalldb@attni cum i>>u�wr rq^ll:•;� s ;.i �:`i fi.,. :s ; d'. 35 f.�L 3i',i .CLi iTI Page 2 (if 111 Packet Pg. 60 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING The Shippen's property is located in a residential neighborhood in the City of Edmonds WA. The Shippen home and rear yard is located on a property that slopes gently to the north. A fence surrounds the rear yard. The property extends beyond the fence, sloping steeply down to Olympic View Drive. Immediately adjacent to the east of the Shippen property, a large parcel of land has been completely cleared and, at the time of my visit, extensive grading and filling was under way. No actual construction was underway and I could not tell if further work would occur that might cause additional impacts to the Shippen property. I walked the property line east of the Shippen's house. A new access road has been cut from the street (Sunset Way) to gain access to the development site. The cut for the new road runs very close to the property line and within 3' of a E row of mature cedar trees. This planting is a row of eight cedar cultivars with a o narrow upright form that are quite old, likely planted soon after the Shippen ,o house was constructed. (See attached photographs) E This row of trees has had approximately 35% of the root system removed by the excavation and grading on the adjacent property. Several trees were showing ti signs of stress; loosing more needles than would normally occur in the fall season and off-color foliage in the crown of the trees. I took several photographs that show the damage to the root system of these trees. I also noticed minor damage to a section of wood fence located on the Shippen's property. I continued my observations descending the property line and inspecting all of the trees within 30' of the cleared areas. I noted these trees; 10 Red Alders (Alnus rubre) and one bigleaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), on my sketch. All but three of the alder trees are young small trees with very slender trunk structure typical of trees growing in a thick forest. The three larger stems #8, 9 &10, are more mature trees with good taper in the lower trunk. The maple tree has had some damage in the past and there are some dead branches within the crown. This is typical of the species. The damaged areas are surrounded by new wood tissue growth (reaction wood) and the tree appears vigorous and stable. At the northeast corner of the Shippen's rear yard, I looked at a recent planting of Leyland Cypress (Chamecyparis lawsoniana x Cupressocypads Leylandii), Several of these trees had minor damage sustained during the clearing of the adjacent property. Also damaged was 8-10' of 4' wood fence at the corner of the Shippen property. scoit&@alibii.ccrn Page i QI 10 Packet Pg. 61 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING In this area, I noted heavy vibration from the equipment next door and noted fresh cracks in the soil along the fence line at the rear of the Shipppen's yard. Analysis and Testing I did no testing or sampling on this site. Discussion and Conclusions The clearing of the adjacent property has caused a significant disturbance along the property line east of the Shippen's house. I was surprised to see that not a single tree had been preserved on the development site. Although I did not observe the site prior to clearing, it seems unlikely to me that it was impossible to retain a few native trees on the site. The loss of such a large area of canopy regardless of tree species or condition has caused a significant impact to the surrounding properties and to the City. Increased runoff, particularly during heavy precipitation, is one such impact. There was a large amount of earthwork underway and I understood from Ms. Shippen that fill had been brought in as part of the site work. Clearly, given what I saw of the permitted work underway on the site, it would not have been feasible to retain any existing trees. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that this site might have been developed with a less aggressive plan that allowed some areas of native vegetation, especially small conifers and bigleaf maples, preserved. I was unable to tell from observation what the final layout of the site next door will be. It is possible that further impact to the Shippen property may result from the continued development of the new house and foundations. Ms. Shippen informed me that the developer, apparently with the permission of the owner, also removed several trees on the property above the new house site. The row of cedars that grows to the east of the Shippen house has suffered a severe impact due to the loss of roots from the grading and excavation. No attempt was made to protect these trees, which, in my opinion, benefit both properties. I would expect to see the impact to the trees show up as declining foliage density. Parts of the trees might die, and the likelihood of attack by insect pests or other pathogens increases when trees are stressed. This is due to the loss of approximately 35% of the trees' root system. Packet Pg. 62 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING It is most important that these trees receive immediate care to mitigate the impact to the rooting area of the trees. Mulch applied with a mild fertilizer and a soil inoculant will provide an area for new root growth and help the trees recover. Valuation Replacement of the cedars would be very expensive. I looked for exact replacements and was unable to locate any specimens of this size. Similar plants large enough to replace the screen are available. They would have large root balls, which is the dominant factor in cost of a large transplant, and installed cost would run approximately $1,000.00 per tree or $8,000.00. I performed a trunk formula method calculation to obtain values for the row of cedar trees. The trunk formula method is described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal 9tn Edition published by the International Society of Arboriculture in cooperation with the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The trunk formula method is used to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Determination of the value of a tree is based on the cost of the largest commonly available tree and its cost of installation, plus the increase in value due to the larger size of the tree being appraised. These values are adjusted according to the species of the tree and its physical condition and landscape location (an average of site, contribution, and placement). The trunk formula calculation uses the following conditions: Appraised Value = Basic Tree Cost x Species %© x Condition % x Location %. Basic Tree Cost = Trunk Area Increase of the appraised tree x Unit Tree Cost + Installed Tree Cost. Location = 5ite %+ Contribution %+ Placement %)/3, (From Guide for Plant Appraisal9t Edition) For this tree I used the Pacific Northwest Species Rating for tree species which is 75%. 1 rated the condition of the tree at 90%. My location factor of 85% is the average of site 85%, contribution 85% and placement 85%. My basic tree cost reflects a 4" caliper ball and burlap replacement tree and the cost of installation (2.5 x wholesale cost). I calculated an appraised value for the row of cedar based on the average diameter of 8" and found a value of $1,298.00 per tree or $10,384.00. 1 used the percentage of roots that I estimate were lost (35%) as a percentage loss against the total value of the trees to calculate damage to the trees valued at $3634.40. The cost of the recommended work to treat the root zone of the damaged trees is: Air spade area to break up soil: $750.00 (five hours at $150,00) <. 5.4 '(j18 fit'-: Avenue i'd%. 3qt; !V''A ' t;3 . i .sc[3��S�i7f` aftbf.co71 !,.?':.. .7_%.?<; ,. i<;1. !�,�l""):', vwk siilb.o page 5 of If' E c L .° E M Go 1- Packet Pg. 63 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING Install 2" mulch: $520.00 (labor $240, Materials $280.00) Apply drench of Blend and Plant Success: $250.00 (labor and materials) Total: $1520.00 plus tax Recommendations Apply a 2" layer of composted mulch beneath the cedars over as much of the root zone as possible. Irrigate the trees to keep the soil moist through this dry season and for the next several years during dry weather. Apply a drench of the fertilizer "Blend" and the soil inoculant "Plant Success" to c increase the production of fine roots. %`0 E Monitor the trees for three years. M E5 Depending on what will eventually lie along the lower property line, several of theGo very skinny alders may have to be removed. Glossary canopy (crown): the leaves and branches of a tree (Matheny et al. 1998) E 0 L critical root area: the soil volume within which roots grow that are essential to 0 the health of the plant (Dunster 1996) cc .a reaction wood: wood formed in leaning or crooked stems, or on lower or upper sides of branches (Lilly 2001) soil inoculant: The planned introduction of material containing or believed to contain, living or killed organisms, generally microorganisms, into a new environment (e.g. soils) (Dunster 1996) References Craul, Phillip J., Urban Soil in Landsca e Desi n. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992. Harris, Richard W., James R. Clark, and Nelda P Matheny,-Arboriculture- Integrated Management of Landsca e Trees Shrubs. and Vines 3`' Ed_ New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999, Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Develn ment. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. ;,;�, �; t: ��_� 'S" ;:, .:) s: �, ,- ,�� , �;Y,.;_, � yc ; a.i+. � '�� si �itdbCcbatthi cot: Page 6 o ,. . Packet Pg. 64 4.3.a SCOTT D,: BAKER CONSULTING The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9 th Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Watson, Dr. Gary W. and Dr. Dan Neely, editors, The Landscape Below Ground: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Watson, Dr. Gary W. and Dr. Dan Neely, editors, The Landscape Below Ground II: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Attachments Site sketch(s) Photographs '� , Shippen house with new access road and cut along row of cedars. (206) 528 4670 7018 47th Avenue NE • Seattle - WA - 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.corn Page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 65 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING Property marker along east edge of Shippen off Sunset Way. Shows area where cedar roots were removed. .r ... Severed cedar along edge of new grade. m E 0 L O E U M 00 ti a� aM M E L 0 E .2 U c a� N r c a� E L V Q (206) 528.4670 7018 47'h Avenue NE • Seattle • WA - 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-2.5-02 final.doc www,sdbea.com Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 66 4.3.a SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING .I .I b Temporary fence and damaged trees. I Y .i Northeast corner of Shippen rear yard shown cypress planting, damaged fence, and skinny alders left along lower property line. 'k (206) 528A670 7018 47 Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final doc www.sdbca.com Page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 67 d E L O E U c� co ti r N d E M 0 L 0 E M U Q V! r Qi E M 0 r a 4.3.a SCGTT D. BAKER CONSULTING Damaged fence corner and cypress planting. y.". 1.4 ow ?1, r ...� �.K•' .. 111111114Liv y rY'w- Yikllr-y ��, ir' Soil crack along rear edge of Shippen rear yard at north east corner. tl (206) 528.4670 7018 47' Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Shippen report 10-25-02 final.doc www.sdbca.com Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 68 E 0 0 U c� co ti a� a� E M 0 L 0 E C V! C a� t c,> to a Date. June 15, 2004 Mr. David K. Gebert., PE 121 5'p' Avenue North Edmunds, WA 98020 RE: TREE(S) ADJACENT TO OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE as Dear Mr. Gebert, E Thank you for sending us a copy of your letter to Mr. Shapiro, dated Jurte 10, 2004. We 0 are pleased that the city has informed Mr. Shapiro that our trees do not pose any safety E hazard to his property or any utility lines.. Mr. Shapiro has repeatedly asked us to cut these trees in order to improve his view. Ile has also contactedilUD in the past and received the same response as the one stated in your recent reply to lair. 00 'Fhe trees in question have been on out property since bef'ore we bought our house over 12 years ago. We have monitored this stand of trees because it protects a sensitive Slope on our property. As we infonned Mir. Shapiro before he bought his property., and long before he began construction of his horne, both our own geo-technical engineering and arborist reports advised us not to alter the trees under any circumstances. Our most recent reports, in fact, advised us to plant additional trees to fuither stabilize the slope that was weakened when Mr. Shapiro removed trees on the slope adjacent to our property. When Mr. Shapiro originally applied for a building permit, thecity's independent geo- technical engineer turned down his application, based on safety concerns related to building on such a steep slope and removing all the existing trees and vegetation, Mr. Shapiro then presented the city with his own arborist and geo-technical engineering', reports, stating that he would plant new trees and vegetation to strengthen the slope (copy attached). This was the basis for the city granting him permission to build his house on 18105 Sunset Way, Mr. Shapiro moved in to his new house in January 2004.1ronically, he has not planted a single tree or any other vegetation in accordance with his submitted plan. Given the. perilous nature of this slope, we request that your office pursues compliance with Mr. Shapiro's proposal to plant the trees and vegetation. I Packet Pg. 69 We are very concerned that any further delay in fulfilling the city's requirements by Mr, Shapiro Nvill adversely affect our slope and therefore Olympic View Drive. Please advise us on what action the city is planning to take to ensure the safety of Mr. Shapiro's and our slope. Sincerely, Matthew & Elaiia Shippen 18 101 Stuiset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 778-6413 Cc: Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager E 0 E 00 ti I Packet Pg. 70 4.3.a 1-4c.189u CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering June 17, 2004 Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: TREE(S) ADJACENT T G GI.YMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dear Matthew and Elana, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR I have received your letter of June 15, 2004, which requests that the City pursue compliance by Mr. Shapiro with City requirements to plant trees on his property. Steve Bullock and Star Campbell, in the City's Planning Division, are familiar with the tree planting/landscaping requirements for Mr. Shapiro's project and will follow up on your request. You should hear from Steve once they have checked into the status of the project. If you have further questions, Steve can be reached by telephone at 425 771 0220. Sincerely, VID K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director a� E L O E .2 U M 00 ti Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sistpr C:itu - Hpkinan_ .ianan Packet Pg. 71 4.3.a //IC.1S9'3 July 19, 2004 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Tony Shapiro 18105 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: SLOPE REPLANTING AT 18105 SUNSET WAY Dear Mr. Shapiro: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR I am in receipt of your request to replant the slope on your property at 18105 Sunset Way this fall in accordance with the report by Arboricultural Consulting. It is understandable that you would want to follow this recommendation to ensure the ultimate success of the landscaping. Please understand though that it is imperative to have this important of your previously approved permits completed in a manner that is as timely as possible. Since fall begins near the end of September, it seems reasonable that the planting be completed by mid -October. I will schedule a site visit for landscaping inspection.on October 15, 2004. 1 did not mean to imply by my last letter that you did not intend to complete your requirements and it is very nice to hear that you are enjoying your new residence. I did appreciate your timely response. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Star Campbell, Planner Cc: Matthew and Elana Shippen m aI E 0 L �° E .2 U r, 00 ti SH"IROTREELETTER2 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • gic+o Ci}ii - 14lzinan -1—nn Packet Pg. 72 4.3.a Date Received: I L,r�, City of Edmonds ' Development Services Department 121 5"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 For City Use Only: File 2. If You have distinctive handwriting you may choose to type this form. Alleged Violator's NamelPhone: c ' rCL, Violation Address or Site Location; — DETAILS OF COMPLAINT: (Please be specific.] The City of Edmonds investigates possible violations on a complaint basis only. Therefore, the name of the person filing the complaint must be provided in order for the city to investigate. Name (please print), e C v� rr Y-Lk et L=-n -- Phone: '75-�- -Te `14 - (Area Cade) Address: v w J-v,-, r •C' - (Street Address) i (City) (State) (zip) Pursuant to State Public Disclosure Law RCW 42.17.310(1)(e), the complainant may indicate a request for non -disclosure of their name and identity. If non -disclosure is desired, the bottom portion of this form which indicates your identity as a complainant, will be redacted (blacked out) prior to public. disclosure. Please be advised, HOWEVER,• r TO USE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS • RESOLVE THIS COMPLAINT� AND/OR VIOLATION, THIS ENTIRE FORM AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION MAY BE DISCLOSED AS •- ! If you do not want your identity disclosed, check the box and sign on the line provided. Thank you. NOT DISCLOSE MY IDENTITYK Signature: r;. r r' �� Date 6V Z _ 6`c.l, as a� 0 0 U M 00 ti a� E L 0 E U c a� a a co c a� E t a L :TEIVI IBUILDINGTORMS/Land Use Complaint Form.doc Packet Pg. 73 Date: June 23, 2009 Subject: Land Use Complaint Alleged Violator's Name/Plione, Tony Shapirof/425-778-5400 Violation Address- 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 Details of Complaint: When Mr. Shapiro applied for a building permit for his home, located at 18105 E Sunset Way in Edmonds, the city of Edmonds's independent geotechnical engineer, John Zipper, denied his application. This decision was based on safety concerns 0 related to building on such a steep slope and removing all the- existing trees and %- vegetation. Also, there was a class C stream that ran through Mr. Shapiro's property, E .2 which was later filled in order to accommodate the construction of Mr. Shapiro's house. After he was denied, Mr. Shapiro presented the City with his own arborist's 00 1- reports, stating that he would plant new trees and vegetation to strengthen the n slope (arborist report attached). This was the basis for the City granting him 0) permission to build his house on 18105 Sunset Way. Mr. Shapiro moved to his new house in January of 2004. By June of 2004 he still did not comply with his promised plan to replant the highly steep slope. We sent a letter to the City of Edmonds, dated June 15, 2004 (attached) requesting that Mr. Shapiro comply with the City's requirements, On June 17, 2004., the City of Edmonds sent a letter to Mr. Shapiro (attached) requesting that he comply with the City's requirements to plant trees on his property according to his arborist's plan. Mr. Shapiro replied to the City on June 27, 2004 (attached), assuring the City that he was waiting for the fall season to comply with the tree planting requirements. The City replied to Mr. Shapiro (attached) asking him to comply with the requirements by October 15, 2004. It has been nearly five years and Mr. Shapiro still has not complied with the City's requirements for tree planting. Given the perilous nature of this slope, we request that your office pursues compliance with Mr. Shapiro's proposal to plant the trees and vegetation detailed in his arborist plan, I Packet Pg. 74 lr #P62 I CDate Received: ' 4.3.a City of ]Edmonds v ono - -�,. Development Services Department 121 50' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 For City Use ®rely: File No:___ 1_ a If You have distinctive handwriting you may choose to type this form. Alleged Violator's Nam_ s � a � �yIV violation Address or Site Location:—AZI-01, S tm\ S el-_ U) MCA. DETAILS OF !,'• be e � I i ��. a.. raw.,. ► The City of Edmonds investigates possible violations on a complaint basis only. Therefore, the name of the person filing the complaint must be provided in order for the city to investigate. Dame (please print): 04 Phone:Ztt�_ _ -3 t r r (Area Code) Address- i t�10 � � 1�V1Ce± iAleds► ��,1 ac..� exA t ► . / A 9s�O.Pf (Street Address) (City) (State) (Zip) Pursuant to State Public Disclosure Law RCW QA7.310(1)(e), the complainant may indicate a request for non -disclosure of their name and identity. If non -disclosure is desired, the boftom portion of this form which indicates your identity as a complainant, will be redacted (blacked out) prior to public disclosure. If you des not want your identity disclosed, check the box and sign on the line provided. Thank you. DO T DISCLOSE PAY IDENTITY Signature: A_ _ date L-TEMPIBu€LDINGIFORMSA-and tLse Cmmnlmnt Farm rin,.- Packet Pg. 75 Date: March 8,2010 Subject: [,and Use Complaint/Steep slope degradation caused by City of Edmonds at the request of Anthony Shapiro Alleged Violator's Name/Phone.: City of Edmonds, 425-771-0220 and 423-771-0235 Violation Address: 18101 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA 98026 Details of Complaint: In June of 2009, Chuck Hiatt from. the City of Edmonds Public Works department E knocked on, our door to inform us that there was a complaint frorn our [text door neighbor, Anthony Shapiro regarding some trees on the steel) slope of our property 1 0 located at 18101. Sunset Way in Edmonds, Mr. Hiatt informed us that Mr, Shapiro was E extremely concerned that these trees were not very healthy and would at some point they could fall into Olympic View Drive and cause a liability for the City of Fdrilonds. In fact Mr. Shapiro was so concerned about the City of Edmonds being liable that lie paid Go with his own money for a surveyor to show to the city of Edmonds that these trees were on the city of Edmonds` property and therefore the city should immediately cut there down. When we questioned Mr, Shapiro's survey, nne city cif Edmonds Public Works department paid for another- survey and they told us that based on the result of that survey, part of the subject trees were on their property. Mr. Hiatt then informed us that the trees would be cut immediately. We raised our extreme concerns about the stability of our steep slope, which these trees were helping make stable, Mr. Hiatt assured us repeatedly that the city would replant our steep slope to make sure we would not experience any adverse affects from cutting these trees and that our slope would not be jeopardized. It is now March 84, 2010 and riot only the City of Edmonds has not planted a single tree or shrub, but also the hill's condition has been greatly compromised as seen in the attached before and after photos. Unfortunately these trees, which used to partially block Mr. Shapiro's -view of the Puget Sound before they were cut, have been a major issue for Mr. Shapiro ever since lie bought. his property next to us. When Mr, Shapiro first approached us iri 2002 and asked LIS to cut these trees in order to open his view, we hired a Geotech engineer and a certified arborist to find out if that was a. viable option, We were told by both that cutting utt.,ng these trees could negatively impact our slope and cause a landslide. After we informed Mr. Shapiro of the Geotech and arborist's findings, he has tried every possible avenue to get these trees cut and he finally succeeded in June of 2009. Unfortunately that leaves our property badly jeopardized. I Packet Pg. 76 Our immediate concern, given the perilous nature of this steep slope, is that we are extremely worried that the City of Edmond's irresponsible actions at the request of Mr. Shapiro has greatly .compromised our land and that we may experience a landslide if we experience heavy rains, wtuch is very likely in this region. We thereby are asking the City of Edmonds to remedy this situation immediately to make sure we do not experience a landslide of our slope into Olympic View Drive. d Ela Matthew an na Sbi pen � 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 E 0 E 00 ti I Packet Pg. 77 mu � e - �{� - � ��'�'a ' � .'~ 'V{_ �' 'r k •ti . ' � �. � t • _ ;� ,�: i � 5_ - i y � . }� - - .. � .F 4- ��' ; .y`` . �Y:' i7 �'. iy. .. � �t �l rr. To: Phil Williams, Director of Public Works, City of Edmonds Robert Chave, Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Cc: Mike Cooper, Mayor, City of Edmonds Steve Bernheim, City Council President, City of Edmonds Scott Snyder, Attorney, City of Edmonds Thomas Adams, Attorney Adams, Duncan & Howard, Inc., P.S. 3128 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 From: Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Concern Dear Mr. Williams and Mr. Chave, We have been residing at 18101 Sunset Way in Edmonds, since 1992. When we first moved into our home, the property adjacent to us was a wooded piece of land that was fully covered by trees and shrubs and situated on a very steep slope; in addition, a class C stream used to run through this property. In 2002, Mr. Tony Shapiro, an architect and developer based in the city of Edmonds, bought the property and built a house on it. Originally Mr. Shapiro submitted an application for Steep Slope Exemption to the City of Edmonds in order to build a house on his property. An independent geotech engineer, hired by the City of Edmonds, denied the Steep Slope Exemption, citing the location to be un-buildable. Tony Shapiro then withdrew his application for Steep Slope Exemption and applied for Reasonable Use Exemption —this permit did not require an independent geotech's evaluation. The City of Edmonds granted this permit, conditional on Mr. Shapiro' implementation of his arborist's plan, which included extensive replanting of the construction site to stabilize the steep hill. Since 2002, we have had many property conflicts with Mr. Shapiro, including numerous times when Mr. Shapiro has trespassed onto our property to destroy trees to improve his view. To make matters worse, we have been extremely frustrated by what appears to be an inequitable treatment by the City of Edmonds of the response time and treatment of Mr. Shapiro's requests and complaints and ours. Below are just a few of the more recent examples of this inequitable treatment: In June 2009—only days after we stopped a crew hired by Mr. Shapiro to cut the trees on our property without permission —we were contacted by the City of Edmonds' Public Works and were told that Mr. Shapiro was very concerned about our trees being a as E 0 L O E .2 U M 00 ti Packet Pg. 84 rJ 4.3.a liability for the City of Edmonds. Within only a matter of days, the City of Edmonds ordered and paid for a survey and concluded that those trees were on the City's right of way and immediately proceeded to hire a tree service company to cut the trees, citing that one of theirs, a Maple tree, was dead. We were told that the City would replace the two trees with four Vine Maples. In March of 2010 the City planted two Vine Maples on our steep slope. When we contacted Public Works to inquire about the other two trees, we were told there were no trees available and they would be replaced when they became available. Meanwhile, the first two Vine Maple trees the City planted have disappeared. The City inquired about the trees, ordered a survey and cut them, all within one month, but 17 months later none of the four replacement Vine Maples are in place and we remain concerned about the stability of the slope. 2. In June 2009, very concerned about the stability of the slope, particularly in light of the removal of two large trees, we filed a complaint with City Planning and Building, as Mr. Shapiro still had not implemented his arborist's plan. We did not receive a response. When we called the City to inquire, we were told that Mr. Shapiro did not need to comply with his original arborist's plan because he had revised the plan after his house was built and he no longer needed to comply with the original plan. 3. Earlier this year, Mr. Shapiro threatened us that if we did not cut our trees in his view, he would report our storage shed to the City of Edmonds. When we told him that we were not interested in bowing to his threats, he proceeded to report it to the City. In May 2010, we received a letter from Mike Thies (City of Edmonds code enforcement) asking us to remove the shed within two weeks. We complied, giving the shed away. 4. On September 5, 2010 we noticed that approximately 25 feet of our cyclone fence, in place since November 2002, had been removed. (More of the fence has recently been removed.) In addition, our white surveying stakes installed by Lovell-Sauerland had been removed. The Shapiros had started storing their personal items (construction material, a large number of planting pots, and other personal items and debris) on our property. We called 911 and reported the incident. Officer G. B. Mills responded and informed us that since there were no stakes marking the property line, he did not have the authority to ask the Shapiros to remove their personal items and debris from our property. He advised us to contact an attorney to resolve the dispute —we have since proceeded to file a lawsuit against Mr. Shapiro in the Snohomish County Superior Court. Officer Mills did advise us that having the construction debris on the property was a violation, and that we should file a "Request for Code Enforcement Action" with the City of Edmonds, which we did promptly. We never heard back from the City —The Shapiros' have since removed all of their items, we assume in response to correspondence from our attorney. Packet Pg. 85 4.3.a We have kept very detailed documentation and photos that back up the events listed above, in this letter. After many years of frustration in our dealings with the City in regards to Mr. Shapiro's continuous violations, we have decided to send this letter not only to share our frustrations, but also ask that the City of Edmonds takes a more equitable approach in the future and therefore we would like the city to agree to the following: 1. We realize that the City of Edmonds is facing very difficult budget issues and that it is under -staffed in many of its departments. However, we think that 17 months is a very long time to wait for replanting our slope. We want to ensure that no further de -stabilization occurs due to the removal of the two large N trees. 2. We believe that over the past several years we have not received equitable E cc treatment in our dealings with the City as they pertain to Mr. Shapiro's ,o violations. Furthermore, as long as Mr. Shapiro resides adjacent to our home, E we expect him to continue with his predatory behavior. In the future, we v would like to see the City of Edmonds take a more even-handed approach in its dealings with us. Go Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Matthew and Elana Shippen Address: 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: 425-778-6413 Packet Pg. 86 F4Ta771 Wednesday, September 7, 2011 7.49 PM Subject: RE: Question regarding sewer line Date: Friday, January 7, 2011 1:30 PM From: Lambert, Jennifer <jennifer.lambert@ci.edmonds.wa.us> To: Elana Shippen <eshippen@comcast. net> Cc: "Williams, Phil" <Phil.williams@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "English, Robert" <english@ci.edmonds.wa. us> Matt and Elana; I've attached the documents that show a permit was given to the Shapiro's and the inspections that were performed on their sewer. I hope the documents address your questions. Please let me know if you have there i anything else I can help you with. Have a wonderful weekend. M E O Jennifer Lambert E U Engineering Technician City of Edmonds 00 425-771-0220 ext 1321 jennifer.lambert a*ci.edmonds.wa.us <mailto: cjenniferlambertci.edmonds.wa.us> o L O 4- E -----Original Message----- .2 From: Shippen [mailto:eshippen@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:09 PM To: Lambert, Jennifer Cc: Williams, Phil; English, Robert Subject: Re: Question regarding sewer line a Thanks for the clarification. Could you please send us the paperwork that shows the City of Edmonds authorized Tony and Siri Shapiro to connect to the utility easement that runs through our property? Also, we are assuming that you have the paperwork that shows this work was done properly and inspected by the city. Could you also provide that? Page 1 01 Packet Pg. 87 4.3.a Thanks again, Matt & Elana Shippen On 12/22/10 5:02 PM, "Lambert, Jennifer" <jennifer.lambert@ci.edmonds.wa.us> wrote: Matt and Elana Shippen, The city attorney advises that we have the authority to grant permission to other city residents to connect to a utility that is within a public easement. The city is an optional municipal code city with authority under the general law of the state to operate a sewerage system. RCW 35A.80.010 (general law applicable); 35.92,020. The system that the city manages includes all trunk and lateral sewers within public easements and under public ownership. Elliott v. City of Leavenworth 197 Wash 2d 427 (1938). Subject to the payment of connection fees, compliance with city engineering standards and assuming adequate sewer capacity exists, the city has a duty to allow connections to residents of the city. RCW 35.92.025; Funk v City of Duvall, 126 Wn App 920, 928 (2005) {general rule not applicable to nonresidents), So long as the city's facility is in an unrestricted public sewer easement, these general rules apply. If the sewer is located in an easement with special limiting conditions contained in the deed of dedication, those limitations would control. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Have a wonderful holiday! Jennifer Lambert Engineering Technician Page 2 o Packet Pg. 88 4.3.a City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 ext 1321 jennifer.lambertgci.edmonds.wa.us <mailto:cjenniferlambert a*' ci.edmonds.wa.us> -----Original Message ----- From: Shippen [mailto:eshippen@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:44 PM To: Lambert, Jennifer Subject: Question regarding sewer line Jennifer, I have attached a letter from our attorney (to Mr. Shapiro's attorney) regarding Mr. Shapiro's sewer line connecting to the City's sewer line which runs through the City's easement on our property. Does the City have the authority to grant permission to other city residents to its easement on our property? If yes, is there a record of this authorization? Thanks, Matt and Elana Shippen Page 3 o Packet Pg. 89 4.3.a Impect Time po mll C Aoor of Comemat" &.Rd.r*"vr CCMscI ptq W. Slp► of lmq tRM Imp I R—At of lnspet4— O.N Lr. -tX: vss;vu; oroi �nmi bxaawq sae" as:«ue :re Stii:sito 'ss '..csor.nn cewr-..� I cmwwn, xrt � mvwu . I•n..a. w.n=.uwy �ls.rwe. r re wn vn n �n�cnxs sror se.—ryy rn��f•.°:7� '�• ai 'v::.et+� Page 4 o Packet Pg. 90 4.3.a ... ,. w, r • .i.., ..., ......- .��..- , ,rnu+f-.en..arprw .•.r.i:ra'.{^riV.oi��.n •�ysLO.N�I' IrlI 1,. 1 � Y r fl U1ILIIT tASEH£HT Wto "44" CEAA11" of trnrfits to aeyrue to the granters haraln, the vnaerslpnrd. flQBfat i nn}tif�rarr and MAMA y H011Hrm ii, Ii1w_.rlta •r •Cri'4,y ,rJnt to iILO �i.r i lfi jiiD:. u Huelrlpupnrrt�lon, a nermSnnrlt ease-irnt Inr ttir initeiF*t W)� oparatless, and "Dintcnanct of Vater t n 1 rn over, across, through an ta�einw tole fullo. iiiq Crsc Tt.ci pr4porty, and ;hr lvrther7raht to remove treas. burhes. underyrvath and other obslructlons Intarfarinq with the location. constructlo•l and Amintenanco of told utlllty or .tlllties, tAoM hop With the right of access to tha onsarrat at any tar.- for the stated purpvtes, the ease -writ and right-of-way hereby granted is locatnd in the County of Snoho- mish, State of liaiNington, and is care particularly described at follows: the northerly iQ feet of the followlnp described property: 'that portion of Govarrirent Lot to Soctlon 18, TvnnctilA 27 Hrrth, Bange 4 Cost, U.H. deserlted as follvw.- Cem+4nclny at the northwast corner of Suction 18, Township 27 North, R+nge 4 East, N.H ;nJ proceeding thence along the west lino of said Section 18, 50101137"11 a d:stanea of 656.58 feet to the southerly margin of 'Clio EdoiondG-Ucvdrly Park Road; thence along sold southerly ratrgin on a curve to the left, havlflg an ialttal Court* of h-4o081I711E and a rarrlus of 349,60 fact, a distance of 126.04 foist; thonca lli3o28150"E a dlstanca of 58.79 feet to the lrtersectior of told southerly nwrgin as the Edmonds-6evarly Park Road and the northerly rargin of Sunsaa slay; thence continuing along said so-tharly margin sit the Ed+cinds-Bevorly Park Rear' H 28'50"C a dlstanca of 197.35 feet; the t along the me of A cu• -e tG the f1911, hoot, Ing a radius of 98.30 feat, a distance of 132.15 rose ti th nee S6$o57150"C a distance of $59.67 feat; thanca along this arc of a curve to the loft, linviu.} A radlus of 389..3' (Oct. a dl.tante 0 185.83 foist to the True Paint of Beginning, ttrontu ,continuing along the southerly rrargin of tiro £dnonds-Bavnrly Park Rcsd and along tits arc Of a curve to the left, having a radfuir of 389.20 foot, a distance of 72 fact, than., 5 1002r16r'tf a distance of 136.70 Isat+ thence. west di,ttincs of 12o f*etf thin, S4a11$1' 23'rtf a distance of 53.1) fast to the portharly "ryln of Sun.= Weyy th*nca ,rii:d9 inls' AlargIn tl,.1014' 101%1 a dllot anca of 20 faa•,; thancp 436"05035" E, 179.95 fast to tha true Point of Fregirntno, EXCEPT any portion lying within Sunset Nay as convoyai to the City of Edrionds by do*d roiWraed under Audltor't F!la Hn.. 1794710. Situate In the County of Snohonilth, St to of irashindtorI Yho Clty agraas to raatoro to substantlM Iy the original canditlan such Irr%rore- ments as are disturbed o,ring the conitructicn, mint•-naacn «j repair of said utillty or utliltles; provided, the granters, ihalr halm or assigns shall not construct any p..rm4near Structure over, upon or within the p*raranent aate+raat. DATED 1h1a L day of Se AK --.q 'r 94 +, , comity OF ks s7 I t; L7 ` am ttols uey wrs....r:1f .i,,..mrc� liafetru W kD>ltifti , Ii17ii-1L'.Ii and 11AUTogto I -, tt1 :a ,nRrn Gfia IR�IVI►1u1111�fw describe n snr Marl I, eta t.u►r t ry pad farapainu inhtrou:.- is acid atkoinnlPdV0 that--...tiln:l sippi! thu GAWr 0 ,..J�� free Arid voitinvory _._t za deft, fur 11.0 •-L+c wrj val-Ansps thars'In Ualrrlri5L. G14f+i tu.rfur ny Naafi and sifflcipl pEt:,1 thlq id 41I H�.i ryi�+i �fr�;� piio Ialt1�a 'i1J'ld���i1Y��1 � tli��,�!iU did>;p "i� rir Ifaahlna,G�,L�,,l lW'4' 9r.'i.�Gi i'tJ,i,fitlt,.i i8'atriend:lnd•f`,.. �litrill ` AL. Description: Snohomish,KA Document-DocID 2402522 Page: I of I Order: I Comment: Packet Pg. 91 4.3.a 0? ri U T I L I T Y E H SEMEN T JN CONSIDERATION OF BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO THE GRANTORS HEREIN, THE UNDERSIGNED, R08�RT F, X Jlz', A 'r pa OS ' AND 7'��a:3A A, 1t'p5LOSK , his wife, HEREBY GRANT TO THE CITY OF EDVONDS., A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, A PERMANENT £ASE1,1FUT FOR THE 114STALLATIONJ OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A SANITARY SEWER LINE and/or a storm Sewer line OVER, ACROSS, THROUGH AND BELOW THE FOtLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND THE FURTHER RIGHT TO REMOVE TREES, BUSHES, UNDERGROWTH AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS INTERFERING WITH THE LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID UTILITY OR UTILITIES, THE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY HEREBY GRANTED IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A STRIP OF LA14D LYING WITHIN GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 18, T27N, R4E, W.M. SAID STRIP OF LAND BEING 10;00 FEET IN WIDTH LYING 5.00 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF AND ADJACENT TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SEC. 16, T27N, R4E, W.1.1. AND PROCEEDING THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SEC. 18, SOUTH 100113711W A DISTANCE OF 656.5E FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF THE EDMONDS-BEVERLY PARK ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING AN INITIAL COURSE OF NORTH 54"08113"EAST AND A RADIUS OF 349.60 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 126.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33028150"E, A DISTANCE OF 58.79 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF THE EDMONDS-BEVERLY PARK ROAD AND THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF SUNSET WAY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF THE EDMONDS-BEVERLY PARK ROAD NORTH 330 28150"E A DISTANCE OF 197.35 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 98,90 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 132,15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 696570 50"E A DISTANCE OF 199.67 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 389.20 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 1855.83�/ _ jjr FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE; THEN A K j- N 3.0.015135"Ej 1.79.99 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SUNSET WAY �s AND THE TERMINUS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE. l�.(� F11• . Jr. The CityaS$�Ce(eSs�tyo(�c y to the Grantors the sum of 776A' HUNDRED TO SUBSTANTIALLY THE ORIGINAL CONDITION SUCH IM- ' PROVEMENTS AS ARE DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SAID UTILITY OR UTILITIES; PROVIDED, THE GRANTORS, THEIR HEIRS OR ASSIGNS SHALL NOT CON- STRUCT ANY PERMANENT STRUCIURE OVER, UPON OR WITHIN THE PERMANENT EASEMENT, DATED THIS _ DAY OF 19 NO SALES TAX RE(DUIPF'D J € I N 1 1; 1967 VI STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) s� COUNTY OFSNORC94IS* ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME RD T �OSLoSKy AND (C Ear g d k • His Wife, TO ME KNOWN TO ESE THE 1 NO I V I DUA S DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT they SIGNED THE SAME AS their FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED, L4. 4 1) CC(: LW Off} LLJ �y U a G = yu.c OFFICIAL RECORDS VOL 116' PACE525 Packet Pg. 92 1.5058 NO SALES TAG ( U T I L IT Y E A S E M E N T FEB 20 1969 IN CONSIDERA-TION OF BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO THE GRANTORS H , l28p rt� liDber�F,ICGSGCSiGj�, R06ERT F. KOSLI7S1{Y, Jfi. _ AND TERESA A. itD5L�5KY,- his riife�__ HEREBY GRANT 70 THE CITY & �fON�]$, A MsUN1CiPAL CORPORATION, A PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATIONS OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF a watermain OVER, ACROSS, THROUGH AND BELOW THE FOLLOW- ING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND THE FURTHER RIGHT TO REMOVE TREES, BUSHES, UNDERGROWTH AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS INTERFERING WITH THE LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID UTILITY OR UTILITIES. THE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY HEREBY GRANTED IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A strip of land lying within Government Lot I, Sec. 18, T27N, R4E,W.M. Said strip of land being 10.00 feet in width lying 5.00 feet on either side of and adjacent to the following described centerline: Commencing at the NW corner of Sec. 18, T27N, R4E, W.M. and proceeding thence along the West line of said Sec. 18, South 1°01!37"W, a distance of 656.58 feet to the Southerly margin of the Edmonds -Beverly Park Road; thence along said Southerly margin on a curve to the left, having an initial course of North 54°08113"East and a radius of 349.60 feet, a distance of 126.04 feet; thence North 33°28950"E, a distance of 58.79 feet to the intersection of the Southerly margin of the Edmonds -Beverly Park Road and the Northerly margin of Sunset Way; thence continuing along said Southerly margin of the Edmonds -Beverly Park Road North 33°28150"E a distance of 197.35 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 98.90 feet, a distance of 132.15 feet; thence South 69115715011E a distance of 199.67 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 389.20 feet, a distance of 185.83 feet to the Point of Baginni-ng of the herein described centerline; thence N 36°05'35"E, 179.99 feet; more or less, to the North line of Sunset Way and the terminus of the herein described centerline. The 46, egeec5 f;o rrsfvre- 6A149 er,-,-c�te.f erV_;i'q ,'2�. �-�s�t,E-c !c� l�.at alcory ��s�iw�nf� Pa}- L6ts=•� sf''�az�o fl,� S�-ax-fovsj THE CITY AGREES TO RESTORE TO SUBSTANTIALLY THE ORIGINAL CONDITION SUCH IM- PROVEMENTS AS ARE DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SAID UTILITY OR UTILITIES; PROVIDED, THE GRANTORS, THEIR HEIRS OR ASSIGNS SHALL NOT CON- STRUCT ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURE OVER, UPON OR WITHIN THE PERMANENT EASEMENT. DATED THIS 3 DAY OF Erb 19 & CD, Ca LJ STATE or WASHINGTON3 cnia' � z f r� ��77 r = } r�wa V w LLo r. LLVJ tr COUNTY OF � - _i46 aN �r v�tiscc: .� ,_�' "• (Q(�}yN THIS DAY PERSONALLY-APPEAK1) BEFORE _ /� �J MEta�1}, ��r�xea� AND [G I , k4,,,e"A �,+ , TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INDIVIDUAC ks)— _ DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED FfNE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED `"�/ THAT SIGNED THE SAME AS lL�i FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED. .••++"`1111rQy�VEN under my hand and official seal this day of �A, 1968. All Ta NOTAIM PUBLIC IN AN • FOR THE FATS OF 1,••.. Y� I]IA ■�..`x, r�s WASJIINGTON, RESIDING AT iA rrff OFFICIAL RECORDS 4.3.a at tv E Iv L 0 E M U M Ib ti 14 291 PACE378 Packet Pg. 93 4.3.a c b a g f ft°So § Z Z '(D CL CD #f go as . ƒ § � @ % � »@ ■ // § � a #o c $D & @� k & 5 m § S 2 � ]/ k p jco) k 010-- .f « � # G � � a k t & � CLM § k mod§ § Packet Pg. 9 & E � 0 E Q 2 � 2 7 E � 0 E k k : 2 2 � E _ � 2 4.3.a C 4 @ ity of Edmonds PERMIT'NO: 9703 SIDE SEVER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES—" ' ti �. A i Address of Construction- (0�Lo yoq7 f ld� , LFD_#._ 1 �` Property Tax Account Parcel No.q- 7 3 Attach copses of all access and utili�tyeasements - , �6 Verified and Approved by Owner and/or Contractor: 5111 t xCI � �I . J HW1VL1"7 .19, Iplx Contractor License #:O BW ing Permit #: � �] _— ' Single Family Invasion into City "Right -of Way: Yes ❑ No ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units _� *IOW Construction Permit #�� `', �_1�� E ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ] Cross other ""Private Property: [ 'Yes ❑ No 0 ❑ l' "Attach legal description and copy o r _ reed ewemi6 .E U Uwn —or/Contractor 00 Owner or c tr for signature and acknowledgement statement: `�� Da e By signin r this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled ,n Side Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. E CALL DIAL. -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION I 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension 1`0 E 24 HOUR NOTICE RIEQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION RE UF.STS RN W_ I'm Q A' �. Permit Fee $ } ' repair Fee 1"hlssued By: n Trunk Charge $_ 730 _ Date Issued: y` U Assessment Fee $ Receipt No:. City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.00 Total Fees Paid $ a NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES_ .._^NO. —.Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Partial Inspection: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Date: Initial: Date: Initial: itial: As -built to Street File: ❑ Lei PERMIT MUST DE POSTED ON JOB SITE t- While Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bi dg; formsssperniitj I g4/00 Packet Pg. 95 DATE 4.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNED IlAMERUUE OF DIX.INEss MAxuIG Ap1pE♦59 Vic: [rcm n rCI a ZIr lrl EI'IfORF. p ,r NAME AnOnrss !" _ - CITY ZIP NA4E ZIPI�Iq'1 rPIrDNr i _ L Z1 j kJ�7 L 5TA1E Lit: R18f: Nl'MBF.II lAeYWIGN tulC S� L =CC) -06 crZ "'O"Enry TAX ACCWNl TAACEL NO. { (U PERMIT EXPIRES ii lE 1 C 1 , PERMIT NUMBER +�cv�Nt.sv [L;;TL�L1 Ilc- i 1 1. st.+rUArl• PIh1 •. VAL5l�OORTSIpI PIG LOT 140 I NO _ LID FEE F r•"W" "loll' OF WAY PCN OTMIAL STREET XIAP EXISTING ST. r N. ✓.I... np e PRuvu En— ���n. �• nEOWRED GEOIC419CIf � fr �^ yy�e [lam uE ttttjN/�J7k LWE SRE NO OF FUTURES Prry REOVWEa I k yj YES NO REwrtas ' OYMER•COHTAACTOR RESPONSM E IOn EROSION M 11101—NAGE p {d f=Y1: S!l lA] (7_ rl l! Ll rT r .:. = ^12[M- Co NESICENIIAL 0 1L.Wil10fmcol AbOITIWI Ej COAU.OEaCU4 EiCOMPLIANIC On CIU-NOE OF USE REMODEL C] MDLTIEAARLY G SK1N AErmn IG GRADING CYDS �[IICL x --Fn DEUOLISH 0 1TL• {10 OTHER Iyu OAMCrry E Y FBIESPTI6N%LER CArrPORT Romiky HDDILL'lIY 0 FIRE ALARH TT[Y�PE OF UGt; O1ISTNEs9 OH ACTFnYYI-EAPIAIii: NUMCER /rvy (rzj %IT: lt-•�� NUMnER OF 1 OWELLPIO + CRINCOF NUUINII {'�i0 �1 DESCRIBE WORK TO OE MICE ' VA )) rR415-;m r f.71.r"T I it. ., . r A-iA l-- - TxfI ,t#ADS Utya [�� LUYIr) 0. k•nHrcDlxr>wc+vEORy — �� �.-�.•i 7 wu ... 1 %`ITWED UY OAS[ I[ yAr1 we UII GU SItijllllRK pIALW Pwq CfCIy Rpm IICO . POSTED ' •-r�:,_- ':z-•------ DYES Iro L DF.PA PF.wm. 5ION AREA Ne lom EPH• Elf; EA}Ynl u{01' .0 PROPOSED ALLOWED rvinroSED yR .L. Or •RA .... I Ou"t'll SEIOACIre IfTI 1ROF08FD bf iMAS IFTL ALLOWED ,Ito(,OfEo MONT RYK R111 Fool# IAI DE RPM � PAAfINa LOT AREA NANMFIO nFv*,% U tlY RAIL fK mu ri1 CHEO KEO tlY TYP% OF S COPISTlI CIOI F rCST OCCUP ORGU PE0S0-1 ®UC),$ AIEAi OGUPAN IOAREREOURI J ,[�y ReMRfIR� 1 1" PA RE56Ir;:IPEcnoti8 PER UBC It1aMMAL INSPECTION REO'D "AL M�1A H Description 1� FEE Description FEE Plan Check % to, SLOPE % 6 0 1 0 Building Permit irucE ktaheharge,I charge PLA CHECK NO: l t VESTED DATE �•.:•� Plumbing +His 9rF."" AtITAorrrru ONLY TIt[ wOMrt NOTE(. 7II1S rLRMn valrt S WVItx-D BE DONE ON PirMAT E FROPEIITY ONLY. AM CONIri1WCTIOII OM ,IT MEd,anit,il FIE�_ THE PUDUC ' DOMAIN "IMS, SIDESYAkXS.ORRIMAYII, VAFOU¢ES. Cr" wtU. REOtrmE GracEng C 7110A11A1E PERi.USSM.11. - x -� Engr. Review � vFnvll A>°PLscA71nN� Tao OAys PERMT t1MYC lYFIuI-PIInnOE0 Yra1tA 111 STANTEb W11MN lee DAYS Oe% SEE RACK OF 01Mr PFAUIf FOR MORE 0110AKATroR IN *4S'ulr, GN DFIWF T PC�of OII NFR U"USC• tIECIM. A5SK+N. AND SuCGLsGAS W1ERExr; AOPEfS TO utl1FVNKY', Dr1 END AND I'OLD IIAImUros PIRn Chic DepbsilW i)K CITY CN- iEDLr01r•J5. WA91MATFUN, na OFI ICIAI S• FLIKOYEES, Arlo AGEMYS filom AM'VIDfl AltrAA4ygFOR9AHAOEsOF%%Ar6vER rF_qgr.Im,-*CtjOrP ReceiptTROY111E It41UR5AAUlk7 pirtEC+IY Oil 11 MUANCF Or TH15 PFAUIE 16SVANCE OF TIRH54A1i Rai RE 00EFMEA10 N1AlICE kKXNPX; WANE OR REDUCE AnyREifYALE H011 ll4Rt nsp.TDIai AmL Duo W A1Tf YrAY THE CIPI•y ADIL ITyTO tRrCACF NIT Onry+LA FIr•ee J 1 NEREOY ACKNOWLL DGE. MAT 1 ILWE READ TIILT A"U'G Tl04. THAT TILE RrI ORMAT", Receipt Y &kx C4AN Is chRIIECT; AM THAT AM AM ME owNEIL ON 111E Duly Atlnapwzkr ,+oln' Or 71IE OV4ZER I ADnEE TO COLIAY Wnff CITY AND STATE tAws REGULATING CCMTlWE- APPLICATION APPROVAL Ino" ANO YI DOIND LAE WORK Au"o" hZED THE REer. NO PF nfJW WILL DE EUM nYFb NI YreuitON OF T$IE tAROR COOk OF THE STATE Or WAIiNIHGrom RCLATIM TO CALL. FOR INS2ECTION rN+ygAty+ipinnd F IK+ME t.Rl 4rp+re$Y.F rN+4.T.+p OIielNur.NfAE. DtP•AE; Tptl AltiT TIC WORAYF.NS COVPFNSA AND tll.Y 1527, . +TtEIPIb W�new/plppp Ylfpugpp,ylp M1AL (TVN{n 7n .CHI DATE SIGNED Oi FIC1AE1l AluBE raj'^ DATE Z YL (425) ' 771-0220 j ATT Af EXT 1333 Z V IT IS UNLAWFUL TO IJS OR ......ION A BUILAINg OR STAU010RF UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OF A CERTIFI• ' CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN Gr.WMD, UDC SECTrON 165 . GIYGINAL•PILE YEU.Om. WSPECTO4 041w PRESS HARD -YGO ARE Prva.O•YNER GOLD-A^,s S. MAKING 5 4COF;ES GREEN. ACCOUNIYKT U Q Packet Pg. 96 ■ RECORD OF INSPECTIONS BACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Fooling Wall.......................... Pier/Porch Rel wining 'hall ........_ Slab InSlllatlOn .......... PLUMBING: Undergrounci ............. Rough -In ................... Commercia! Final ...... HEATING: i Gas Test ........ ;........... Gas Piping .:............... Equipment ..... Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEA•fH!NG NAILING ......... :........... ..... FRA10ING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... INSULATION ................... Floir !,isufalion ......... oil lnsu:alitn ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEFTROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS ........., 114AL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY ....... .�.%..:... F - -r' p) INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED • �N1 S ,�3 N:7d LiOnS I�4 Ar r:-d la `�J' Amova Paid t' IV. Amuunt F' z 0 n m Packet Pg. 97 LJ �� CD pt W- uj s Q S2 LIJ w Lu cc �- Of, M a. y o ' f x - i E a I a f m vk s M 3AV H106� � sa Co uk 0 r� n: Q t r c a� E v a ."I-lu MW zmw'•Mtn Nll-t-A Itp ai`�{9 'ill JJ y S4 Jv =P>ez3 IT B • s;•,� .�an5-wswxaa�uFntua ^�i -� x S s '-ar �i.l� sa ��xnd?o!1 Sri •i .0 t �a • =;M mu �'ap sn�>nrty3la .,.] . Hi � 7g7�a •:•,y. -.ip sulul4. 1L7Vl3flmJoi.L'v':�L,JMON Packet Pg. 98 1 4.3.a �I 181' II` J_ !'£ 921 21 of"' 0� s H iy' I• x� A, -7 ��� L 'a x'4�9� 3•§a`1�i;T fi � i�1 YQ� a3, _q "}�_ � nC 1' Aga at de � , i 4 3 A i � gg MONNAHAN PROPERTY _� �' { c PARCEL 27041600208500 [=� .S m ` SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA_ .nmm�a: Vrw�ra-�, I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ,�, .< n 4- M Go 1- N d cc E cc L O 4— E U C N 0. t Co C E t r.+ Q Packet Pg. 99 1 4.3.a Asa .CY pp\ S69'57'50"E - BASIS OF BEARING 200.05' (MEASURED) 199.67' (DEED) R=389.20 FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE NAIL IN O � it; L=7�4� �r=37.49 Delta=ll'00'12"EW z ( POSITION L� IN RM V M a orrc = zt+.z CIO �t�IIn�1��lJ �G �9 03AObddV C1 4J u 59.20 8 m40 S1 L= 66. L= fi .69 Tan=139.83 NuQzt �n SWALE R pNyLi AS SI, P E�E{alS IG lRO R y Delta=42'32'20" _ ^DRIVE.73� TOW 22 4 w y , > � W 1 - �' �'ERLt—RATOW 77 N 10 r Z EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ET R 51 I ' • N fl671C _ AND REPLACED PER TREE --EfALUATON, ;i q i E G IMF -ACE A$5F&-ZNT, is .i y n1 RETENTION-MDlREPLACE.IJeNL--_ — j 2 _r., iCzj: U L ` O a, O PLAN, DATE 12/12/01 -- — — — •'ly 224 t v.E E H 10' SETBACK LINE .a` W as APPROX. CONFIGURATION OF STAIR ?�,$ 22B m 228 �'S .� FROM DECK, EXACT LOCATION WILL m Pso =-9 NOT ENCROACH SETBACK h 230 E IC ON u7 = °a I 232. r �� cC m U 0 SANITARY SIDE SEWER LINK TO } m f2 Cpg�O EXISTING LINE i C7 �" g n 6' WOOD FENCE co YARD = 233.5 �O ca C9� m ���� BI=E / A=EL 223.0 '! BLDG. HEIGHT BORDER TYPtp v.$ EX15T CB TO REMAIN AT EXISTING I p a w ram- HEIGHT DECK V a E 24" ROOF OVERHANG TYP R6 r , s ,. BAY WINDOW R CLOSET MAIN FLR LEVEL Ci WEST FACE OF CARPORT 4 ' D0. I 1 5 Sunset Way OG r C: c x S LU W, ROOF OVERHANGS 24" . i'i �l7USE �" �0a" IST FLR 245.5 LOWER FLR 2355 I FTG D N BEL G1 •w ;.i ui 8101 45 I' DIA WATERLINE INTO 2,353 sf FOOTPRINT I D tNAGE DIT H cC m 1` c_x y ca C ACE OF NEW HOUSE 11 I E - +_� PARCEL 2704180 500 .. _� _ s.. 15.459 SQ.FT. (0.35 ACRES] l E IN U a 1 GAR FLR 245.5 j N C C F IJ W J C Q. CO) 3' WOOD FENCE ' a n 2. N9 'O0'00 '-7 114" PL TO 4) NEW GAS LINE TO CRAWL L �511' F SPACE OF HOUSE �y�h a FO 1 2 1� 5 \ NEW EL METER UM 4EIGHT DATUM SET R C \ 0 D K NEW GAS METER 2 C1 f0 o �P6 10871. N`� SHED APPROX EDGE OF NEW 4 k Q r DRIVEWAY f PAVER CURB WITH 3/4"' 25 f RISE ON DWY SIDES FO REBA HOUSE NEW ROCKERY AS REQUD FOR PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAY �\ 'p?1 #18107 c ELEVATIONlS10F EXIST GRADE AT "BOX" AROUND FOOTPRINT \ V` SET W WAT METER OF BLDG. FOR HEIGHT CALCULATIONS SSMH RIM 253.89' �` Jy�r INv N = 249L \ / INV S 251.10' [ ❑ NEW CUT ROCKERY, SEE CIVIL DWGS ��� ��- SITE P ❑ r'A' Packet Pg. 100 4.3.a F�nGE@ C O R P O R 11 T■ O Geotechnical 8, Earthquake Engineering Consultants January 6, 2017 File No. 02-063 Ms. Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmunds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Letter Addendum Landslide Assessment 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Shippen, As you requested, we visited your property on December 4, 2016, to observe the effects of a landslide on the steep slope above Olympic View Drive and down slope of your property, that had impacted your property. This letter is, in part, a follow up to our report dated October 14, 2002, which reviewed soil cracking in your yard (see Plate 1) that 32 t3 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite B Seattle, WA 98102 Tel (206) 262-0370 Fax (206) 262-0374 Packet Pg. 101 4.3.a 18101 Sunset Way, Edmonds Landslide Evaluation Letter January 6, 2017 developed while the adjacent property to the east was under construction. Based on the site conditions and our observations at the time, we concluded that the soil cracks developed in a wedge of fill material at the top of the slope, that was yielding under the vibrations of the heavy equipment operating next door. We observed that the cracks were located roughly parallel to the crest of the 20 to 25-foot slope above Olympic View Drive, about 10 feet back from the crest. We also observed that the visible cracks extended approximately 50 west from the east property line. We also observed that the slope consisted of erodible sand material and was penetrated by animal burrows. At the time of our visit on December 4, 2016, we observed that a landslide had impacted the west -central section of your properties fence line. The top of the slide extends approximately 12 feet into your property, and is roughly 20 feet wide (see Plate 2). Plate 2 — Landslide scarp at top of steep slope, looking west. We understand that the landslide began on the lower part of the slope on November 24, 2016, on City of Edmonds right-of-way, and propagated upward to affect your property. We understand that the landslide closed Olympic View Drive for a period of four days. Repairs to date consist of removal of failed soil material, placing hay bales at the toe of the slide area to intercept eroded soil, and covering the bare slope on the right-of-way with straw to control erosion (see Plate 3). Based on a photo published in the Edmonds 02-063 18101 Subset Way Edmunds Letter 2 PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 102 4.3.a 18101 Sunset Way, Edmonds Landslide Evaluation Letter January 6, 2017 News on November 24th, the slide appears to consist of a mass of saturated soil that has slumped onto Olympic View Drive. The photo shows considerable groundwater discharge from the base of the slope, indicating that groundwater was one of the causative factors in the slide. Based on our site reconnaissance visit, our meetings and conversations with you and our previous experience with the site, we draw the following observations and conclusions: ■ The landslide location does not correspond with the exact area affected by the previously observed cracking. However, the eastern end of the landslide scarp overlaps to some degree with western extent of the cracking observed in 2002. • While visible cracking in 2002 did not extend far into the current failure area, it is likely that the initial soil disturbance from the vibrations extended across the entire property, weakening the soil on the slope. The slope in our opinion was in a compromised condition since 2002 at least. ■ The failure occurred following a period of heavy rains. October in particular was one of the wettest Octobers on record. While we did not see seepage at the toe of the slope at the time of our visit (see Plate 3), the news photo from the Edmonds News shows abundant water discharging from the toe of the slope in the area of the slide. ■ The blackberries and other scrub vegetation on the slope are not generally considered effective cover for a vulnerable slope. We understand that a� E 0 L 0 E .2 U M 00 ti 02-063 19101 Subset Way Edmunds Letter 3 PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 103 18101 Sunset Way, Edmonds Landslide Evaluation Letter January 6, 2017 landscaping plantings were planned following the construction of the house next door, to help stabilize the slope. We understand these plantings were never implemented, and that several existing trees that may have provided support to the slope were removed. a The slope area is known for being subject to animal burrowing. Such burrows may provide paths for groundwater piping, and may degrade the soil structure and strength of the near surface soils underlying the slope. In our opinion, the landslide appears to be classifiable as a shallow, rapid slide, of the type commonly observed on steep slopes in the region. In our opinion, the slide occurred on a previously compromised slope due to some combination of natural land slide processes and man-made conditions. In particular, the heavy rains of October and early o November likely played a large role in causing the slide. Clearly, however, the slide ° originated on the right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, and therefore stabilization and E remediation is in our opinion the responsibility of the City of Edmonds. v M Please call with any questions on this evaluation. c° r a ��k;u:�g 4aa7aykt/ K �`. 4 _._0 STEPHEN H. EVANS Gv� Stephen H. Evans, L.E.G Senior Engineering Geologist 02-063 18101 Subset Way Edmunds Letter W. Paul Grant, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer 4 PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 104 4.3.a 18101 Sunset Way, Edmonds Landslide Evaluation Letter January 6, 2017 02-063 18101 Subset Way Edmunds Letter 5 PanGEO, Inc. Packet Pg. 105 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #223616 through #223739 dated January 12, 2017 for $1,255,601.50 (re -issued check #223656 $2,000.00). Approval of wire payment dated January 12, 2017 for 742.43. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Fiscal Impact Claim checks and wire payment $1,256,343.93 Re -issued check $2,000.00 Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claim cks 01-12-17 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 01-12-17 us bank wire 01-12-17 Packet Pg. 106 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12: 27: 57 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 223616 1/12/2017 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 379514 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 379559 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total 223617 1/12/2017 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1216244 FALL 2016 AWARDS WOMENS VOL FALL 2016 AWARDS WOMENS VOL 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 Total 223618 1/12/2017 075470 ACCELA INC INV-ACC27063 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Total 223619 1/12/2017 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1801817 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 01/01/� STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 01/01/� 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total 223620 1/12/2017 070188 ACI MECHANICAL & HVAC SALES 153806-00 SEWER - LS 4 - BLOWER PARTS Sewer - LS 4 - Blower Parts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total 223621 1/12/2017 074606 AIRE FILTER PRODUCTS NW LLC 19707 WWTP: CREDIT MEMO #829 APPLII CREDIT MEMO #829 APPLIED AGAI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.4.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 107 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223621 1/12/2017 074606 AIRE FILTER PRODUCTS NW LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 23580 829 223622 1/12/2017 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC 147350 223623 1/12/2017 074488 ALPHACOURIER INC 223624 1/12/2017 070976 AMERESCO INC PO # Description/Account Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: MERV 8 FILTERS MERV 8 FILTERS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: CREDITAPPLIED AGAINST wrong sales tax charged. Inv 19707 8 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 Total : 16941 WWTP: 12/7/16 COURIER SERVICE 12/7/16 COURIER SERVICE TO RAII 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 4 WWTP: PH 5 ENERGY PROJ CONS PH 5 ENERGY PROJ CONST. SERV 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 RETAINAGE PYMT #4 423.100.223.400 4.4.a Page: 2 Amoun c a� E R 0. 20.7( m �3 10.5, -a c M Y 600.1, t 40.5( E M 62.7E ,- 0 c� -90.6( o 0- a -20.7( Q -10.5- 703.4E ti N 13.1E o 13.11 Y U E 62.3( 62.3( E t U 2 r 208,566.1( Q -9,497.4E Page: 2 Packet Pg. 108 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223624 1/12/2017 070976 AMERESCO INC 223625 1/12/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c W (Continued) E 5 WWTP: PH 5 ENERGY PROJ PROF R Q. PH 5 ENERGY PROJ PROF SERV T d L 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 88,544.2: '3 Total: 287,612.8, c 1988954720 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS y FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS cYi 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.4( t 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.6( 1988965390 WWTP: 1/4/17 UNIFORMS, TOWEL; Uniforms o 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( —R mats & towels 0 0 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 L 115.9£ 0- 9.8% Sales Tax a Q 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 11.3 1 1988965392 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS ti FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 N 27.4( 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.6£ Y 1988969397 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: U PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' y PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 t 6.1' u PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: r Q 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' Page: 3 Packet Pg. 109 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223625 1/12/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) a� E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE M 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ m 9.8% Sales Tax 3 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1( c 9.8% Sales Tax M 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( Y 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( .M 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5� 9.8% Sales Tax > 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( o 1988969398 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT Q' a FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS Q 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.6£ FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5( C� 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.8( Total: 254.8'. Y U 223626 1/12/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 91706 UB OUTSOURCING AREA#100 - PF E UB Outsourcing Area #100 - Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 92.1' +: UB Outsourcing Area #100 - Printing w 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 92.1' E UB Outsourcing Area #100 - Printing U 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.1, Q Postage 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 218.7z Page: 4 Packet Pg. 110 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223626 1/12/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c (Continued) a� E Postage M 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 218.7z m L Postage 3 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 218.7E 9.6% Sales Tax M 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.8z Y 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.8z 9.6% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.8E ca 91830 UB OUTSOURCING AREA #400 PRII UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing O 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 126.1 > Postage o 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 299.7z a UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing Q 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 126.1 � UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing r- 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 126.1 E Z, Postage ti 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 299.7z C� Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 299.7z 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 U 12.1' E 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 12.1' 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.1 91860 UB OUTSOURCING AREA#200 PRII t UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 r 91.0E Q UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 91.0( Page: 5 Packet Pg. 111 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223626 1/12/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 6 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c (Continued) a� E UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing M 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 91.0E m Postage 3 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 215.6E Postage M 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 215.6E Y Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 215.61 9.6% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.7z m 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.7z 9.6% Sales Tax > 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.71 o 91953 UB OUTSOURCING AREA 700 PRIN Q' a UB Outsourcing area 700 Printing Q 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 23.2E UB Outsourcing area 700 Printing r- 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 23.2E Z, UB Outsourcing area 700 Printing ti 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 23.2E C� Postage 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 68.5' Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 68.5' E Postage M 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 68.5' 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.2z 9.6% Sales Tax t 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.2z cva 9.6% Sales Tax r Q 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.2, Page: 6 Packet Pg. 112 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223626 1/12/2017 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) Total: a� 3,501.7( E R 223627 1/12/2017 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 47188 TOP HALF OF LAWN CRYPT-SALEF Q' m TOP HALF OF LAWN CRYPT-SALEF L 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 625.0( Total: 625.0( 223628 1/12/2017 071348 BERGERABAM 317407 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 N E4MB.Services thru 12/31/16 t 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,827.8. Total: 1,827.8, . c� 223629 1/12/2017 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 8394 E6GA,SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 ,- E6GA.Services thru 12/31/16 0 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 51,048.7z 8431 ESJB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 o ESJB.Services thru 12/31/16 a a 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 49,495.3( Q 8432 ESGB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 ESGB.Services thru 12/31/16 r— 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 r 5,539.Z " Total: 106,083.X N 223630 1/12/2017 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 12799 E4GB.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF E4GB.Services thru December 2016 c 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 571.6( Y 12818 ESNA.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF U ESNA,Services thru December 2016 E 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,101.2: ESNA,Services thru December 2016 +% 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 1,101.2: ESNA,Services thru December 2016 E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 1,101.2E um Total: 3,875.3E Q 223631 1/12/2017 073250 BMI GENERAL LICENSING 29226800 2017 MUSIC LICENSE FEES 2017 MUSIC LICENSE FEES Page: 7 Packet Pg. 113 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 223631 1/12/2017 073250 BMI GENERAL LICENSING (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 Total: 223632 1/12/2017 067391 BRAT WEAR 20741 INV#20741 - EDMONDS PD - YAMAI` JUMPSUIT W/ ALL ITEMS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20749 INV#20749 - EDMONDS PD - RT SM 3" NAVY CLIP ON TIE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total: 223633 1/12/2017 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 319752 STREET STORM WATER SEWER - Street Storm Water Sewer - Sand 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Street Storm Water Sewer - Sand 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 Street Storm Water Sewer - Sand 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Street Storm Water Sewer - Sand 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total: 223634 1/12/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 16813076 PW COPIER 4.4.a Page: 8 Page: 8 Packet Pg. 114 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223634 1/12/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 223635 223636 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 16813077 16813089 1/12/2017 075092 CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB ED FNDN 40133 40134 PO # Description/Account PW Copier 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 Total ; E3DD.SERVICES THRU OCTOBER E3DD.Services thru October 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 E3DD.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF E3DD.Services thru December 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total 1/12/2017 068484 CEMEX LLC 9434679412 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 9434679413 ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT Roadway - Liquid Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 4.4.a Page: 9 Amoun c a� E R 0. 228.5( m �3 22.3E c N Y 70.6E t 70.6E E M 6.9z ,- 0 6.9, > 0 L 0- a 32.3, Q 3.1 441.6, ti N 1,501.6, o U) U 103.3E .9 1,605.0( a� E 316.3� U 2 r Q 395.6( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 115 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223636 1/12/2017 068484 CEMEX LLC (Continued) a� E 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 37.5E Q. 9434679414 STORM DUMP FEES m Storm Dump Fees L 3 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 304.5 , 9434679415 STORM DUMP FEES M Storm Dump Fees Y 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 303.8' 9434679416 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees E 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 728.4: 9434679417 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees o 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 725.4' 9434711231 ROADWAY - ASPHALT o L Roadway - Asphalt a 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 290.6( Q 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 27.6' 9434717188 STREET - CONCRETE Street - Concrete ti 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 227.0( N 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 21.5E o 9434728526 ROADWAY - ASPHALT N Roadway - Asphalt U 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 377.1( . 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 35.8< Total: 3,791.5' E 223637 1/12/2017 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN12161025 P&R: CARBON DIOXIDE, HELIUM U P&R: CARBON DIOXIDE, HELIUM f° 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 12.6: Q P&R: CARBON DIOXIDE, HELIUM 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.6: Page: 10 Packet Pg. 116 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223637 1/12/2017 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) a� E RN12161026 WWTP: 12/31/16 CYLINDER RENTA R Q. 12/31/16 CYLINDER RENTAL & HAZ 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 L 64.0( '3 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.2 1 Total: 95.5; Y 223638 1/12/2017 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451503-1612 E4GB.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF t E4GB.Services thru December 2016 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 407.0( 451601-1612 ESHA.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF ESHA.Services thru December 2016 0 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,615.2E —R Total: 2,022.2E p L Q 223639 1/12/2017 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 116003430 WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/ a Q Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 534.6( Total: 534.6( r 223640 1/12/2017 073851 C-N-I LOCATES LTD 22545 CITY PARK LINE DETECTION ti CITY PARK LINE DETECTION N 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 170.0( IL Total: 170.0( N 223641 1/12/2017 075330 COBALT GEOSERVICES 1089 E6MB.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF U E E6MB.Services thru December 2016 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 521.6( Total: 521.6( a� 223642 1/12/2017 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 55248 EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI E EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI t U 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 878.5( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 86.0� Page: 11 Packet Pg. 117 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 223642 1/12/2017 064369 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO (Continued) 223643 1/12/2017 004867 COOPER, JACK F 1 223644 1/12/2017 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING DEC 2016 223645 1/12/2017 075904 CRMA INVESTMENTS LLC 4-20450 223646 1/12/2017 005965 CUES INC 470340 471123 223647 1/12/2017 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 289473 PO # Description/Account Total: LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI PRESCRIPTION REIMBURSEMENT, 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 Total DRY CLEANING NOV/DEC - EDMON CLEANING/LAUNDRY NOWDEC 20' 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total #4291-2779112 UTILITY REFUND #4291-2779112 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total SEWER - RETRIEVAL SUPPLIES Sewer - Retrieval Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 SEWER CAMERA REPAIRS Sewer Camera Repairs 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Total STORM CATCH BASINS AND SUPPI Storm Catch Basins and Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 9.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4.4.a Page: 12 Page: 12 Packet Pg. 118 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 223647 1/12/2017 063519 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 223648 1/12/2017 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3320743 223649 223650 223651 223652 1/12/2017 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 389602 1/12/2017 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2016120045 Description/Account Total: BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADVERI Business recruitment advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total E1CA.SERVICES THRU 12/30/16 ElCA.Services thru 12/30/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 ElCA.Services thru 12/30/16 112.000.68.595.20.61.00 Total CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 Scan Services for December 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Total 1/12/2017 070864 DEX MEDIA 610030661554 C/A730211600 Dec/2016 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 610030661595 C/A 730211599 Basic e-commerce hosting 12/02/16 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Total: 1/12/2017 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3728 INV#16-3728 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA16-004 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-29011 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #SM16-05 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 17-3729 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 01/03/201" 01/03/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETIN( 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.4.a Page: 13 Amoun c a� 887.41 E R Q. m L 1,000.0( 1,000.0( 0 Y V d t 27,731.5: E 18,489.91 0 46,221.5( o 0 a 1,231.4( a 1,231.4( Q rn r 39.9E N 39.9E o 79.9( � U E 85.8( a� 141.9( E U to 62.7( Q 204.0( Page: 13 Packet Pg. 119 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 223652 1/12/2017 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE (Continued) 223653 1/12/2017 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 16-2618.2 223654 1/12/2017 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4337591 4345323 4349630 4355206 4451955 4453622 4.4.a Page: 14 Description/Account Amoun c aD Total: 494.4( E R E6FB.TO 16-03.SERVICES THRU 12 Q' m E6FB.TO 16-03.Services thru 12/11/1 3 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 95.0( Total: 95.0( PM: CITY PARK CONCRETE, CEMEI N Y PM: CITY PARK CONCRETE, CEMEI t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 94.0( 9.5% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.9: PM; YOST LUMBER o PM; YOST LUMBER Fa 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 224.9' o 9.8% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.0, Q PM: YOST BRIDGES PM: YOST BRIDGES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 423.6( r 9.8% Sales Tax ti 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.5, PM: SHOP WHEELBARROW N PM: SHOP WHEELBARROW 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0 97.9 1 N 9.8% Sales Tax U 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.6( E PM: CEMETERY PLYWOOD PM: CEMETERY PLYWOOD 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 875.2( 9.8% Sales Tax E E 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 85.7 PM: CEMETERY PLYWOOD f° PM: CEMETERY PLYWOOD Q 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 875.2( 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 14 Packet Pg. 120 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 15 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223654 1/12/2017 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 83.1: Total: 2,841.81 223655 1/12/2017 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R25369 WATER - BLUE WATER DOOR HAN, Water - Blue Water Door Hangers ar 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 230.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 22.5z Total: 252.51 223656 1/12/2017 065065 EDMONDS ROTARY DAYBREAKERS FNE TP JAZZC TP JAZZC TP JAZZC 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,000.0( Total : 2,000.0( 223657 1/12/2017 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR57361 PROBATION COPIER PROBATION COPIER 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 5.7£ AR58032 WATER SEWER - COPY USE Water Sewer - Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.5' Water Sewer - Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.9' 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.9' AR58033 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 24.51 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 13.9, PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 13.9, PW Copy Use Page: 15 Packet Pg. 121 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 223657 1/12/2017 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) AR59255 PO # Description/Account 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Maintenance for printers 12/21/16 - 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total 223658 1/12/2017 075228 ENGINUITY SYSTEMS LLC ESL 3154 YOST PARK SPA SKETCHES YOST PARK SPA SKETCHES 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Total 223659 1/12/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH737280 CITY NOTICES - HAZARD MITIGATI( CITY NOTICES - HAZARD MITIGATI1 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 EDH737282 CITY NOTICES - CIVIC FIELD MAST CITY NOTICES - CIVIC FIELD MAST 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 4.4.a Page: 16 Amoun c a� E 9.8< Q. a) 9.8. M N Y 2.4' t 1.3' E 1.3m ,) 0 0.9( 0 L 0.9( a Q 0.9( rn r 307.2( N 30.1' 475.8i o U E 750.0( 750.0( a� E t U 53.3, Q 43.0( Page: 16 Packet Pg. 122 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 223659 1/12/2017 009350 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) 223660 1/12/2017 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 159292 223661 1/12/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 159543 Description/Account PM: SHOP SUPPLIES PM: SHOP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 SEWER SUPPLIES Sewer Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total Total WAMOU42339 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WAMOU42383 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WAMOU42408 PM: JOBBER, WIRELNSRT, TAP, IN: PM: JOBBER, WIRELNSRT, TAP, IN: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 WAMOU42481 PM: SHOP SUPPLIES PM: SHOP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 4.4.a Page: 17 Page: 17 Packet Pg. 123 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223662 1/12/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0533302 METER INVENTORY - #2034 a� E Meter Inventory - #2034 M 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,648.6( m #2027 M-METER-02-010 3 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,056.0E 9.8% Sales Tax M 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 692.11 Y #2033 M-MTRECRMP-01-010 m 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,358.4( 0533850 METER INVENTORY - #2025 M-MET E Meter Inventory - #2025 M-METER-0' M 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,704.6( ,L) # 0577 W-RADIO-01-010 0 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 4,209.3( > 9.8% Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 167.0E a 9.8% Sales Tax Q 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 412.5' 0535004 SEWER LS 1 - BYPASS Sewer LS 1 - ByPass 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 241.7 1 Freight N 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 151.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 38.5z Total: 14,680.5E U 223663 1/12/2017 075393 FITCH & ASSOCIATES LLC 16-8133-05 FIRE & EMS PROJECT - PROF SVC Consultant Professional Services - Fii 001.000.39.513.40.41.00 12,325.0( y Consultant Travel Expenses 12/6-7/11 E t 001.000.39.513.40.41.00 1,136.1( u. Total: 13,461.1$ Q 223664 1/12/2017 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY Page: 18 Packet Pg. 124 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223664 1/12/2017 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) a� E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 261.0E Q. TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY Ai L 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 261.0E '3 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI M 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.2E Y 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( m 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.8( E 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 4" 26.2� o 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII o L 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 98.4' a 509-031-6929 WWTP: TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRA Q WWTP: TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRA 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 43.2z Im Total: 791.1' Z, ti 223665 1/12/2017 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 006221490 INV#006221490 = BRUGGMAN - ED UA SPEED FREEK BOOTS N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 174.9� c 9.8% Sales Tax U) 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.1E u 006732865 INV#006732865 - BRUGGMAN - EDP E ELITE MACE CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 33.9E .. LAPD STYLE HAT, NAVY a� 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.6� E 9.8% Sales Tax U 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.8' Total: 279.55 Q 223666 1/12/2017 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 16272 SPANISH INTERPRETER Page: 19 Packet Pg. 125 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223666 1/12/2017 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR (Continued) a� E SPANISH INTERPRETER 6Z949326 R Q. 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.2 1 m L 16526 SPANISH INTERPRETER 3 SPANISH INTERPRETER 6Z117565( 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.2 1 M Total: 210.51 Y 223667 1/12/2017 075908 GEO TERRA INC 160117-1 E6FD.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAPI t E6FD.Impervious Surface Mapping 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 9,439.0( •Fa Total: 9,439.0( 6 223668 1/12/2017 075508 GOODWAY GROUP INC BID-INV16313B HOLIDAY DIGITAL ADVERTISING C/ 4- 0 Holiday digital advertising campaign R > 0 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 5,000.0( a INV16313A HOLIDAY DIGITAL ADVERTISING CE a Q Holiday digital advertising campaign 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 7,415.1( Total: 12,415.1� r 223669 1/12/2017 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 989131756 WWTP: COOPER B-LINE SYSTEMS ti COOPER B-LINE SYSTEMS (FOR G 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 431.2E IL Freight c 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 U) 165.1' � 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 58.4E 'm Total: 654.81 223670 1/12/2017 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14305914 WATER INVENTORY#432 W-SETTE Water Inventory #432 W-SETTERBYI t 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 2,679.4z 9.8% Sales Tax Q 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 262.5E 14385021 WATER INVENTORY #476 W-VALVE Page: 20 Packet Pg. 126 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223670 1/12/2017 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) a� E Water Inventory #476 W-VALVBR-02 M 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 643.8( m #315 W-MTRBOXPL-02-010 3 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 680.7E #328 W-MTRLIDDI-02-010 M 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,040.3z Y Water Non Inventory U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5,115.0. 9.8% Sales Tax E 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 231.7( .m 9.8% Sales Tax 6 4 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 501.2 0 14401503 WATER INVENTORY - #0061 W-CLN f° Water Inventory - #0061 W-CLMPCI-I o 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 378.3( a #070 W-CLMPCI-08-060 Q 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 445.5z Water Non Inventory r- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5,233.8z Z, 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 80.7z C� 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 512.9' 14403277 WATER SUPPLIES � Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 U 298.6( •Fa 9.8% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 29.2E Total: 18,134.1E E 223671 1/12/2017 075903 HELEN S PRYOR TRUST 1-15625 #500050239-KD UTILITY REFUND t U #500050239-KD Utility refund - receiv 2 Q 411.000.233.000 156.8 0 Tota I : 156.8 , Page: 21 Packet Pg. 127 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223672 1/12/2017 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 39669 2016 ARBORIST SERVICES FOR TF 2016 ARBORIST SERVICES FOR TF 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 826.2( 39670 ESFB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 ESFB.Services thru 12/31/16 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 26,897.3( Total: 27,723.6; 223673 1/12/2017 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 27156 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 12/27/16 E4MB.Services thru 12/27/16 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 190.0( 27168 E6MB.TO 16-01.SERVICES THRU 1, E6MB.TO 16-01.Services thru 12/31P 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 190.0( Total: 380.0( 223674 1/12/2017 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10018158 PM: BRAKE CLEAN, MOTOR TUNE - PM: BRAKE CLEAN, MOTOR TUNE- 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 448.1 < 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.9. Total: 492.0E 223675 1/12/2017 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201202632 12-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE Dec-2016 Off site data storage servic 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 211.1, Total: 211.1; 223676 1/12/2017 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4276 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Jan-17 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 49.0( Total: 549.0( 223677 1/12/2017 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 017 STATE LOBBYIST FOR NOVEMBER Page: 22 Packet Pg. 128 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223677 1/12/2017 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 223678 1/12/2017 075906 JH KELLY INC 223679 1/12/2017 015279 JONES, JEFFREY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) JS188503 WLEEAACADEMY 12/16 223680 1/12/2017 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR E6MB.Pmt 2 223681 1/12/2017 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC ESGA/ESFE.Pmt 4 4.4.a Page: 23 PO # Description/Account Amoun c w E State lobbyist for November, 2016 M 0. 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 3,358.0( m Total : 3,358.0( '3 WWTP: REPLACE 2 CAPACITORS/I M REPLACE 2 CAPACITORS/INSTALL N 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 11,403.0( m 9.8% Sales Tax t 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,117.4( U Total: 12,520.4t TRAVEL FOR WLEEA ACADEMY - 1: o FUEL FOR CITY FORD ESCAPE R 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 30.5E o FUEL FOR EXPLORER VAN a 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 73.4E Q FUEL FOR CITY FORD ESCAPE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.0( rn Total : 114.0$ r E6MB.PMT 2 THRU 12/31/16 E6MB.Pmt 2 thru 12/31/16 N 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 14,317.9, c E6MB.Ret 2 N 125.000.223.400-652.0( Total: 13,665.9, E ESGA.ESFE.PMT THRU 11/16/16 ESGA.Pmt 4 thru 11/16/16 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 140,487.8( E ESGA.Ret 4 t 423.200.223.400 -6,397.4z r ESFE.Pmt 4 thru 11/16/16 Q 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 45,819.5( ESFE.Ret 4 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 129 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223681 1/12/2017 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued) a� E 422.200.223.400 -2,086.5( Q. Total: 177,823.4; m 223682 1/12/2017 075265 KBA INC 3003168 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 3 E7AC.Services thru 12/31/16 M 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 280.4z 3003169 E3DD.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 cYi E3DD.Services thru 12/31/16 t 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 5,181.2' Total: 5,461.6E 223683 1/12/2017 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300112799 INV#300112799 ACCT#100828 - EDP o 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF R 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 234.7( o HANDLING FEE a 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.0( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.0( Total: 312.7( r 223684 1/12/2017 015535 KELLER SUPPLY COMPANY S010329974.001 PM: CITY PARK SMPLX W/ALARM, PM: CITY PARK SMPLX W/ALARM, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 675.0( IL 9.8% Sales Tax c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 U) 66.1( � Total: 741.1( E I 223685 1/12/2017 067568 KPG INC 122816 E3DD.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 U E3DD.Services thru 12/31/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 1,810.3E E Total: 1,810.3E t U 223686 1/12/2017 075848 KUOW PUGET SOUND PUBLIC RADIO IN-1161225887 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADVERI Q Business recruitment advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 4,000.0( Page: 24 Packet Pg. 130 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223686 1/12/2017 075848 075848 KUOW PUGET SOUND PUBLIC RAID (Continued) Total: a� 4,000.0( E R 223687 1/12/2017 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0038502 ABBOTT RESIDENCE ESLHA REVIE Q' m ABBOTT RESIDENCE ESLHA REVIE L 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 235.0( Total: 235.0( 223688 1/12/2017 069868 LEE, JUSTIN WLEEA 2016 EXPENSE CLAIM FOR FUEL - 2016 N CITY CAR FUEL TO/FM YAKIMA t 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.0( Total: 10.0( . c� 223689 1/12/2017 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4505091 INV#4505091 ACCT#2185-952778-T 4- INVOICE #4505091 SHREDDING SE 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.6E > INVOICE #4505091 SHREDDING SE a 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.6E a Total: 9.3( Q 223690 1/12/2017 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 016121 00 CITY PARK SEWER SUPPLIES CITY PARK SEWER SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 228.2, 9.8% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.3 1 Total: 250.55 223691 1/12/2017 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 95101265 WWTP: INDICATORS, V-BELT, BIT U INDICATORS, V-BELT, BIT ADAPTEF E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 80.3, Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.4, 96391497 WWTP: LANYARDS E LANYARDS t U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 304.2, Q Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 14.3, Page: 25 Packet Pg. 131 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223691 1/12/2017 020039 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) Total: a� 406.21 E 223692 1/12/2017 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16844 LARGE FORMAT SCANNING 2016 R Q' m LARGE FORMAT SCANNING 2016 L 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 418.7,' Total: 418.7' M 223693 1/12/2017 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 251097 WWTP: 1/10/17 PROPANE N Y 1/10/17 PROPANE t 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 54.8E 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.3£ Total: 60.21 o 223694 1/12/2017 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC INV00201602 12-16 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVI > NetGuard Monthly Service Building a 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 30.0( NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk Q 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Communit 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 r 6.0( " NetGuard Monthly Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 6.0( cN NetGuard Monthly Service Developm, 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.0( N NetGuard Monthly Service Engineerir 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 90.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP U 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities Q 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 54.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Finance Page: 26 Packet Pg. 132 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223694 1/12/2017 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 27 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c a� (Continued) E 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.0( Q. NetGuard Monthly Service Human Re L 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 6.0( '3 NetGuard Monthly Service Informatioi 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 30.0( M NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's O y 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Parks 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service Police M 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 240.0( ,L) NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water o 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.0( > NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water o 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.0( a NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.0( Z, NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm ti 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( C� NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 6.0( E NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.1( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin t 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.1( cva NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin r Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin Page: 27 Packet Pg. 133 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 28 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223694 1/12/2017 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC (Continued) a� E 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.6( Q. Total: 642.0( m L_ 223695 1/12/2017 074556 MOORE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 47025 E6DB.SERVICES THRU DECEMBEF 3 E6DB.Services thru December 2016 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 24,802.7( y Total: 24,802.7E m t 223696 1/12/2017 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 15-1662-20 E4JC.SERVICES THRU 11/30/16 E4JC.Services thru 11/30/16 E 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 8,615.5( 15-1662-21 E4JC.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 0 E4JC.Services thru 12/31/16 _R 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 12,792.3, o 15-1695-11 ESJA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/16 a ESJA.Services thru 11/30/16 a Q 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 1,622.5( 15-1695-12 ESJA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 ESJA.Services thru 12/31/16 r— r 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 72.0( 15-1715-17 ESKA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 ESKA.Services thru 12/31/16 N 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 4,012.6( c 16-1852-5 E6JB.SERVICES THRU 11/30/16 N E6JB.Services thru 11/30/16 U 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 4,505.0( E 16-1852-6 E6JB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 R E6JB.Services thru 12/31/16 U 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 13,755.0( Total: 45,374.9; E t 223697 1/12/2017 023870 NATIONAL REC &PARKASSOC 2010917-1 2017 MEMBERSHIP U is 2017 MEMBERSHIP r Q 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 600.0( Total: 600.0( Page: 28 Packet Pg. 134 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223698 1/12/2017 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 29 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c w 0550215370 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET E HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET R Q. 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.6, m L 0550215371 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 3 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.2' M 0550215372 HAINES WHARF HONEY BUCKET y HAINES WHARF HONEY BUCKET m 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.7E 0550215373 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE E PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E 0550215374 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 4- o SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E o 0550215375 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY 1 Q- a WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY IQ 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E 0550215376 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E ti 0550215377 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B N EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY B 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.6E o 0550215378 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY B N MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY B U 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.6' . 0550215379 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,394.Z y 0550215380 CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS H, E CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS H, U 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E Q 0550215381 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8E Page: 29 Packet Pg. 135 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223698 1/12/2017 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 223699 223700 223701 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 0550215382 0550215383 0550217138 1/12/2017 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN 40550 PO # Description/Account MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE HONE MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE HONE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 BRACKETTS LANDING HONEY BUC BRACKETTS LANDING HONEY BUC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total FOREVER LAWN PLAYGROUND GF FOREVER LAWN PLAYGROUND GF 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Total 1/12/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 701394 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 Total 1/12/2017 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 0001520 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 0002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 4.4.a Page: 30 Amoun c a� E R Q. L 111.6E '3 c 171.6E Y m t -57.2' E 3,642-Y 'M 6 4- 0 c� 15,571.2E p L a 1,525.9E Q 17,097Z rn r ti 178.9E N 17.51 c 196.5, N U E 15.7, a� E 38.1E M r Q 21.7E Page: 30 Packet Pg. 136 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 31 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223701 1/12/2017 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (Continued) SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4E 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 186.4 1 0026390 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4E Total: 297.01 223702 1/12/2017 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 11700023 E6DA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/16 E6DA.Services thru 12/31/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 14,568.5' Total: 14,568.5' 223703 1/12/2017 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-24581 WWTP: 11/27-12/31/16 PLC/SCADA 11/27-12/31/16 PLC/SCADA UPGRAI 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 40,981.1 E 21-24582 WWTP: 11/27/16-12/31/16 ON CALL 11/27/16-12/31/16 ON CALL PH 1 HP 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,256.2E 21-24583 WWTP: 11/27-12/31/16 ON CALL PH 11/27-12/31/16 ON CALL PHASE 2 T, 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6,796.2E Total: 49,033.6E 223704 1/12/2017 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 112314 INV#112314 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2012 PASSAT #A275715 (CO) 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 159.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.5E Total: 174.5i 223705 1/12/2017 075907 PESCO 21532/21533 FLEET CANOPY PROJECT Fleet Canopy Project Page: 31 Packet Pg. 137 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223705 1/12/2017 075907 PESCO 223706 1/12/2017 069633 PET PROS 223707 1/12/2017 008475 PETTY CASH Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 Bond Fee 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 Permitting Hours 11.5 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 Plan Review 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 Total ; 0014573-IN INV#0014573-IN CUST#07-EDMONE 2 BAGSNUTRI CHKN/RICE DOG FO 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.9% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 Total 010617 WATER - W W OPER CERT - J WAIT WATER - W W OPER CERT - J WAIT 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 FAC MAINT - WALL FILES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 123116 WATER SEWER - SPEAKERS WATER SEWER - SPEAKERS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WATER SEWER - SPEAKERS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW - USB PLUG 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 Total 223708 1/12/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC K969952 TRAFFIC SUPPLIES Traffic Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.4.a Page: 32 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 138 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223708 1/12/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 223709 1/12/2017 064088 PROTECTION ONE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) L026609 SC04911 2445047 31146525 223710 1/12/2017 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 17-036S 223711 1/12/2017 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 223712 1/12/2017 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC 00000170642 00000170643 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 SVC FEES SVC Fees 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total ; ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 1� 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Total Q1-2017 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q1-17 Clean Air Assessment per RC\ 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 Total MARKER/INSCRIPTION-PENDLETO MARKER/INSCRIPTION-PENDLETO 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-IKE MARKER/INSCRIPTION-IKE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 Total E4MB.Pmt 10 E4MB.PMT 10 THRU 12/31/16 E4MB.Pmt 10 thru 12/31/16 4.4.a Page: 33 Page: 33 Packet Pg. 139 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 34 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223712 1/12/2017 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued) a� E 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 33,632.2E Q. Total: 33,632.2E m 223713 1/12/2017 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000050244 STORM SWEEP DUMP FEES 3 Storm Sweep Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 731.2: Total: 19 731.2! U m t 223714 1/12/2017 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1701001 E3FE/E6FA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/ E3FE.Services thru 12/31/16 E 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 2,031.2E E6FA.Services thru 12/31/16 0 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 6,093.8' _R Total: 8,125.1' o L 223715 1/12/2017 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE a FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 152.3E 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : r— r PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 30.2 0 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : N 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 115.0z IL PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : N 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 115.0z � PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 115.0Z 'M PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 115.0z PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 115.0' 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : r FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 161.7: 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL Page: 34 Packet Pg. 140 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 35 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223715 1/12/2017 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) a� E CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL R Q. 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.5, m Total : L 989.0E '3 223716 1/12/2017 074834 ROBINSON, JASON JAN 17 EXPENSE CLAIM JANUARY 2017 EXPENSE CLAIM Cj M REIMBURSEMENT - CASE 17-0152 001.000.41.521.22.43.00 106.3 0 cYi Total : 106.3, t 223717 1/12/2017 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 39280 ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORT E Onsite computer support - 12/06/16 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 620.0( o Total: 620.0( 223718 1/12/2017 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000429703 Q3-16 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & a Quarterly Liquor Board Profits a 001.000.39.566.10.51.00 1,742.6: Q Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes 001.000.39.566.10.51.00 991.6z r Total: 2,734.21, 223719 1/12/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W N TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.0' 2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 U 35.5( 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 24.8z 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F E t LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F U 2 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 r 19.0 0 Q 2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING Page: 35 Packet Pg. 141 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223719 1/12/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 36 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c w (Continued) E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 306.01 Q. 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA L 3 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 27.1 £ 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( M PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( Y 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 28.9( 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP o 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 97.5E M 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212' o L PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.7< Q 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ ti 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,046.6' 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 ti STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 N 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.4, - 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C c STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C N 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,094.51 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 E STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 360.9E 2025-7952-0 WWTP: 12/1-12/31/16 ENERGY MGP a� 12/1-12/31/16 ENERGY MGMT SER\ E 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.4, 0 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' Q STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.8z 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 Page: 36 Packet Pg. 142 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 223719 1/12/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 223720 223721 223722 1/12/2017 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2207-9275-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 Total: 1000424626-2017 INV#1000424626 CUST#SSH00010 TASK FORCE JAN-SEPT 2017 001.000.41.521.10.51.00 1/12/2017 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU EDM 1216 Total TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD SN LTAC Tourism promotion award to Sn 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total 1/12/2017 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 60917 INV#60917 - EDMONDS PD DATER STAMPS - RECEIVED 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 4.4.a Page: 37 Amoun c a� E R 0. 107.6' m �3 56.7' M Y m 14.4, E M 195.6E V 4- 0 c� 209.5E o a a 01 186.8( 20,727.7E r ti 8,077.5( 8,077.5( c U E 3,000.0( 9 3,000.0( a� E t 91.6z M r Q 6.8( Page: 37 Packet Pg. 143 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 38 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223722 1/12/2017 038100 SNO-KING STAMP (Continued) 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 9.6: Total: 108.05 223723 1/12/2017 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.6E 103584 WWTP: 1/1/17 RECYCLING 1/1/17 RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.9: 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.4 1 103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.Z 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 938.3E 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.8� Total: 3,208.5 , 223724 1/12/2017 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1142259 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 12/2/16 E4JB.Services thru 12/22/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 5,994.3( 1145082 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 12/30/16 E4JB.Services thru 12/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 70.2( Total: 6,064.5( 223725 1/12/2017 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2829394 PM: PRO MIX PM: PRO MIX 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 192.0( 9.1 % Sales Tax Page: 38 Packet Pg. 144 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 39 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223725 1/12/2017 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING (Continued) 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 17.4 1 Total: 209.4 , 223726 1/12/2017 075905 SYMBOLARTS LLC 0272872-IN 0272872-IN 00-EDM003 - CHALLEN CHALLENGE COINS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 450.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.0( Total: 470.0( 223727 1/12/2017 071666 TETRATECH INC 51129334 E4GC.SERVICES THRU 11/25/16 E4GC.Services thru 11/25/16 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 2,341.9 , 51134930 E4GC,SERVICES THRU 12/30/16 E4GC.Services thru 12/30/16 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 346.3z Total: 2,688.3' 223728 1/12/2017 075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC 130186 E4FE.SERVICES THRU 12/30/16 E4FE.Services thru 12/30/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 39,250.3, Total: 39,250.3, 223729 1/12/2017 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 685469 687112 HOLIDAY MARKETING CAMPAIGN C Holiday marketing campaign Decemb 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 606.6£ Total: 606.61 223730 1/12/2017 070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN 5454 DIGITAL PHOTO 5454 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSI 5454 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSI 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 92.0( Total: 92.0( 223731 1/12/2017 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 142985922-001 CHRISTMAS TREE RE -STRING CHRISTMAS TREE RE -STRING 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 809.0( Page: 39 Packet Pg. 145 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 40 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 223731 1/12/2017 070767 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC (Continued) Total: 809.0( 223732 1/12/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9777591165 C/A772540262-00001 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 21.0 , Total: 21.01, 223733 1/12/2017 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8047228511 WWTP: VWR THERMOMETER 5/15, VWR THERMOMETER 5/15C - therrr 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 193.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.9: Total: 212.05 223734 1/12/2017 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201127617 INV 201127617 EDMONDS PD - GA( INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 425.0( Total: 425.0( 223735 1/12/2017 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.01-8 CIVIC FIELD MASTER PLAN LANDS CIVIC FIELD MASTER PLAN LANDS 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 6,009.4( Total: 6,009.4( 223736 1/12/2017 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 117004507 INV#117004507 - EDMONDS PD - DE BACKGROUND CHECKS -DEC 2016 001.000.237.100 276.0( Total: 276.0( 223737 1/12/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 9908334 FAC MAINT- FLOOR AND CARPET Fac Maint - Floor and Carpet Cleaner 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 174.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.0� 9910430 FAC MAINT - VACUUM BAGS Fac Maint - Vacuum Bags 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 86.9, Page: 40 Packet Pg. 146 vchlist 01 /12/2017 12:27:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.4.a Page: 41 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun c 223737 1/12/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS (Continued) a� E 9.8% Sales Tax M 0. 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.5, m L Total : 286.u: '3 223738 1/12/2017 075879 WELWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E3DD.Pmt 2 E3DD.PMT 2 THRU 12/30/16 M E3DD.Pmt 2 thru 12/30/16 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 107,261.6z U Total: 107,261.61 t 223739 1/12/2017 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR DEC 2016 DEC 2016 - EDMONDS PD - INMATE E DEC 2016 INMATE HOUSING - 34 D, 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,861.5( o JAIL MEDICATIONS - SEPT 2016 Fa 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 32.5( o JAIL MEDICATIONS - OCT 2016 a 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 4.0, Q Total: 1,898.0, 124 Vouchers for bank code : usbank rn Bank total : 1,257,601.5( r 124 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,257,601.5( 0 U) U E a� E t U r Q Page: 41 Packet Pg. 147 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements ' c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays F i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E41VIA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 148 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E51KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SW R Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 149 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c354 _ Sunset Walkway Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c392 Wth Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvemen STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c3l' Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) - E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Av STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Driv STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project 3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project 9 IV STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR A§§&ILQC c452 2014 Waterline Overla STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing LAM 2014 Drainage Improvement ilmr- STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin - INMW c435M Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c4L§ Payton Street Stormwater Pump Station I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines W2015 Sewerline Replacement Project = AftEm SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SW Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Stud W WTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4J1B c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c4A& Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System 2015 Traffic Calming STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 150 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title &69L E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays E5DA^^'^ Bikelink Project General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers - E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program 016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan _ E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements ve Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project _ 6 GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project 91ILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Updat WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects - 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza FAG Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa - E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements (Students Saving Salmon) ELNPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza 19 PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 151 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E41MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E31DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4J13 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 152 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC iolo 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 153 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E51-A FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 154 4.4.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 015 E6AB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR Minor Sidewalk Program 017 E6DD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 11 c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E51KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 1/12/2017 Packet Pg. 155 4.4.c vchlist 01 /12/2017 1:39:57PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account m Amoun >, 1122017 1/12/2017 062693 US BANK 5593.16 RECORDING FEES & SHREDDING M a a) 12/07/2016 RECORDED SHORT PL/ 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 158.0( LEMAY SHREDDING SERVICE 10/2( c� 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.6: u) SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC U 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 56.5( t SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 U 56.5( •iE SNOHOMISH COUNTY MAP COPIE; U 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 8.0( o 5593.17 NOTARY - SCOTT PASSEY 6 NOTARY BOND, STATE LICENSING L 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 85.0( 0- SLIM ROUND PRE -INKED STAMP & Q 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 48.5( Freight Cn ti 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 10.5( 9.8% Sales Tax r*- 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 5.7£ N 8304 JAN 2017 HR VISA BILL Craigslist Job Posting: Plans Examin( c 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.0( L Craigslist Job Posting: Police Service 3 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.0( Craigslist Job Posting: Ranger f° 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.0( Simplicity Job Posting: Ranger r 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 10.0( Idealist Job Posting: Ranger Naturali; E 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 90.0( Stamp Pads for date -stamper w/ free r 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 24.0( Q 10 x $5 gift cards for holiday party. Page: 1 Packet Pg. 156 vchlist 01 /12/2017 1:39:57PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1122017 1/12/2017 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 4.4.c Page: 2 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 157 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Confirmation of Harold Williams II Appointment to the Sister City Commission Staff Lead: Mayor Earling Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The Sister City Commission currently has five openings. Harold (Dar) Williams II initially applied for the Student Representative position on the Commission but, upon finding out he was not eligible for that position because he is not an Edmonds resident, he chose to apply for a Commissioner position. Staff Recommendation Confirm appointment of Harold (Dar) Williams II to the Sister City Commission, position #1. Narrative With his knowledge and interest in Japan, Japanese culture, and the Japanese language, Mayor Earling feels Dar will make an excellent addition to the Sister City Commission. Packet Pg. 158 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Budget Carryforward Information Memo Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Provide Council a preview of the 2016 Budget Carryforward items. Staff Recommendation Informational Memo. Narrative Staff is anticipating the submittal of the attached list of 66 2016 Carryforward budget items to Council during the first quarter budget amendment. The intent of this memo is to notify Council of our intent to continue working on completing these projects and use 2017 budget appropriations to cover their related expenses. If Council has questions or concerns about waiting until the first quarter budget amendment, please plan to discuss your questions or concerns during the Council Meeting. Also, when you review the attached list of projects many of the projects do not list expenditure information. This is due in part to the fact that staff has not closed 2016 and completed the reconciling of project expenditures. Attachments: List of 2016 Budget Carryforward Items Packet Pg. 159 2016 Carryfoward Items 4.6.a General Fund 001 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 1 Parliamentary Training Consultant $2,000 $0 $2,000 2 Safety & Risk Consultant $38,000 $0 $38,000 3 Economic impact arts study $20,000 $0 $20,000 4 City Park planting mitigation plan $5,000 $0 $5,000 5 Ebb tide survey work $5,000 $0 $5,000 6 Development Services Digitization Project $48,000 N/A N/A 7 Development Code Update $64,199 N/A N/A 8 Urban Forest Management $65,000 $0 $65,000 9 Building Plan Review N/A N/A 10 City HallRestroom $468,637 $428,637 $40,000 11 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Totals $715,836 $428,637 $175,000 Facilities Maintenance Fund 016 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 12 City Hall security upgrades $35,000 $0 $35,000 13 City Hall Carpeting $25,000 $10,000 $15,000 14 FS17 Ceding $25,000 $0 $25,000 Totals $85,000 $10,000 $75,000 Street Maintenance Fund 111 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 15 2016 Decision Package #52 Asset Mgnt Mobile Field Conv. $12,500 $0 $12,500 Totals $12,500 $0 $12,500 Street Construction Fund 112 Item 16 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 17 Citywide Protected/Pennissive Traffic Signal Conversion 18 Trackside Warning System 19 ADA Transition Plan 20 228`h Corridor Improvements Project 21 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) 22 2016 Overlay Program 23 236`h St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) 24 238`h St. SW Walkway (100" Ave to 1041h Ave) 25 238`h St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy99) 26 Minor Sidewalk Program Tourism, Arts Promtional Fund 123 Item 27 1 Economic impact arts study BEET 2 Fund 125 Item 28 Anderson Center Field/Court/Library Plaza 29 Yost Park/Pool 30 Fishing Pier/Olympic Beach 31 Brackett!s Landing 32 Sports Fields Upgrade/Playground Partnership 33 Veteran's Plaza 34 Parklet 4th avenue Cultural Corridor 35 City Gateway replacements 2016 Budget Est. Spent N/A _ N/A N/A Est. Carryforward N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A i N/A Totals $0 $0 $0 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward $20,000 $0 $20,000 Totals $20,000 $0 $20,000 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward $290,771 $105,081 $185,690 $160,090 $10,000 $110,000 $175,000 $0 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $15,000 $45,000 $0 $15,000 $40,000 $0 $10,000 $40,000 $0 $10,000 Totals $825,861 $115,081 $495,690 Packet Pg. 160 2016 Carryfoward Items 4.6.a Parks Construction -Fund 132 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 36 City Park Spray Park $192,805 $172,805 $20,000 Totals $192,805 $172,805 $20,000 Water Fund 421 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforwurd 37 2015 Water Replacement Program N/A N/A 38 2016 Water Replacement Program N/A N/A 39 Dayton Ave 3" to 9`h Utility Improvements N/A N/A 40 2017 Water Replacement Program N/A N/A 41 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating N/A N/A 42 2016 Water System Plan Update N/A N/A 43 2016 Decision Package #52 Asset Mgnt Mobile Field Conv. $12,500 $0 $12,500 Totals $12,500 $0 $12,500 Storm Fund 422 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforwurd 44 105`h & 106`h Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project N/A N/A 45 Dayton St and and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements — Dayton St Pump Station N/A _N/A 46 Willow Creek- Final Feasibility Study/Design/Construction N/A N/A 47 Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr N/A N/A 48 Rehab/Replace Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr N/A N/A 49 Peninville Creek Flow Management - Seaview Infiltration N/A N/A 50 Sierra Place 12`h Ave N to Olympic N/A N/A 51 Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 52 183`d PI SW Storm Repairs N/A N/A 53 224`h & 98th Drainage Improvements N/A N/A 54 216`h Drainage N/A N/A 55 Perrinville Raingardens N/A N/A 56 Update Stormwater Management Code N/A N/A 57 Stormwater LID Code Changes — SvR N/A N/A 58 2016 Decision Package #52 Asset Mgnt Mobile Field Conv. $12,500 $0 $12,500 Totals $12,500 $0 $12,500 Sewer Fund 423 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 59 2016 Sewer Replacement Project N/A N/A 60 E6GA/i013 - 2017 Sewer Replacement Project N/A N/A 61 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation N/A N/A 62 Lift Station 1 Metering and Flow Study N/A N/A 63 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study N/A N/A 64 WWTP OutfallMods N/A N/A 65 2016 Decision Package #52 Asset Mgnt Mobile Field Conv. $12,500 $0 $12,500 Totals $12,500 $0 $12,500 Utility Funds Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Canyforward 66 Standard Details Update N/A N/A Equipment Rental Fund 511 Item 2016 Budget Est. Spent Est. Carryforward 67 2016 Decision Package #42 -John Deere Gator Tractor $13,000 $0 $13,000 Totals $13,000 $0 $13,000 Packet Pg. 161 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing (60 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History Civic Center Field was recently acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District. The property officially closed on February 9, 2016. The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning this property once acquired. The kick off meeting to launch the master planning process with the City Council was held on May 3rd, 2016. Since that time, there have been three open houses, three virtual open houses, many stakeholder interviews, Planning Board and City Council input. In addition, a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on November 9, 2016. Staff Recommendation Hold Public Hearing. Discuss, give guidance to staff and the consultant team. Narrative Walker Macy presented the Hybrid Plan for Civic Field to the Edmonds community on October 19, 2016. The presentation summarized the project background, schedule, input received from Open House #2, and then provided an overview of the Hybrid Plan. Community sentiment supported the general arrangement of spaces but expressed concern with the location of the skatepark and it's proximity to the neighboring condos. Additional critique suggested moving stadium lighting to the perimeter of the field and looking at pedestrian safety along the alley's in further detail. The sketch on page 31 of the presentation suggests a new location for the skatepark based on community sentiment, input from the project advisory committee, and neighbors. Page 32 of your presentation illustrates a densely planted buffer between the park and alley edges which prevents children from crossing in non -designated areas. Page 33 suggests a three phase strategy for park and ROW development. On November 91", Carrie Hite and Walker Macy presented the project to the Planning Board and conducted a public hearing on the project. The feedback received from the community and the planning board included: Support for the new location of the skate park (page 29) Packet Pg. 162 6.1 Further consideration of pedestrian safety along the alley's. Recommendations from the community suggested the use of fencing along the north and south edges of the park. Support for the teams proposal for maintaining the existing tree on the south end of the park site. Maintain the 'Signature' feel of the park. Consider relocating the tennis courts so as to not block the residents view on the north side of the park. Walker Macy suggested using a different material in lieu of chain link fencing and plastic slats to improve visibility (page 34 of your packet). Increase/maintain multi -use activity within ball courts. Consider a 'drop off' area for the park. Planning member Val Stewart is represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning process. City Council member Dave Tietzel and Council President Kristiana Johnson are both on the Project Advisory Committee. Attached for your reference are the following: 1. Presentation for this meeting 2. Planning Board minutes from Public Hearing 3. Master Plan schedule revised 4. PAC team agenda and minutes 5. Comment letters from Planning Board In addition, Council can access all project materials at our Civic Center Master Plan website at this link: http://www.edmondswa.gov/parks-recreation-departments/civic-center-master-plan.html The next steps in this process will be for Walker Macy to finalize a plan and bring it forward to the City Council for final adoption. Attachments: 161122 City Council #3 FINAL _reduced(1) PB minutes Public Hearing November 9 2016 Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates Revised 161025 PAC Meeting #4 Agenda (2) 161025 PAC Meeting #4 Minutes Public Comment submitted to Planning Board Packet Pg. 163 tea. v l ,a V, AMYM= wimp, aM: ¢ ., -per- � s,�`• � ..� .,'- :�.- .� - ..:'� � �- .� .� _ ��,_s -< �� WALKER MACY_ 6.1.a Project Schedule Online Open House 3, through Friday November 4th http://edmondscivicfield.part*lcipate.onl*lne/ Planning Board, November 9 City Council, November 22 City Council Adoption, January 17 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 165 6.1.a Open House #2 Review Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 166 6.1.a Open House #2 Review OPTION 1: MEADOW LOOP • 2 smaller or 1 large soccer field • 4 petanque courts • 1.5 courts • playgrounds • walking jogging paths • multi -use lawn • existing Field House / B&G Club • shade pavilion and restroom Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan OPTION 2: ACTIVITY CENTRAL—° a L d W M G to 00 ti T C� C 7 O U 1 large + 1 small soccer field • 200m track N 8 petanque courts • skate park cm 4 courts • sand volleybal playgrounds • parking walking jogging paths • picnic pavilion E multi -use lawn expanded Field House for B&G Club/Cafe/restroon Q WAII Packet Pg. 167 In -Person Discussion & Report Back Approximately 160 attended 16 Discussion Tables Preferred Plan (by majority at table): Option 1: 8 Option 2: 4 Split: 2 Unclear: 2 Individual Comment Cards: Option 1: 5 Option 2: 3 Undecided/Unclear: 3 6.1.a _ L U U ti 0 L J� a z LL M C 0 U U N N r r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 168 6.1.a Online open House Results August 24th to September 7th 1,057 visitors 379 responses Preferred Plan Option 1: 88 (23.9%) Option 2: 280 (76.1 %) Age Range • Over 70: 38 (17.7%) • 45-69: 81 (37.7%) • 30-44: 80 (37.2%) • 18-29: 7 (3.3%) • Under 18: 5 (2.3%) L rticipate. online �ON C Q skateparks near me {j L114EO• • '- Select Language V L) Mr CITY OF EDMONDS Ge yla > Civic Field Project ti Welcome "I! W Welcome to the second online open house forthe Edmonds Civic Center U Playtiee Master Plan. Here you can learn about the project and provide your 3 input on the future of the park. In response to input from the wmmunity, two _ alternative plans have been produced to generate more feedback and _ Li discussion. The fi nal plan will likely be a hybrid of the alternative plans and J will be presented at the October 12th open house. , This online open house is available through Friday, Septem berg, 2016. Z IL How to use this online open house: Cl) V€sit the tabred "statious" to learn aboutthe park, the two proposed design - —_ •�± options and provide feedback. Keep an eye out for so rvey questions and E. subnoityou r answers. Please share this site with others who may be i uterested in this project. O Zase join us in -person atone ofour upcoming open houses at the Edmond. V za Room, 656 Main Street, Edmonds, from 6-7:30pm on the following dates: 1. What isyc ur relationship to the park? (Check all that ++ apply) • Thursday, June 23,2016- Activities (Completed) L) O I live near the park • Wednesday,August 24,2016- Master Plan Alternatives {Completed) N O Iwork near the park •Wednesday, October 12,2016- Preferred Master Plan Review (V r O Ilive and/or work near the park Changes or updatesto public open house dates will be posted at: r O I do not live andJor work in Edmonds www Civicinark.edmondswa gov a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 169 6.1.a Online Open House Results Common reasons respondents preferred option 1 included: • Free -flowing structure, layout • Walking paths • Water feature and plaza • Open green spaces and lawn • Reduced number of petanque courts • No track Common reasons respondents preferred option 2 included: • View terraces • Long walking and running paths • Focus on fields and athletic facilities • Expanded boys and girls club • Skatepark • Potential for large events • More spaces for families and children • Track L r C� C L U U ti 0 LI J a Z LL M 0 U U N N a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 170 6.1.a Combined Open House Results Estimate of Combined Preferences: Option 1: 178 (35%) Option 2: 330 (65%) • In -person — 90 (64%) In -person — 50 (36%) • Online — 88 (24%) Online — 280 (77%) Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 171 6.1.a Most Consistent Comments • Like the lawn terraces • Skatepark should remain • Option 1 curves nice but want more active program like in Option 2 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 172 6.1.a Additional Feedback Common elements not shown that respondents would like to see included: • Additional restrooms • Benches and/or seating areas • Lighting • Additional covered athletic facility and market Stage • ADA accessibility • 400-meter track Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 173 6.1.a Hybrid Plan U c.i U to 00 ti L J Q Z M u C 7 O U U N N t0 r C N L V O Q Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 174 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN How we responded to what we heard: Top 10 activities (from Open House #1) 1. restrooms 2. petanque 3. jogging/walking paths 4. soccer 5. shade trees 6. skate park 7. playground 8. tennis 9. Boys &Girls Club 10. multi -use lawn Included in Hybrid Votes Plan 77 76 71 67 56 50 50 49 48 42 From total list of 40 activities, 36 are accommodated in the hybrid plan Themes / Priorities: 1 st: Active 2nd: Passive 3rd: Civic Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 175 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN Framework Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAIJ Packet Pg. 176 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN Connections Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 177 ' H YB R.1 D 6A Daley St ��/ � f Aw'r Ir _4-; =r -. - -. THE=MEA{� Sprague St ----- \, Sprague St • ' THE GREAT LAWN ~ Edmonds St J 1 E Z Q ..'Bell Stj 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN Community Hubs Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAIJ Packet Pg. 179 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN Community Hubs Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAIJ Packet Pg. 180 6.1.a HYBRID PLAN PRECEDENTS The Great Lawn Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 181 al NID TIM ,�as2 4.W71A I' al NID k4 mo m p A7,/ oaf a a 6.1.a VISION co Ito,- 3 M y y � e C r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 184 6.1.a VISION y 4 4 r A Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 185 6.1.a VISION I " L c .2 U to k: t 00 r 1� L J Q C 7 O U ° N s.. N y� r C C c.i Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 186 ■ r Jon 4-7 Ai I .. ...... � .cam - -. I Small` Performances Markets Small -Medium Performances Wine Garden, A . etc. .-., _. .ems Aa �..,d-.-_s.�.0 - _ _- .�,• '�eso,...�e: 6.1.a Q&A + FEEDBACK 101 attendees signed in INDIVIDUAL COMMENT CARD If you would prefer to make personal comments please use the following form. 1. Please share your thoughts, what do you like or dislike about the plan? 2. Which elements of the new park design would bring you to the park most often? 3. Are there park elements not shown that you would like to see? I don't like... Additional Notes / Comments: Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAJ Packet Pg. 189 6.1.a ONLINE OPEN HOUSE #3 _ October 19th to November 4th L 347 visitors • Majority nearby residents • Most had not attended any of the in -person open houses Age Range • Over 70 (7%) • 45-69 (48%) • 30-44 (41 %) • 18-29 (0%) • Under 18 (2%) r C� C L ... „.... .§old. participate. odlne a Qxkateparks Dear me {j ON O• • r- Select Language V L) Mr CITY OF EDMONDS Ge yla > Civic Field Project Welcome "I! W Welcome to the second online open house forthe Edmonds Civic Center U Playtiee Master Plan. Here you can learn about the project and provide your 3 input on the future of the park. In response to input from the wmmunity, two _ alternative plans have been produced to generate more feedback and _ Li discussion. The fi nal plan will likely be a hybrid of the alternative plans and J will be presented at the October 12th open house. , This online open house is available through Friday, Septem berg, 2016. Z IL How to use this online open house: Cl) Wsit the tabbed "stations" to learn aboutthe park, the two proposed design —_ •�± options and provide feedback. Keep an eye out for so rvey questions and E. subnoityou r answers. Please share this site with others who may be i uterested in this project. O Zase join us in -person atone efour upcoming open houses at the Edmond. V za Room, 656 Main Street, Edmonds, from 6-7:30pm an the following dates: 1. What isyc ur relationship to the park? (Check all that ++ apply) • Thursday, June 23,2016- Activities (Completed) L) O I live near the park • Wednesday, August 24,2016- Master Plan Alternatives {Completed) N O Iwork near the park • Wednesday, October 12,2016- Preferred Master Plan Review (V r O Ilive and/or work near the park Changes or updatesto public open house dates will be posted at: r O I do not live andJor work in Edmonds www CivicPark.edmondswa gov a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 190 6.1.a ONLINE OPEN HOUSE #3 156 comments on plan Range of comments similar to prior feedback: • Like the curves, paths and passive areas • Like the integrated activities • Skatepark location is an issue for residents • Beautiful plan, good compromise U 2 U ti Not enough sports playfields and too much passive area a Not enough passive area and too much sport activity U- M Petanque grove is nice but would like larger tournament area • Appreciate the thoughtful incorporation of community feedback • Formal track should be included N Like the 6th Avenue market promenade and We should leave the park as is Concerns about buffers, noise, dogs, lighting N r plaza and other design details y a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 191 6.1.a Updates to Hybrid Plan Since Open House #3 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 192 Hybrid Plan as shown at Open House #3 6.1.a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA I Packet Pg. 193 Proposed Changes to Hybrid Plan UPLIU11 II DUYb & Girls Club extension is �._ built i petanque expanded to south J , - =0M. Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan c a L r C� C L U 2 U ti d c,> 3 d L J a z LL M C 3 O U U N N r a Packet Pg. 194 6.1.a Typical Planted Buffer Along Alleyways 1 r O _ I i s� Planted Berms 8' Jogging/ 14' 17' r Walking Path Min. Planted Alley Buffer E r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 195 ..................................... 1 1 1 1 1 d. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 6.1.a Tennis Fencing Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 197 6.1.a Q&A � L Jr AF Nwc v. O -. r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 198 6.1.a End / Discussion Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 199 Available Facilities (Parks + Schools) TOTAL FACILITIES (# At Civic Center Playfield) Soccer Fields (Adult + Youth): .... 10 (2) Tennis Courts: .................................. 7 (2) Petanque:....................................... 4 (4) Basketball Courts: ........................ 10 (2) Baseball/Softball Fields (Adult + Youth): ..................... 11 (1) Skate Park: .................................... 2 (1) Pickleball:...................................... 10 (2) EDMONDS AREA PARKS Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 200 PROJECT SITE (8 ACRES) .j. 2 ACRES EXEMPT FROM DEED RESTRICTIONS DEED RESTRICTIONS (b ACRES) • Not more than 10% impervious surface (excluding pathways) • Pervious surface parking only • Must be preserved as open space • No synthetic turf • No buildings (restrooms allowed but apply to impervious calculations) • Shade structures are permitted • Multi -use open grass areas are allowed • Temporary festival use can be accommodated i A I pow r' = BELL STREET �� V NbT TO SCALE a �_ 5 6.1.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 9, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Malia Clark, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBERS STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON CIVIC PARK MASTER PLAN Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing. He specifically noted that written comments submitted prior to the meeting were included in the packet for the hearing. They have been reviewed by the Board Members and included as part of the public record. Ms. Hite announced that several members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) were present at the meeting: Council Member Dave Tietzel, Board Member Valerie Stewart, Dick Van Hollebeke and Alex Witenberg. She explained that the City staff and design team (Walker Macy) have conducted three in -person and three on-line open houses. At the last open house, the design team unveiled a hybrid plan that incorporated community feedback to date. In an effort to solicit additional public feedback, the hybrid plan is being presented for public hearing before the Planning Board, followed by the City Council. She reviewed that the project has gone through a robust and difficult public process. She recalled a statement made by Mayor Earling early in the process that "there is about 20 acres of need that they are trying to fit into an 8-acre downtown park.,, Packet Pg. 202 6.1.b Ms. Hite reviewed that two options were presented at the 2nd in -person and on-line open houses, and to the Board at a previous meeting. Community input was split. Many people liked the activity level proposed in Option 2, but they preferred the aesthetics (meandering pathways, softer edges, etc.) of Option 1. The design team from Walker Macy did a great job of combining the desirable elements of each of the options into a hybrid plan. When the hybrid plan was presented at the 3rd open house on October 19th, community sentiment supported the general arrangement of spaces but expressed concern with the location of the skate park and its proximity to the neighboring condominiums. Additional critique suggested increasing the petanque area, moving stadium lighting to the perimeter of the field and looking at pedestrian safety along the alleys in further detail. She said staff attempted to respond to each of the public comments. To address some of the concerns, the design team has suggested a new location for the skate park. In addition, they will provide visuals to illustrate a densely - planted buffer between the park and alley edges, which will prevent children from crossing in non -designated areas. Ms. Hite summarized that, following the public hearing, the design team and staff is hoping to get more direction from the Board as they prepare to present the hybrid plan to the City Council on November 22nd for another public hearing. Chris Jones, Principal and Landscape Architect with Walker Macy, Seattle, advised that the master plan has been through a significant public outreach process, and the third and final in -person open house was held on October 19th, followed by an on-line open house. Each of the in -person open houses were well attended, and there was significant feedback from the on-line open houses, as well. He commented that the process put together by staff is probably the most significant public outreach process he has seen for a downtown signature park planning effort. While it is not possible to please everyone, he believes the proposed hybrid plan comes as close as possible with just a few minor tweaks. He reminded the Board that the goal is to create a downtown park that has something for everyone. Mr. Jones reviewed that the 1" open house was used to talk about potential programs for the park, and no drawings or designs were presented. Two design alternatives were presented at the 2nd open houses that incorporated the community comments as much as possible. Option 1 was a more passive design that was termed the "Meadow Loop," and Option 2 was a more active design that was termed "Activity Central." Participants at the 2nd open house were divided into groups and invited to share their thoughts on the two alternatives. The outcome of the in -person open house was that people preferred the more passive scheme identified in Option 1. However, participants in the on-line open house indicated a preference for the more active Option 2. With Option 1, people really gravitated towards the signature elements, such as the free -flowing structure and layout, walking paths, water feature, plaza, open green spaces and lawn. Common reasons respondents preferred Option 2 included the view terraces, long walking and running paths, expanded boys and girls club, skate park, the focus on fields and athletic facilities, and the potential for large events. When combining the comments from the in -person and on-line open houses, the majority preferred Option 2. Most people liked the lawn terraces and felt the skate park should remain. They liked the curves in Option 1, but wanted a more active program like in Option 2. In addition, respondents indicated a desire for additional restrooms, benches and/or seating areas, lighting, additional covered athletic facility and market stage, American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, and a 400-meter track. The proposed hybrid plan that was introduced at the 3rd open houses incorporates the things that people liked best about each of the options. It includes the top 10 activities that were identified at the lst open houses: restrooms, petanque courts, jogging/walking paths, soccer, shade trees, skate park, playground, tennis courts, Boys and Girls Club, and a multi -use lawn. He noted that from a total list of 40 preferred activities, 36 were accommodated in the hybrid plan. The Hybrid Plan is organized similar to Option 1, but maximizes the recreational opportunities found in Option 2. He presented the hybrid plan and specifically noted the following features: There was a desire for wider buffers that allowed people to move around the park, to buffer the more active uses that are located towards the center of the park, and to create a civic active edge on the 61h Avenue side of the park. The plan includes pedestrian connections and a gracious sidewalk along 61h Avenue. As proposed, there would be several entries into the park, with a strong east/west pedestrian connection on the vacated right-of-way (Sprague Street). This will allow people to easily moved through the park in an east/west direction. A 1/3-mile pedestrian jogging path would be provided for those who want to track the distance they walk or run. Community hubs (gathering spaces) are included, as well as an expansion of the existing Boys and Girls Club. A shade pavilion, restroom and storage facility would be located to the south of the Boys and Girls Club. An alternative would be to relocate the Boys and Girls Club facility to the northwest corner of the park. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 203 6.1.b • A multi -use lawn area would be located at the center of the park. Originally lights were proposed to be located at the center of the lawn area. However, in response to a citizen comment, the design team is now proposing that the lights be located around the perimeter of the lawn area. • A playground area would be located on the eastern edge of the park. • The skate park is currently shown on the design in the northeast corner, along with plantings and additional seating. The intent is to create more of a social atmosphere around the skate park. • The west side of the park, along 6tb Avenue, is identified as a market promenade, and the design team is suggesting that the sidewalk on either side of 6th Avenue would be flush with the roadway to give pedestrians the authority. While this concept will not be included as part of the master plan, it would help connect the park to the downtown and create a much friendlier space. • Two tennis courts would be located in the northwest corner of the site, to the north of the existing Boys and Girls Club. • To the south of the Boys and Girls Club, the design includes a water feature, with seating and tables and chairs. While the design team understands that water features are costly and one was just introduced at City Park, the water feature at Civic Park would be more subtle and/or artistic rather than a spray feature. The community has indicated that a water feature is an important element for this signature park. • Petanque courts would be located in the southwest corner of the site, and trees and landscaping would be blended into the space to create a nice sequence and entry from the downtown. • Second to the goal of making the park something for everyone in the community is making the park as flexible as possible. It is very important to create spaces that are flexible to accommodate changing needs into the future. • The design incorporates a significant amount of utilities (power, water, video, telecom, etc.) There will be 10 stub outs for all of the services at various locations in the park. • The park is designed to easily accommodate small to medium-sized events. The design can also accommodate larger events such as the Taste of Edmonds, 41h of July, and other markets and festivals. For example, the design team worked with the Chamber to accommodate the needs of the Taste of Edmonds. The Chamber has indicated it would be possible for them to be more efficient with the space, and there appears to be consensus that the proposed design can accommodate the event in a more compact configuration. Mr. Jones advised that, at the 3rd open house, participants were invited to provide additional comments regarding the Hybrid Plan. Since that time, the design team has been working with staff and the PAC to respond to the community requests. To address concerns from condominium owners adjacent to the proposed skate park, the design team is now proposing that the skate park and picnic area locations be swapped. They are also proposing that the petanque courts be expanded to six, with plantings, seating and trees on the southwest corner of the site. In addition, if the Boys and Girls Club relocates to the northwest corner of the site, the multi -use courts could be relocated to a different area on the north side of the park. Regarding the public comments about pedestrian safety, primarily along the alleyways, he explained that most successful parks are as transparent as possible. Rather than placing a fence around the perimeter, plantings can be used to keep people from walking through certain areas. A buffer on the north and south sides of the park should help to mitigate the problems associated with safety. He provided an illustration of the type of planted buffer that the design team is recommending, noting that it would be a minimum of 14-feet wide. Mr. Jones explained that, as proposed, the project would be done in phases. Phase A would be redevelopment of the active civic space along 6t" Avenue (west side of park), and Phase B would include the more passive landscaped portion of the park. Phase C would involve street improvements along 6t" Avenue as suggested earlier. Chair Lovell opened the public portion of the hearing. Tom Benediktson, Edmonds, said he lives directly north from where the skate park was originally proposed. He thanked the design team for responding to neighborhood input. He explained that the previous version of the Civic Park Master Plan would have placed the skating facility right outside his living room window. He appreciates the change in plan, which moves the skating facility to a position equidistant from the condominiums on Bell and Daley Streets. This change will alleviate the noise generated by the skaters. Mr. Benediktson also read the following written statement from Pat Woodell, Edmonds, who lives on the north edge of Civic Park but was unable to attend the meeting: Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 204 "I have read the packet that was prepared for this meeting, and I would like to compliment Walker Macy on the proposed changes in the design that is shown on Page 41. I ask that those making decisions about the final design, support this new proposal. I am excited about the new park and look forward to the coming changes. In my written submission to you, I stated my reasons for locating the skate park as far as possible from residential boundaries. Tonight's presentation showing revisions to the design, addresses the concerns of many who have worried about a skate park being so close to their balconies. The revised design shows sensitivity to these concerns. I would also like to compliment the decision to locate the picnic area near our buildings in place of the skate park. A picnic area provides an excellent buffer from higher -use activities in the park. The elevations presented in the Planning Board packet show the potential for the park and all of the beautiful design elements we have to look forward to. I appreciate Carrie Hite and Walker Macy's hard work on the design and would like to thank them for addressing our concerns as neighbors of the park. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration in supporting the skate park andpicnic areas where they are located in the revised design. " Linda Malan, Edmonds, indicated her support for Mr. Benediktson's comments and said she lives in the same condominium development. She very definitely wanted to confirm how important Ms. Hite has been in the process. She said she and her neighbors began expressing concerns before any planning was ever presented, knowing that this was going to impact them. She thanked Ms. Hite for her quick responses. She said she also lives adjacent to the parking lot that her development shares with the church. She said her concern has always been about safety. She has seen children dropped off for soccer practice, and they have to run across the alley to get to the park. There have been many close calls. She asked that the Board accept the changes to the Hybrid Plan that relocates to the skate park to a more central location. Lorna Moffit, Edmonds, said she lives on the northwest end of the park. She complimented the overall design of the Civic Park, but said she has some major concerns about the northwest corner, which is where the four condominiums in her developmetn look out onto the park. She explained that, over the years, they have all enjoyed the active, positive view as they have watched children and adults of all ages participating in a variety of activities. They all chose to move to the condominiums largely because of this unique view. She further explained, that currently, the tennis courts and their tall fences are located across the alley in front of about 1/3 of their condominium property, and they all can enjoy some south and southeast views of the park's activities and beauty, along with the tennis courts. If the current Civic Park Master Plan is passed, the two tennis courts, with their tall fences, would be moved east and be located in front of their entire property. This would block their southeastern and southern views of the park. She provided pictures showing what they see now, as well as what the obstructed view would be if the tennis courts are moved east. She said the change would affect them on a daily basis, and she urged the board to put themselves in her place and imagine looking out to tall fences and hard surfaces. Hopefully, this will help them understand the concerns better, as well as a wish for a change in the plan. She proposed the following three options as a compromise to spread out the hard surfaces: 1. Switch the tennis courts and petanque area. The tennis courts located there would not affect the view of the police department to the west or the church property and small condo to the south. 2. Move the tennis courts back to their present location. While this would shorten the proposed 6t" Avenue promenade, it would also bring back the type of view they now have. 3. The new multi -use court that would be located off of the alley and to the east of the tennis courts could be eliminated and replaced by the 2nd easternmost tennis court in front of their property. This would keep the wide promenade and give a much -appreciated natural opening for everyone to actually see and continue to enjoy the beauty of the park. This option could be a win -win for everyone. Over the years, we have all observed that there is much more activity on the two tennis courts than the two basketball/multi-use courts. Ms. Moffit summarized that, when looking at the Civic Park design and the neighboring homeowners all around the outline, their condominium property is the only one that would be blocked from the view of the park by hard surfaces. She asked the Board to please work to make a change. Michelle Martin, Edmonds, said she had the privilege of starting the Edmonds Petanque Club and it is an honor to serve as its president. She said the club is excited and pleased with the new design of the Civic Park, and they want to thank the City for the space the club has been given in the southwest corner of the park. She shared that the club's mission statement is to, Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 205 6.1.b "Introduce petanque to people of all ages, regardless of race or gender, to promote the game nationwide, to help establish Edmonds as a sport destination, and to raise money for charities. " She advised that, since 2011, the club has reached out to young people, including French students from Marysville, Japanese students from Hekinan, Japan, summer programs with the Boys and Girls Club, and next year the French classes from Edmonds Woodway High School. The club is also involved with the Senior Centers from Shoreline and Edmonds, the Taste of Edmonds, and the 0' of July. She announced that the club was named the 2016 Edmonds Citizens of the Year. Ms. Martin explained that club tournaments (League, Bastille Day Tournament, Platinum Players for over those over 80 years old, and the Edmonds Foodbank) bring players from all over the Northwest. With the Foodbank Tournament and the support of merchants and businesses in town, the club has given $24,000 to the Edmonds Food Bank since 2011. The daily and weekly players and the tournaments also bring business to restaurants and shops in Edmonds. Petanque also has a great impact with the older and retired citizens of Edmonds, and it is a social and recreational experience cherished by many. The club currently has 83 members and has been successful because the City of Edmonds supported the construction of the courts. The club is a non-profit organization. A grant from the Hubbard Foundation and a donation from the McDevitt Family Foundation was used to finance the materials and start the summer program with the Boys and Girls Club. With the proposed new Petanque Grove, the City will have the best place for petanque in Washington State. She urged the Board to cooperate with the City staff to find a way to continue to have tournaments, raise money for a good cause, and attract a larger number of visitors to the City. Jack McHenry, Shoreline, said he is an active member of the Edmonds Petanque Club and was present to share some thoughts about the Civic Park Master Plan. He explained that, since its founding, the club has reached out to the community as often as possible. Unfortunately, as fantastic as it is, the proposed design for the Petanque Grove will not allow for larger - format, community petanque events because the club will lose the use of the former soccer field. He asked the design team to consider modifications that allow the club's community functions to continue. For example, the club sponsors a yearly Foodbank Tournament that has contributed $24,000 to the Edmonds Foodbank, plans French and petanque instruction for Edmonds Woodway High School French Classes, and sponsors other tournaments that attract participants, as well as their families and friends, all of whom patronize Edmonds restaurants and shops while they are in town. With such activities, the club has contributed to the community beyond club members' play. The ability to continue such events is an important part of the club's mission and will depend on the ability to create temporary courts on a petanque-friendly surface. Mr. McHenry expressed his belief that the petanque area in the southwest corner of the playfield can provide ample room to stage all such community activities if left in as open a fashion as possible. The club is not asking for additional space, but they hope designers will consider modifications to the Petanque Grove, itself. For example, he asked the Board to consider constructing six standard courts on the perimeter for regular club play, amending the current proposal to retain the central area of the Petanque Grove in an open fashion interspersed with deciduous shade trees, and surfacing the resulting open space with fast -draining, pervious, crushed granite so that additional, temporary courts can be formatted among the trees using easily removable string boundaries. This design would create a wet -weather -friendly open space with a pervious, crushed granite surface for the public to use for a variety of activities and an area where the club can line out additional playing courts as needed for special events. The resulting open space would allow wider community use of the Petanque Grove year round for activities such as the Taste of Edmonds and other festivals, or simply walking, reading, picnicking, game playing, and stroller exercises. This would be especially true when the larger lawn areas are wet and muddy. On behalf of the club, Mr. McHenry reiterated the club's appreciation for all the planning that has gone into the playfield project and especially for the inclusion of the Petanque Grove in the southwest corner, near the storage facilities and restrooms. With the features he suggested above, an open space would be created that would allow the club to continue its community activities in Edmonds. The proposed modifications will also open the Petanque Grove to wider use by all park visitors, particularly in inclement weather. Danene Warnock, Edmonds, said she and her husband have been active members of the Edmonds Petanque Club since 2011. She voiced support for the recommendations put forward by Mr. McHenry for how it would be possible to meet the club's outreach mission goals, as mentioned by Ms. Martin, within the boundaries of the space allocated for the Petanque Grove. With wet grass a frequent reality, a pervious, crushed granite surface would be a great alternative for activities that she sees taking place on today's playfield. The option to avoid exercising or playing in wet shoes is appealing. What the Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 206 6.1.b club envisions just inside the park's entrance is an open, fast -draining surface for people to utilize for a variety of activities that will also provide the necessary open space for additional courts on an as -needed basis. Ms. Warnock said the club also envisions the grove as an attractive area, befitting its location next to the park's entrance. As a gardener and member of the Edmonds Garden Club, she certainly appreciates plants and plantings, but she has also found that open space has value of its own. This is especially true in an urban environment, where a spacious, uncluttered surrounding can be appropriate and welcoming in its unspecified potential. In this way, the grove will fill the same well - loved role as do plazas and squares around the world, with the occasional shade trees adding their own pleasant ambiance. An attractive, minimal, non -intrusively landscaped perimeter border would suit this space and maximize its available usable surface area, which is key to supporting the club's community -benefiting events. Ms. Warnock reviewed that the community events produce positive results that could never have been anticipated. For example, at this year's Bastille Day Tournament, two visitors, after watching the interaction of the people and how the tournament was organized, approached Ms. Martin and asked not only to join the club, but about its other activities. Very impressed by what the club was doing and its positive effect on the City, one of them later sent a $2,000 donation to help the club continue its work in the community. In closing, Ms. Warnock said she appreciates the location and area allocated as the Petanque Grove, and she is excited about its potential. She also expressed appreciation in advance for the Board's understanding of how attention to specific design and layout elements of the space allocated for the Petanque Grove would allow the club to continue its community outreach, as well as provide an open, pleasant space for the community -at -large to enjoy. Tom Greifendorff, Edmonds, said he lives on the Bell Street Alley, across from the petanque courts. He said he and his wife purchased their property because they enjoyed watching people play petanque. He suggested that the fairest way to address the suggestion to switch the petanque courts with the tennis courts is to consider that both were present when the residents purchased their homes. He felt it would be most fair to leave them where they are currently located. He voiced concern that, although there are "no parking" signs along the alley, people still park there, leaving little room for cars to get by and making it impossible for emergency vehicle access. This is an unsafe situation that needs to be addressed. Ms. Hite advised that the City is not planning to allow parking along the alley. Enforcement could be a matter of placing signs to indicate that parking is not allowed. This issue would be addressed and enforced by the Police Department, and she suggested that Mr. Griefendorff contact them about his concerns. Mr. Greifendorff commented that they are anticipated more people will be using the park when it is redeveloped, and there will likely be more problems with people parking in the alley. He would appreciate the City ensuring their homes are safe and accessible to emergency vehicles. Bill Wood, Edmonds, said he also lives adjacent to Civic Park, and he urged the Board to not recommend approval of a master plan that does not include a fence along the northern boundary. It doesn't need to be a tall fence, as a three or four - foot fence would be more than adequate. The Board should be aware that the entire field is currently surrounded by fencing, with only two outlets on the north and east sides. This controls the flow of people to a single point where they can either enter or exit the field. The cars driving down the alley to the north of the field know there is only one location they need to look for people leaving the field. This is an important safety concern, yet a fence is not currently part of the design plan. Instead, it has been stated that a berm or landscaping would be used to minimize the risk of children darting out into the alley. For those who don't live adjacent to the park, it is difficult to understand the extent to which children run out into the alley, and there is currently a fence that keeps them away from traffic. It is not sufficient to just minimize opportunities for children to run out into the street, it must be prevented. Also, he felt that a fence would provide added security for people living along the alley from the risk of prowlers. Bill Moffit, Edmonds, said he and his wife were pretty excited when the City purchased the property and started planning for the park. He agreed with Mr. Wood's comments about the need to have a fence or border other than just landscaping along the two alleys, not just for safety of pedestrians, but also for the residents who live adjacent to the park. He said he was surprised to learn that the tennis courts would be relocated. He agreed that the tennis courts were in their present location when he and his wife purchased their home, but he was surprised to learn that many of the most imposing aspects of the plan will be located on the north and west sides of the park. As proposed, the tennis courts would basically be in his front yard and tall fences would be required around them. He suggested that swapping the location of the tennis courts and petanque courts would be preferable to almost everyone. Mr. Jones agreed that fencing would be required around the tennis courts. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 207 6.1.b However, rather than a chain link fence with plastic slats, the City could use a more transparent material such as the netting that is used at driving ranges. While the fence would still be visible from adjacent properties, a more transparent material would provide a better visual quality than a chain link, slat fence. He emphasized that the fence material is a design detail that will be addressed as part of future work. Jim Welsh, Edmonds, said he is the president of the Bell Street Homeowners Association, which has been quite active throughout the master plan process. He requested more information about the proposed new location of the skate park in relation to where it is currently located. Will it be located halfway through the field or more to the north of the field? Mr. Jones answered that the skate park would be located northeast of the existing skate park. Mr. Welsh asked if it would be located an equal distance from the north and south park boundaries, and Mr. Jones answered that it would be located just north of the center of the park. Mr. Welsh stressed the need to address safety along the alleyway, whether it is done via a fence or some other device. He complimented staff and the design team for doing a superior job of public outreach during the planning stages. He said he spoke at an earlier public open house about his desire that a large tree in the southeast section of the park be retained. He wanted to make sure it was included as part of the design. Mr. Jones said the intent is to retain this tree, but the determination will have to do with the final grading. Kathy Teitzel, Edmonds, said she lives across from the northwest corner of the park and is concerned about the visual barrier that would be created if the tennis courts are moved as currently proposed. She suggested that the City either sacrifice the promenade on that part of the street so the tennis courts can remain where they are or sacrifice one of the tennis courts for more petanque courts. She said she looks out her window more often that people play tennis, and the two courts are rarely used at the same time. While she understands the need for tennis courts, perhaps just one would meet the needs of the community. She said she is very excited about the proposed improvements to the park, and the thought of looking at either a net or cyclone fence is not appealing. If the Boys and Girls Club is also relocated, it will create another visual barrier for the people living in her condominium development. Many of the noisy elements are proposed for that end of the park, but she is most concerned about the visual barriers. Gretchen Sewall, Edmonds, said she lives in the condominium development across from the far northwest corner of the park. She said she enjoys the church parking lot and part of her condominium ownership is an easement to parking space in that lot. She said she watches kids come and go at the park because she lives and works there, and she purchased her home because she loves the park. She is concerned about safety given that no fences are being proposed. While she does not necessarily like fencing, in this situation it is warranted because there are so many kids going back and forth. She urged the City not to approve a plan until there is some degree of serious consideration given to fencing. Ms. Sewall suggested it is time for the City to step back a bit and look at the opportunity from a citizen's perspective. This is one of the last times the public will have an opportunity to ask questions, get information and offer input before the plan becomes the incredible vision they are all hoping for. She voiced concern that the Board is being asked to sign off on the master plan when there are so many things that are fluid and so little detail has been provided. While she is neither a city planner nor a design professional, she has been a citizen of Edmonds for 25 years. She is waiting for a vision for the park to emerge. She suggested that perhaps the plan is a bit too greedy trying to accommodate 36 of the 40 things that people want into an 8-acre park. Perhaps they need to let go of some of them. She voiced concern that there is no central vision or signature associated with the proposed plan, and she is afraid they are letting an opportunity slip away. Before the plan is approved, she would like to see a more complete plan for lighting and information about project costs. She would also like more information about park access, as well as more information about the dimensions of the various park features. She is pleased that the design team is proposing an alternative location for the skate park. However, she indicated concern that other things may be changed without the public knowing about it and having an opportunity to comment. She concluded that she would like there to be a truly remarkable vision before the Board forwards the plan to the City Council for approval. It is essential that the Board continue to work with the design team and staff until everyone is excited about the proposed plan. Bryan Berry, Edmonds, said he also lives adjacent to the northwest corner of the park, and he has enjoyed watching people use the park for the past 16 years. He voiced concern that all of the surface -covered activities are concentrated on the north side of the park. He suggested it would be nice if the multi -use court could be relocated to a different area of the park and if more greenery could be provided along the north side. He agreed with the previous speakers that a fence is needed on the north and south edges of the park to keep kids from running across the alleyways. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 208 6.1.b Don O'Bryant, Edmonds, said he lives directly across from the proposed east entrance of the park. He commented that when the park gets busy, it creates a dangerous situation. People cross where there are no crosswalks and there is no defined plan for drop off areas. Currently, people pull into his driveway to turn around. He expressed his belief that the traffic problems will continue to increase and something needs to be done to manage the flow of people in and out of the park with crosswalks, drop-off areas, etc. He said he loves the plan for the park, but he suggested that more emphasis could be put on pickle ball, which is becoming a popular sport. He recognized that the tennis courts could accommodate pickle ball, but the footprint of a pickle ball court is 1/3 the size of a tennis court. He suggested they research how popular this sport is compared to tennis and then adjust the plan accordingly. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, said he participates on the current PAC and was also a member of the original work group that helped design and locate the current skate park. He reviewed that the process started in the late 1990s when the City received seed money of several thousand dollars from the Edmonds Police Foundation. The skate park group formed and had its initial meeting in 2004, and the process continued over several months as the work group developed criteria for evaluating potential sites for the skate park. The process included an extensive public outreach program, and the ultimate conclusion was to locate the park at Civic Field. Several residents living adjacent to civic field voiced concern about the noise created by the skate park, and the concerns were mitigated by strategically locating the skate park within the park and by limiting its hours. The process continued until the park was fully designed, and it opened in the spring of 2007. Although not everyone left the public meetings happy, he is not sure what else could have been done to address their concerns. Mr. Witenberg said he supports the proposed relocation of the skate park, but felt it was important for the Board to understand that a lot of work went into the siting and design of the current skate park, particularly the concept of modular components that could be moved to accommodate other uses of the area. He expressed concern that as the park redevelopment proceeds in phases, the important information that was gleaned from the original public process for the skate park will be lost and the element will be eliminated. While he recognized that there are some drawbacks associated with the skate park, it is a popular amenity. He reminded the Board that there was tremendous support for retaining the skate park at Civic Park, and further design of this element is important as the process continues. Chair Lovell closed the public hearing. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the proposed master plan is intended to represent a pictorial description of what the public wants to put in the park. More detailed designs are yet to come. Board Member Crank thanked the design team, the public and staff for their hard work. She said she supports public comment related to fencing and safety, parking restrictions and providing a drop-off area. She pointed out that current surface of the field can accommodate vehicle parking during large events to allow people to unload and load, etc. She asked how the City plans to mitigate this since she presumes that vehicular traffic will not be allowed on the new turf. Mr. Jones said he cannot answer at this time whether vehicles will be allowed or not because it is a City determination. However, previous projects he has designed have allowed vehicles to access and even park on the turf. There are strategies, such as putting down a layer of sand rather than dirt, which allows the area to easily be reseeded if damaged. It will be up to the City to decide if vehicular traffic will be allowed. Board Member Crank said she finds it commendable that the proposed plan includes as many ideas from the public as possible. However, they are now at a finite point that there needs to be a cut off for changes. The City should strive for the complete vision for what the park is supposed to be rather than trying to create a park that has everything for everyone. She challenged the design team not to continue to try and block in everything. At some point, they need to stop and focus on a finite number of things. She does not necessarily think they need to do a water structure, which seems more of a want than a need. However, it is important to address the needs of the community as identified in the in -person and on-line open houses. She suggested that perhaps the difference in feedback between the on-line and in -person open houses is because most people who attended the in -person open houses live close to or adjacent to the park, and many who participated in the on-line open houses live elsewhere in the City. She felt that, as a whole, the community would support the plan once a final decision is made. Board Member Cloutier agreed with the comments and concerns raised by the citizens, as well. He suggested that the design team consider safety aspects first and then fit in the other elements. He said he loves the new hybrid plan that addresses the Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 209 reservations brought up by the community. However, he stressed that the master plan is not intended be a final design. It is intended to be a vision of what could be built within the scope of the plan. He suggested it would be helpful for the design team and staff to make this clear when the plan is presented at the City Council's public hearing. Mr. Jones commented that Mr. Witenberg was a great addition to the PAC, and he values the input he provided. He has spoken eloquently to the importance of the public process. He clarified that the skate park is a placeholder and staff will engage the public in the conversation when the design work moves forward at a later date. Board Member Monroe complimented the staff and design team on the great plan. He asked how they decided to include two tennis courts as opposed to just one. Mr. Jones said the number of tennis courts is not fixed in stone. He explained that the feedback they received is that tennis courts are popular and are being used on a regular basis. This informs the design team that they should include two tennis courts in the design unless directed to do otherwise. Ms. Hite added that the current tennis courts at Civic Park, as well as the tennis courts in the hybrid plan and tennis courts that exist elsewhere in the City, are all lined to be used for pickle ball courts, as well. She agreed that pickle ball is becoming a popular sport, and residents can check out portable nets at the recreation center to use on the courts. The Parks Maintenance Manager has indicated that the tennis courts are heavily used, and the intent is to maintain the same number as currently exists. Board Member Monroe asked if it would be realistic to think the tennis courts could be used for larger events if there are nets around them. Mr. Jones answered affirmatively, explaining that the nets could be portable. Board Member Monroe asked how moving the skate park to the center of the park would impact the park's ability to accommodate large events. Mr. Jones agreed that the event diagram would have to be changed since the skate park would not be available for flexible use. Board Member Monroe asked if the design team and/or staff has raised this concern with the Chamber as to whether the proposed change would still work for the Taste of Edmonds. He asked if it would be better to swap the playground with the skate park. Mr. Jones pointed out that the current skate park went through an extensive public process to identify the correct site, and it has been successful for a number of years. The design team and staff felt it would be appropriate to relocate the skate park within close proximity of its existing site rather than opening a can of worms by proposing an entirely new location. Board Member Monroe voiced support for a water feature at the park, but not a spray pad. Board Member Robles said he believes the proposed master plan will result in a wonderful asset for the community. Once the park is redeveloped, it will increase the value of everyone's properties regardless of why or where they purchased their homes and what their views are now. Compromise will be required, but having the park close by will be a tremendous asset. He said he does not live in the downtown, and he is very interested in the park's ability to serve people who live in other areas of the City. Providing parking space would be wonderful. He said he is also interested in some of the modern materials, such as the invisible net around the tennis courts. Mr. Jones clarified that the net would not be invisible, but it would be more transparent. Board Member Robles said he is interested in learning more about some of the alternatives for fencing. He noted that fences can make ADA access difficult. Perhaps selective fencing would be in order. He noted that fences can hide children as well as restrain children. He suggested the City consider more modern ways of creating blockage where needed. Mr. Jones agreed that safety is a big concern, as well as a liability for the City. However, once a fence is put up, it creates a barrier that also presents challenges. From a design perspective, if children get beyond the landscape barrier, there is usually a way to get across to rescue them. A fence would not allow this same flexibility. A person would have to go all the way to the end of the fence to get around to find child. Board Member Robles agreed that a fence along the entire north and south boundaries of the park would probably not be desirable. Board Member Robles asked if the City has significant concerns about prowlers in the park and the surrounding neighborhoods given their close proximity to the Police Station. He said it seems like the neighborhood would be fairly safe. He concluded that he is happy with the rigorous public process and reminded the Board and public that they are talking about a master plan and not the final design for the park. He commented that the plan gets better every time he sees it. Ms. Clark said she also likes the plan, and she believes her peers at the High School and Junior High will like it, as well, because it includes a wide variety of activities. She said she has taken tennis lessons at the tennis courts at Civic Park, and she also plays there on a regular basis. Both courts are frequently used. She asked how the proposed plan would impact the fire station, and Mr. Jones answered that the design of the park would not have any impact on circulation at the fire station. If the idea of the promenade ever moves forward, any booths associated with events would have to be situated west and/or south of the fire station. Ms. Clark said that she initially was not in support of having a fence on the north and south sides of Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 210 6.1.b the park, but she is more interested in the idea after hearing about the safety concerns. She said she has seen kids running around in the alleys and a fence would provide additional safety. Board Member Stewart said it was great to hear the public's comments and suggestions. She also said she appreciates the staff and design team's effort, and she has enjoyed serving on the PAC. She referred to the Edmonds Petanque Club's suggestion that the center area in the Petanque Grove have a crushed granite surface. She said it is good that the club is thinking creatively about how to expand the space when needed for tournaments. When it is not needed for tournaments, the surface could be used for other activities. If it could be incorporated to be aesthetically pleasing, she would support the proposal. Everyone seems to agree on the importance of creating flexible spaces, and she felt that the Petanque Grove should also be useable for all citizens for a variety of other activities. With regard to the tennis courts, Board Member Stewart agreed that having two courts would be great, especially if pickle ball courts could fit right in. She asked if a basketball hoop could also be added along the side of at least one of the tennis courts to make the surface more versatile. She also asked if the plan includes a covered play area where people can shoot hoops, etc. Mr. Jones pointed out that a pickle ball court would also be located north of the Boys and Girls Club, and a basketball court is proposed in the northeast corner. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to combine some of the uses that require a hard surface. Mr. Jones said they did consider this option but it is important to remember that the Boys and Girls Club currently has an indoor basketball court, so adding an additional outdoor covered basketball court would be duplicative. Ms. Hite added that, with the revised Hybrid Plan, the north sport court would be an optional court. If the Boys and Girls club expands over top of the multi -sport court, they can consider adding a basketball court on the sport court as needed. Board Member Stewart noted that pickleball is also played on the tennis courts at Yost Park. She observed that pickleball creates a louder and more frequent noise than tennis. She hopes that the tennis courts won't be bothersome to the neighbors. Ms. Hite said people currently play pickleball at Civic Park, too; but not as frequently as at Yost Park. Board Member Stewart suggested that instead of a fence for safety, perhaps some type of "prickly" landscaping could be used to keep kids from crossing from the park into the alley. She asked how high the landscaping would need to be to prevent balls from going over. She said it is important to think about safety first, but she is confident that staff can work with the design team to come up with a solution that is also aesthetically pleasing. She also referred to the concern that people living adjacent to the tennis courts would no longer be able to see into the park. She said that if she lived in close proximity to the park, she would also want to be able to see what is going on at the park. Again, she said she is confident that an aesthetically pleasing solution can be found. Board Member Cheung asked how the strip of green to the right of the pickleball court would be used, and Mr. Jones answered that it is proposed to be lawn area. He explained that, in the hybrid plan, there would be a trail through the space and the surrounding area would be lawn. Board Member Cheung asked if picnic tables and benches are planned in the area near the water feature to provide seating. Mr. Jones answered that seat walls and trees would be located to provide a pleasant place for people sit, and they anticipate that the area around the water feature would be very active. Board Member Cheung asked what is being planned for the picnic area that would be located in the northeast corner of the park. Mr. Jones said the intent is to provide standard picnic tables. Board Member Cheung suggested that because it is important to have restrooms nearby, more people will likely use the seating and tables near the water feature. He suggested that tables be incorporated into the area surrounding the water feature and then the area in the northeast corner could be used for something else. Board Member Cheung asked what material would be used to create the walkways through the park. Mr. Jones said the design team had originally identified the materials as unit pavers, but the estimated cost came in too high. The walkways could be constructed of poured, stamped, or colored concrete. Board Member Cheung asked if the walkways would be accessible to skateboards, and Mr. Jones answered that there would be an accessible route. Board Member Cheung said he is concerned about whether a vegetative fence would be adequate to provide safety. On the other hand, aesthetics are important, too. He felt that a chain -link fence would make people feel like they are caged in. He noted that many parks have wooden log barriers that prevent children from bolting out into the street, but they don't really look like fences. He felt the intent is to slow people down without being too visually obstructive. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 211 Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board heard during the hearing that the petanque courts could be used during events and as a dry place for children to play during the winter months. She asked what other activities the courts could be used for. Ms. Hite said the courts could have movable features that would allow them to be used for other types of games and activities. She said she heard from the Edmonds Petanque Club that they would like the Petanque Grove to be redesigned to leave a big open space in the middle, which could be good for kids to play on. She said she would also be open to other creative ideas for how the area could be utilized, but it is not easy to come up with other multi -use options that would be feasible for the area. Mr. Jones cautioned against creating an open field in the center of the Petanque Grove. He reminded the Board that the grove is located close to what he considers to be the front door of the downtown park. It needs to be crafted with a highly horticultural design. While he recognizes the needs of the club, it is important to balance this need with the need to have an attractive front door to the park. Leaving an expensive space with nothing in it and no shade would not be inviting to the ordinary user. He emphasized that the space needs to be designed to work for everybody and not just one group. The space needs to be crafted and elegant or it will feel empty and not feel like a front door to the downtown park. Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, said he is a member of the Edmonds Petanque Club. He said he has been in the landscape business for 20 years and has quite a bit of experience on visual impact and usage. He explained that the club's suggestion is to make the park as beautiful as possible at the entrance, but that doesn't mean it has to include 30 or 40 feet of landscaping. It could have a perimeter of landscaping and strategically placed trees that can coincide with being able to use the space for other activities without being a bare open space. A bare open space is not their vision, at all. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she likes what she is hearing about the tennis courts being used for pickleball and special events. She said she previously heard that the current skate park features are portable and can be relocated. However, when you talk about multi -purpose uses, it starts to pull away from the visionary plan. There must be a balancing act when considering the master plan. They should consider if the uses pull away from the grand plan of what the park can be for the City of Edmonds. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked why two tracks have been proposed around the field. Mr. Jones explained that one would be considered a track where people could measure the distance they walk or run and the other would be a pathway to provide circulation around the park. In addition, an east/west connection would be provided towards the northern side of the park. While there may be some duplication, he would not recommend combining the two. Vice Chair Rubenkonig agreed that it would not be a good idea to combine people walking with strollers, etc. with people who are running on the track. A member of the audience asked if the City has taken into consideration the high-water level at the park. The ground at the park is very squishy, with a lot of pooling water. She asked if there has been any discussion about how the water can be drained better. Chair Lovell advised that issues related to drainage would be addressed during the design phase of the proj ect. Chair Lovell commented that the staff and design team have done a very nice job with the plan. He said he is unclear about comments that were received during the hearing about the need to create a vision for the park. He felt the proposed Hybrid Plan represents the desires of the majority of people who participated in the open houses. Once again, he reminded the public and the Board that the master plan is not intended to be a final design for the park. It is a program plan for use of the space and the activities and appurtenances that could be placed there. It is too early to talk about heights of trees, spacing of plantings, location of lights, etc. These issues will all be addressed as part of the final design, which will include another public process. He urged people who have concerns about the park to contact the Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services Director to volunteer to serve on the citizen's group that will be established to help with the final designs. Chair Lovell asked if the alley that runs behind the condominiums on the north side of the park a public or private right-of- way. Ms. Hite answered that it is a public right-of-way. Chair Lovell summarized that, because it is a public right-of-way, anyone in the public can use it at any time, and it is up to the police to handle any problems that come up. Ms. Hite agreed that it would remain as a public right-of-way and enforcement would be provided by the Police Department. Chair Lovell asked what would happen to the existing Boys and Girls Club Building if a new one is constructed in the northwest corner of the park. Ms. Hite explained that the City has been in discussions with the Boys and Girls Club about Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 212 6.1.b what their programming will be at Civic Park. The current building is not a good space for them, and they would prefer to build a new facility. The master plan shows two alternatives. A new building could be constructed on the same site or in the northwest corner of the park. If the building is relocated to the northwest corner of the site, the tennis courts would likely be moved to where the existing building is currently located. The existing building would be removed if a new one is constructed. Chair Lovell asked if bicycles would be allowed on the 1/3-mile track around the perimeter of the park, and Mr. Jones answered that it would be for pedestrians, only. If it becomes a problem, signage could be added to make the allowed uses clear. Chair Lovell pointed out that a water feature was not included in the list of the top ten elements the public wanted to have at the park. Mr. Jones agreed but said it was identified as one of the top 20 elements the public wanted to have at the park. Chair Lovell said he likes the idea of having a water feature, but he is concerned that the plan tries to cram too many elements into the space. Mr. Jones said that, from his experience, one thing that makes a signature downtown park is an interactive water feature that is unique to the community it serves. It was a popular element that was included in both of the schemes that were presented at the second open house. Chair Lovell asked how porous the 14-foot landscape buffer would be and if it would be possible to create a cut -through path by frequent use. Mr. Jones felt this problem could be addressed. He explained that it is important to direct people to specific locations to enter the park, and if they start creating additional access points along the northern edge of the park, adjacent residential homeowners may become concerned. Placing a landscape buffer along the northern edge would meet the code requirements and also direct people to specific entry points. He felt that creating a barrier via a fence would be a less safe option. With a landscape barrier, people would always have the option of cutting through if needed. Chair Lovell asked if it would be possible to leave the skate park where it is and design around it. Ms. Hite answered that the existing skate park has required significant repairs and it is to the point that the original movable modules are now poured in place. She would recommend the City provide new components for the skate park rather than using the old ones that require a significant amount of maintenance. She recalled that there was significant public concern about the proposed location of the skate park in the original Hybrid Plan, and the design team has recommended that it be relocated to a more central location close to where it currently exists. She indicated that staff would engage the community in the process to help with future design of the skate park element. Chair Lovell asked if staff and the design team would update the Hybrid Plan based on comments received at the public hearing and from the Board. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively and said it would be helpful for the Board to provide specific and clear direction. For example: • She heard concern about fencing versus a landscape buffer. The design team has recommended against a fence, and the Board appears to support a landscape buffer as long as it is does not allow access into the park. If a fence is considered, then more translucent materials should be used. • There was some discussion about how many tennis courts there should be, and it appears that the Board supports the current proposal, which identifies two courts. • There was also a recommendation from a citizen that the tennis courts be moved to a different location to improve the view for the adjacent condominium owners. It appears that the Board supports the tennis courts remaining in the location proposed in the plan as long as the fencing material allows some transparency for adjacent neighbors to see into the park. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the Master Plan is not intended to be a final design document. The Board should speak to the purpose of the barrier on the north and south edges of the park. Once its function has been made clear, the design team will be able to figure out the right approach and materials. Mr. Jones explained that moving the tennis courts to the northeast corner could be an option, but it would block the view for a different set of homeowners. The southwest corner is the entry of the park from downtown, and they probably don't want a fenced edge in that location. If they are moved to the southeast corner, there will be concern that the tennis courts are taking away other opportunities for active recreation. He pointed out that they are in a location that has generally worked, and views Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 213 6.1.b can be addressed as they move forward with final design. He emphasized that the City does not intend to put up a chain link fence with slats along the perimeter of the tennis courts as shown in the picture that was submitted during the hearing. A member of the audience suggested that perhaps one tennis court could be eliminated from the plan, and a new tennis court could be constructed in the southwest corner of City Park. Chair Lovell responded that the plan has gone through an extensive public process to arrive at the two tennis courts that have been proposed. Concerns about view blockage have been raised, and the design team has indicated that is possible to address the concerns. Another member of the audience explained that those who spoke about a fence along the northern edge of the park are simply interested in having a barrier incorporated into the plan to discourage people from leaving the park and entering directly onto the narrow alley. Chair Lovell said the design team understands the challenges in this location and will address safety and access issues as part of the final design, whether it be fencing or landscaping. Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed picnic area could be reserved for group activities. Mr. Jones said the plan does not address this level of detail. Board Member Robles asked if the master plan would identify parking for park users who do not live close to the park. Ms. Hite answered that there would be no parking on the park site. The public made it clear that they did not want any of the park space to be used for parking. However, there is parking on 6th and 7th Avenues. The design team has proposed some parking upgrades for both of these streets, but the upgrades will not be part of the actual park development. UPON REVIEW OF THE PACKAGE SUBMITTED FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND UPON HEARING AND READING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PROVIDED, VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE CIVIC CENTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL, LETTING THE RECORD SPEAK TO THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS. HOWEVER, CERTAIN ISSUES WARRANT FURTHER ATTENTION SUCH AS: • ADDRESS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ALLEY BARRIER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY. • MAINTAIN THE MATURE TREE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. • INCREASE THE MULTI -PURPOSE ACTIVITY IF POSSIBLE WITHIN DESIGN CONSTRAINTS. • KEEP THE VISION OF A SIGNATURE PARK. • PROVIDE FUTURE DESIGNATED DROP-OFF AREAS ON 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES. • INTRODUCE OTHER ELEMENTS INTO THE TENNIS COURTS. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2016 COMPRENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave advised that only minor amendments have been proposed for the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. These include amendments to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to recognize and incorporate the Marina Beach Master Plan, and an amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action. In addition, a couple of more substantial amendments are being developed relative to the Water Comprehensive Plan and Street Tree Plan. These will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year. Vice Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the list of City -owned parks needs to be updated to include Civic Park. Chair Lovell opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience to participate in the hearing, and the hearing was subsequently closed. Board Member Monroe referred to the proposed amendment to the PROS Plan that would replace the existing language in Policy 4.H with the following: `Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. " He asked how the proposed amendment would impact the dog park that is identified in the Marina Beach Master Plan. Ms. Hite explained that Policy 4.H was adopted prior to the Marina Beach Master Plan. She Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 214 reviewed that, based on community feedback, the dog park was included in the master plan. This decision made the master plan inconsistent with the current language in Policy 4.H, which reads, "Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas. " CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The agenda for their December 14th meeting will include a public hearing on the draft Highway 99 Area Plan and election of officers for 2017. The December 28d' meeting has been cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling, who indicated that the sign code may be coming back to the Board for additional review. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to provide an update on the City Council's decision to place a moratorium on the sign code. Mr. Chave said the City Council passed a resolution suspending enforcement of the pedestrian sign aspects of the sign code. They will form a task group to come up with some potential solutions to concerns that have been raised. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 215 6.1.c Civic Master Plan Dates May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room May 12t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00 — 11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 May 17 and 23rd: Stakeholder meetings ( Chris and Carrie, FAC Room 113) June 23rd: Open House, 6-7:30 pm, Library Plaza Room July 7t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 July 27t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 9t": City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 24t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room September 1: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 September 14t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers September 27t": City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers October 19th: Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room October 25th: Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 November 9t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers January 17, 2017: Public Hearing, City Council, 7:00 PM TBD: Final adoption, Council meeting Packet Pg. 216 WALKER IMACY STING AGENDA Time: 10:00-11:30 Location: Frances Anderson Center Attendees LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Topic: Public Input Review of Hybrid Plan Meeting Date: 10/21/2016 Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Carrie Hite, City of Public Input Review Edmonds 1. Open House #3 Overview Renee McRae, City 2. Preliminary Online Feedback of Edmonds 3. Stakeholders, letters, etc. Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds Frances Chapin, Discussion: City of Edmonds Chris Jones, • Petanque Walker Macy • Skatepark location Ann Marie Schneider, Walker 0Fencing/ landscaping along alleys Macy • Lighting Rob Chave • 61h Avenue Dave Teitzel • Boys & Girls Club Valerie Stewart Barbara Chase Doug Sheldon Additional Discussion Steve Shelton Lesly Kaplan Joe Mclalwain Alex Witenberg Kyla Blair Pat Woodell Bob Rinehart John McGibbon Diana White Emily Scott Dick Van Hollebeke Mike Echelbarger Q 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 217 WALKER IMACY STING MINUTES Time: 10:00-11:30 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Topic: Public Input Review of Hybrid Plan Meeting Date: 10/21/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Discussion: Edmonds Renee McRae, City of Edmonds 100+ attendees at Open House #3, most common questions raised were about Rich Lindsay, City o buffering along alleys of Edmonds o skatepark location Frances Chapin, o petanque (amount of play area) City of Edmonds Fencing along alleys, for safety purposes, was discussed as a consideration. Walker Chris Jones, Macy will review and respond. Walker Macy • There will be fencing around the tennis courts Ann Marie Schneider, walker • Questions raised about adding a park entry near the north east corner church lot; design Macy team advises against this due to safety concerns and the fact that it is private property Rob Chave and could be redeveloped in the future. Dave Teitzel • Residents along north would like to see more detail and information on the buffer to Barbara Chase mitigate safety concerns Kristiana Johnson • Question asked about adding a 41h soccer field if Sprague Street connection is removed. Lesly Kaplan Design team clarified that what is being provided in the new park design allows for more soccer field than what Sno-King Youth Club has requested. The large field shown (1J12) Pat Woodell will fit the two fields SKYC uses today and there is additional field space to the north for Bob Rinehart another field or training use. The Sprague pathway is intended to provide direct John McGibbon connection for residents to the park, downtown and the 4th Ave Corridor. Diana White Options for alternative skatepark location discussed Emily Scott o Question raised about moving it to another park. Based on the amount of Dick Van Hollebeke consistent and strong community feedback received to keep the skatepark at Mike Echelbarger Civic the design team feels it should remain. Jennifer Lambert o Residents in higher buildings to the north are concerned about upward travel of sound. o Some residents added that the skatepark currently is only a bother after hours; kids shine car headlights on it to use it after dark. Attachments: o Current skatepark location, in center of park, was chosen for proximity to police station for monitoring and distance from residences. o Design team will revisit location options and expressed that the integration of the new skatepark into the park and landscape design is also advised. • Lighting in middle of Great Lawn for soccer field is a concern. Design team believes two 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 218 TOPIC 6.1.e PROJECT 10/21/2016 Page 2 of 2 Item Description Action by Due date poles per side may be possible. This, or an alternative, will be worked out in design development and the Master Plan will show field lighting as is for now. • Several members commended the hybrid design and the incorporation of so much of the public input. • South side residents may be affected by more noise once grandstand is removed. • Petanque o currently often uses more than 4 courts o Could Sprague Street promenade be gravel and used for Petanque? Currently shown as 12' wide so this would not provide enough width. Also inhibits pedestrian connection. o Tournaments use 15,000 SF, which is the size of the tennis courts that some feel are not used much. Could tennis or multi -use courts be given back to Petanque? o One member sited a Paris park precedent where Petanque is regularly played and provides a "delightful" spectator, as well as player, experience. o Could lawn strip between plaza and lawn be decomposed granite for more petanque? Design team feels that the connection between the multi -use playfield lawn and the plaza is important. Gravel along the track edge and plaza paving also presents maintenance challenges. o PAC Committee supported the layout as illustrated in the hybrid design. • The small Boys & Girls Club expansion is the preferred option to show for the Master Plan. • Angled parking on 7th was discussed and design team advises against this due to the thick vehicular edge and poor visibility this creates. • Planning Board meeting is scheduled for 11/9. Design team will be showing a revised plan with a relocated skatepark. Packet Pg. 219 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Tom Benediktson <tbenediktson@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 3:19 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Skating Facility Dear Planning Board, a� L We own a unit on the third floor of the Shelbourne, located at 636 Daley St. Our unit faces south, towards as Civic Park. We enjoy the soccer and other sports which occur in the evenings and on weekends. We also enjoy 3 4th of July and the Children's Circus. But we were alarmed to hear that a plan was proposed to place the a skating pit in front of our unit. The facility is already loud where it is located, since the sound is directed c f° upward. The noise would be disturbing to us if the facility were moved closer. The noise would only be a compounded by birms directing the sound upwards toward our windows. Please leave the skating facility where it is and rotate it 90 degrees. L Thank you very much, C v .2: Tom and Caroline Benediktson U 636 Daley St., Unit 8 00 Sent from Surface a Packet Pg. 220 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Mary Harding <mmharding@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 6:42 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: RE: Civic Field/Playground Hybrid Plan Hello Ms. Cunningham, I am writing in response to the hybrid plan presented last week at the open house for the civic field park. I live on Daley St, facing the park - almost directly across the field from the (current) current skate park location. I'll respond to a comment made in the myedmondsnews comments online also, but someone said something about the area residents not liking the skate park, that it doesn't make any more noise than any other activity at the park and we should just relax and enjoy it ... huh?? Unless that man lives here, he doesn't know what he's talking about! I have lived here for 20+ years and was a supporter of the skate park; having raised 2 boys of my own, I was fully in favor of having this be a place where all kids could come and enjoy this activity. It is noisy though and very active too, so I can understand the concern raised by a number of other area residents as the proposed location would be VERY noisy and disruptive to them, if it's moved to a location almost right under their windows. The kids are out there well after dark (park closing time) and I've never seen/know of police walking across the street and telling them to shut the party down. I have had to yell out my window at very late hours multiple times that "the park is closed; please go home" after 11PM, even at 2AM a few times over the years! The obvious decision is the one offered by the planners and flip the playground and skate park locations so as to ease this concern. Not a big deal in the planning but a very big effect overall for residents, right? Another huge concern for me is the lack of a fence in the proposal; a "porous" border is just asking for dangerous, possibly deadly accidents to happen. Currently the alley on the north end of the park also serves as driveways for multiple residents, yet I've seen many kids run from the church parking lot into the fence opening without stopping or looking SO many times over the years - near accidents all. When I back out of my garage on my way to work it is dark out and I know to watch for the dog walkers who may be invisible if I just backed out without looking. There is so much car traffic along the alley, people walking to/from 6th and 7th, baby strollers, kids on bikes or razor scooters not paying any attention to traffic or cars backing out of garages ... can you even imagine if there were more entry/exit points or just people cutting through the bushes?? This will still be an Edmonds park and our municipal code prohibits dogs in the park; there are people now who ignore the large posted signs saying NO DOGS IN PARK and no one wants to get in a confrontation so they don't say anything and they keep doing it. If there isn't a fence (with the same signage) you're just inviting more people to break our city's laws. 1 Packet Pg. 221 6.1.f Those of us residents with dogs know to respect our laws and keep them out of it; we can still use the park to exercise and enjoy it though. It'd just be safer for everyone with a good border to that people can know when they are in or out of the park. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Harding z Packet Pg. 222 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Cunningham, Carol Wood <cdwood@msn.com> Monday, October 24, 2016 11:59 AM Cunningham, Diane Civic Field Plan I am shocked and dismayed by the latest plan for the Civic Field that shows absolute disregard for the very real safety concerns, property value concerns and quality of life concerns for those, who like me, live at the east end of the alley on the north border of the Civic Field. The latest plan is a strong departure from previously proposed plans. I did not purchase our condo in the Shelbourne building to risk backing out of my garage and hitting an unseen child because there is no fence to stop that child from wandering off the play field or to stop a child intentionally taking a shortcut in the dark through landscaping to the alley. If there are only plants children will find their way through them to the alley. I did not purchase our condo to worry about getting out of my car in the dark at the alley wondering if someone or more than one person is lurking nearby in the park with hidden easy quick access to me and our building, waiting to accost me or get into my garage. This current plan is ripe for encouraging such activities. And if you listen to our police chief this sort of mischief, along with activities such as car prowls and breaking and entering, all fed by the growing drug problems in our area, is his greatest concern. I did not purchase our condo to have it's property value adversely impacted because of the way the play field will be redeveloped. I cannot afford such foolishness. I did not purchase it to see my quality of live depreciate because of more noise, at more hours and even after dark, because of the current proposed redevelopment plans, especially the location of the skate park and the lack of a fence along the alley. The skate park is used after hours on a regular basis. I fail to see how any planners or decision makers can in good conscience endorse this latest plan. How can they live with themselves and with those of us who are their fellow community members should this unthinkable plan come to fruition? Why would anyone want to do this to those of us who live along the north alley? Residents should not be exposed to increased noise from a relocated skate park and neither residents nor users of the field should be subjet4ed to increased safety concerns that do not currently exist. My husband and I enjoy our vibrant downtown Edmonds community and actually like seeing the current play field utilized by many different people of varying interests and ages. It is my sincere hope that the redevelopment will (1) include an attractive fence along the northern border WITHOUT alley access and (2) incorporate the skate park away from residences. I do not think the noise from the skate park (click clacking of the board wheels and enthusiastic yelling from participants) as it is situated in this latest plan can be effectively mitigated by landscaping and/or berms so that it does not adversely affect those of us who live along the alley. We live on the north side of the Shelbourne building and can hear the skate park noise now. Sincerely, Carolyn Wood Packet Pg. 223 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Beverly Greifendorff <bevgreif@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:17 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Comments about the hybrid park plan Hello, As homeowners living on the Bell Street alley, we have been paying close attention to the plans for the new Civic park. We've long enjoyed living next to the playfield and have participated in a number of activities there over the years. Now that the hybrid plan has been proposed and decision time is drawing closer, we'd like to express a few of our concerns: 1) The skateboard park Those of us who live on the Bell Street alley share the concern of our Daley St. alley neighbors about the sound. We also hear the clacking of skateboards and request the skate park be located as far from all residential properties as possible. 2)Fences We need to have fences on both alleys. We've always felt the fence on the Bell Street alley has helped deter people from walking onto or through our property as they enter or leave the playfield. Most of us on the Bell Street side must park our cars outside in our driveways and having the fence definitely adds a level of security we wouldn't have otherwise. We also sometimes see dogs running around unleashed in the Civic playfield and a fence prevents them from doing their business on our property. 3) Parking The Bell Street alley has long been plagued by non-residents parking in the alley. Because of that, cars driven by residents often have a difficult time getting to and from our homes, and it would be next to impossible for an ambulance or firetruck to get through. When the new park opens bringing with it more people to the area, we hope that "no parking" signs will be clearly posted in the alleys and parking laws enforced. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. Sincerely, Tom and Beverly Greifendorff 611 Bell Street, Unit #3 Packet Pg. 224 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Barry Ehrlich <barryehrlich@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:26 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hite, Carrie Subject: Edmonds Civic Park Hello, I live at 628 Daley St, No. 2, and my unit faces south looking straight towards the civic field. When the first of the two plans for the civic field were presented, I was in the minority of those who preferred a "passive park", but I understand and respect those who would prefer a more active park, and I can live with that. I actually enjoy watching the soccer practices and matches and all of the kids activities in the summer. However, the current plan has placed the skateboard park, a climbing wall and a second sport court right next to our condos. And, in the new version of the layout, there is no fence and little or no separation from the field and our condos. I would like to see the skateboard park "flipped" with the playground and the climbing wall and sport court moved to another area - away from our condos. I would like to suggest that they could be placed on the east side of the park (Seventh Ave.) where they would be less obtrusive, or be placed immediately to the east of the Boys and Girls Club. And with the suggestion that there be no fence on the north side of the park, I would like to request that there be a good buffer of landscaping planted between our Daley Street condos and the civic field, similar to what is proposed for the south side of the park. A landscaping buffer of at least 15 feet from the alley to the Great Lawn would be excellent. Thank you. Sincerely, Barry Ehrlich Packet Pg. 225 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: gretchen sewall <gretchensewall@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:09 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Hybrid Park Plan- Oct 19, Open House Ms. Cunningham, What is the Signature of our new Civic Park? I don't know; I can't see it yet. Like many Edmond's residents, I was dumfounded last Wednesday night at the Open House when Walker Macy unveiled their Hybrid Park proposal. Why would an experienced design firm locate the highest density, active use elements of a park immediately adjacent to private properties closest to the perimeter of the park? Or was this reputable design firm trying merely to deliver what the community wanted? All I can surmise is we have been given 15 pounds of goodies for a 10 pound bag! Perhaps we've gotten too greedy, wanting everything we can possibly have crammed into our eight acre park. The Hybrid Park proposal presented last week lacks the meaningful vision and creativity required to produce a Signature Park for our city. Walker Macy's accomplishment of incorporating 36 of the 40 identified activities in their Hybrid Plan (Oct 19th) is simply not enough to create an aesthetically pleasing, Signature Park. Have we handcuffed our designers? Where is the spark of joy and creativity of our Signature Park? While I support the concept of a 'park for all ages' it's time to ask ourselves if we need all things for each age group separately? What is the value added to the Civic Park of yet another play structure for our youngsters? The giant carpet of the Great Lawn and the excitement of a water feature accommodates all ages, just as tennis courts offer an amenity for all ages. On the other hand, the multiuse court is primarily used by The Boys and Girls club and is rarely used by others. Is a second court really the best idea? Do our residents want to shrink the limited open space used by all to double the size of the Boys and Girls Club? The skateboard park is unique and offers a vital public space for teens away from parents and older folks. From a distance the skate park, and the skateboarder, offer a pleasing sculptural three dimensional element to the park. While a climbing wall is simply a wall — close up and faraway. We have climbing walls in other parks which appear under utilized. The Petanque courts serve our older residents and can be designed as an attractive sitting area for all park visitors. This Master Plan indicates a string of light down the center of the Great Lawn. Why would the Council and planning committee approve a plan prior to the lighting design consultation? Lighting is foundational to ALL design aspects of a Signature Park. In summary; some big pieces and fundamental concepts are missing here. We are looking at a once in 50 years- or more opportunity in the heart of our city. Let's make sure our council and city officials are voting on a finished design and a truly visionary park. Respectfully summited, Gretchen Sewall Edmonds Citizen Gretchen Sewall, RN, LICSW Packet Pg. 226 6.1.f Seattle Reproductive Medicine Reproductive Medicine Consultant Seattle, WA Packet Pg. 227 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: Joe Malan <jdmalan524@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:16 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Hybrid civic park What happened! All of a sudden the location of the skate board park is moved where it negatively impacts residence north,east and south. Its current neutral site seemed to be the most effective in Allowing the SBK to exist along with other active venues.) The SKP is major noise issue for all residents except the west end near 6th ave.The traffic flow along the north alley is a safety factor. We know there are a lot of competing interest and the parties developing this signature park have done a fantastic job with the exception of the SBP. Please respect the impact the current Hybrid plan will have on the surrounding residence. Thanks Joe Malan Daley st residence. Sent from my iPad Packet Pg. 228 6.1.f RECEIVED DATE: October 31, 2016 i"`V -22016 ATT: Diane Cunningham PLANNING DEPT TO: Planning Board Members: Phil Lovell (Chair) Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Daniel Robles (Vice Chair) Valerie Stewart Matt Cheung Alicia Crank Todd Cloutier FROM: Pat Woodell, 636 Daley Street, No. 5, Edmonds, WA. I would like to request that you include my comments in your packet for the November 9, 2016 Planning Board meeting. They are as follows: SUMMARY The design process for Civic Field has resulted in several proposals to reconfigure activities and structures within the park. My comments today are in support of leaving the skate park as depicted in the Option 2 design presented at the August 24 open house. This location is close to the one approved by the Edmonds City Council in 2005 after a long public process that included research, multiple Planning Board meetings, City Council meetings, and public testimony. Its location was determined after careful measurements to ensure adequate distance from neighboring residences. By nature, skate parks are controversial and the siting of a skate park at Civic Field in 2005 was no exception. I suggest that any decision to relocate the skate park include the same careful, consideration that was given to its original siting at that time. Packet Pg. 229 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting STATEMENT I live at 636 Daley Street. My eight -unit condominium borders the north edge of Civic Field and my property line is 17 feet from the existing fence on the northern edge of the park. I emphasize this distance, because most city parks are bordered by streets and sidewalks that provide some separation between residences and park activities. The Daley and Bell Street alleys on the north and south sides of the park are an exception. Attachment 1 shows photos from taken from two buildings on Daley Street to give you a sense of Civic Field from our perspective. My comments today are in support of keeping the skate park at the location shown in the Option 2 design presented at the August 24 open house (Attachment 2). The Option 2 design keeps the skate park near the Boys and Girls Club, but rotates it 90 degrees. On October 19, the Hybrid design (Attachment 2) was presented at the third and final Open House. In this design, the skate park was moved from this location to the north border of Civic Field, only thirty-seven feet from my building's property line. This was the first public notice of any intent to move the skate park from the area of the Boys and Girls Club. I, along with others, voiced our opposition, and Parks Director Carrie Hite assured us that the skate park would be relocated from the site depicted in the Hybrid design. In informal conversations with Walker -Macy following the October 19 presentation, Walker -Macy representatives suggested flipping the locations of the Skate Park and the Playground shown in the Hybrid design. This proposal places the playground close to our residences on Daley Street and the skate park on the east border of 7th Avenue. 2 Packet Pg. 230 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting Before moving the skate park from its current location, I respectfully request that those involved in approving the park's final design carefully consider the history that went into determining its current location: 1) In 2005, the current site for the skate park was approved by the Edmonds City Council. This approval followed a long process that included months of planning, research and review, hard work by the Edmonds Skate Park Work Group, several Planning Board and City Council meetings, and at least three public hearings devoted to discussing details surrounding the skate park. The public hearings covered a variety of topics: • opinions "for: and "against" locating the skate park in Civic Field, • a description of how the skate park's specific location was determined, ■ a discussion of design and materials for the skate park, and ■ remarks from neighboring residents about noise and other impacts. Attachments 3-5 document the dozens of pages that record this history and all of the effort that went into approving the skate park in its current location. 2) In particular, the document titled "Narrative Response to November 29, 2005 City Council Questions" --an attachment to the December 6, 2005 Edmonds City Council meeting minutes (Attachment 5)--raises specific questions about the distance of the skate park from nearby residences. I quote from the text of this document in part: 3 Packet Pg. 231 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting "The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north field and the consistent 285- foot perimeter of the softball field. Distance from the nearest residences now increased to 240 feet." (Emphasis mine) . 3) Noise from the skate park was also a concern in 2005: "Resod rise to November 29, 2005 Citv Council OLltstions" "On March 9, 2005, a Public Hearing was held with many comments, questions and suggestions from the public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return later to answer questions from the Planning Board concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of the park." "On October 26, 2005, the Greenbusch Company, Inc. presented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements to the original proposal were presented: 1) a location change within the Civic Center Playfields, and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site." 4 Packet Pg. 232 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting 4) The Option 2 design presented at the August 24 Open House depicts the skate park in a location close to the site approved in 2005. Distances from nearby residence are unknown, but the location respects the siting work done in 2005. Moving the skate park to the perimeter of Civic Field would create a variety of unknowns. 5) The proposed site for the skate park presented in the Option 2 design does not present a significant departure from where it is located now The site proposed in Option 2 validates the hard work by interest groups and all of the public testimony that went into the City Council's approval of the site in 2005. The Option 2 site would not raise as many new questions about the impact of noise, traffic, and hours of use on neighboring properties. CONCLUSION In closing, I would like to suggest that those involved in any decision to relocate the skate park to a border of Civic Field revisit the historical documents described in Attachments 3-5 to this submission. The City and the public spent considerable time and expense finalizing the current location of the skate park in 2005. The surrounding residential neighborhood has not significantly changed since then, so the distances and noise criteria used for siting the skate park then still apply today. I think the 2005 public process should be honored and the skate park should remain near its current location. I would like to make one other comment. On November 9, the Planning Board —together with the public --will be presented with a design that is still in transition. On November 22, the City Council —together with the public --will 5 Packet Pg. 233 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting hear a similar presentation. After that, the public process will come to an end and designers will return to the drawing board to finalize the park's design for City Council approval on January 17, 2017. If I understand the process correctly, nearby residents will not know the skate park's final location until the eve of its final review and approval by the City Council on January 17. The skate park's size, construction materials, and distance to neighboring residences may also not be known. In 2005 these details were known by the public when the City Council approved the skate park in its current location. I respectfully ask how the final location and other details be made public and sufficient time is allowed for public discussion before the City Council approves the final design for Civic Park. CLOSING Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would particularly like to thank Carrie Hite for her availability and responsiveness in addressing our neighborhood concerns to date. Her skillful management of the Master Planning process has kept the project moving forward in a timely fashion. The Walker -Macy team also deserves credit for its involvement, talent, support, and flexibility in working with the public and City officials involved. I think they can design a beautiful park with the skate park located essentially where it is today. N. Packet Pg. 234 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting ATTACHMENTS (1) Photos from condominium at 636 Daley Street & a neighboring condominium (2) Park Design Option 2, August 24, 2016 Open House and Hybrid Design Option, October 19, 2016 Open House (3) Edmonds City Council Agenda Memo, Item 4; • Exhibit 1: "40 Developmental Assets;" • Exhibit 2: "Location Analysis Chart;" • Exhibit 3: plan view of Civic Field with skate park location identified as "45 X 120;" Exhibit 4: "Final Skate Park Noise Study for City of Edmonds, Park, Recreation, and Cultural Services," prepared by The Greenbusch Group, Inc. November 9, 2005 (8 pages) • Exhibit 5: "Planning Board Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2005, "Report from Edmonds Skate Park Work Group (pages 7-9), Planning Board discussion (pages 10-11) ■ "PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS SKATE PARK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT CIVIC CENTER PLAY FIELDS (FILE NO. CDC-05-29)," (pages 2-9), public testimony "for" and "against" and Planning Board member comments and conclusions (pages 9-10). • "City of Edmonds Planning Board Minutes, October 26, 2005," audience comments, Noise Study (file no. CDC 5-29), discussion of Exhibit D refining location of skate park and increasing its 7 Packet Pg. 235 6.1.f Pat Woodell Comments to Edmonds Planning Board For November 9, 2016 Meeting distance from 120 to 220 feet from the northern perimeter of Civic Field • "City of Edmonds Planning Board Minutes," November 16, 2005, (pages 1-9). (4) "Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes," December 6, 2005, Item 8: "Public Hearing on the Edmonds Skate Park Work Group Proposal to Locate a Skate Park at the Civic center Playfields," (pages 8-21). Public comments and City Council discussion. Unable to upload, but available at: http://agenda.edmonds.wa.us:80851docsl20060103 58/217 Draft% 2012-06-05%20Minutes.pdf (5) Response to November 29, 2005 City Council questions and discussion of history, cost, location issues and noise, design materials and rules of use (3 pages). 0 Packet Pg. 236 wOODELL Att. 1A -View of skate par Attachment: Public Comment submitted to Planning Board (1786 : Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing) WOODELL Aft. 1B -View of north park Attachment: Public Comment submitted to Planning Board (1786 : Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing) r WOODELL Att. 1C - Daley St view to Attachment: Public Comment submitted to Planning Board (1786 : Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing) _ • �y �+4r� " ' Ton ol .1elp i /; 7fY -do.-_— n - M�� a r� Ter, V 0 X N 3 ppp-- IN 00 WOODELL Ad. 1E - Daley St view Boys Attachment: Public Comment submitted to Planning Board (1786 : Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing) Design Option 2 - Activity Central WUUUtLL Att. 2 - Design Option 2 Attachment: Public Comment submitted to Planning Board (1786 : Civic Center Master Plan Public Hearing) 6.1.f Item #: 4 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services For Action: For Information: x Subject: PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL BY THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP. Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 30 minutes November 29, 2005 1. 40 Developmental Assets 2. Location Analysis Chart 3. Aerial photo of Civic Field 4. Skate Park Noise Study Clearances: Departmentlinitials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Planning Public Works Treatment Plant City Council Mayor _ Gary Haakenson Approved Electronically Reviewed by Council Finance . Committee: Community Services Public Safety 5. Planning Board Minutes: 1/26/05, 3/9/05, Approved for Consent Agenda: 10/26/05, 11/16/05. Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 200,000 Budgeted: $ 200,000 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: City of Edmonds C.I.P. , Parks Improvement Fund 125. Previous Council Action: At the July 13, 2004 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting, the Skate Park Work Group was encouraged to move ahead with the development of a skate park in the downtown area. Narrative: In 1999 the Edmonds Police Foundation recognized the health and social benefits of skate boarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park that was jointly funded by the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood. The Foundation made a financial donation of $4,500 as "seed money" toward the construction of a park in downtown Edmonds. On March 23, 2004, staff met with the Foundation to update them on this possibility. The need was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Following discussions and encouragement from the Foundation, a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. On May 17, 2004 the Work Group held its first meeting made WOODELL Att. 3 - City Council packet for 11.29.05 Packet Pg. 243 6.1.f up of Edmonds skaters, parents, Foundation and Police Department members, Parks & Recreation Department staff, and members of the community who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset to the community's youth. The group was encouraged to move ahead with planning at the Community Services/Development Services meeting of July 13, 2004. The Skate Park Work Group researched skate related issues over the next several months and have since presented their proposal, with requested ambient noise information, improvements in product selection, and site location revisions, at two regular Planning Board Meetings (January 26 and October 26, 2005) and two Planning Board Public Hearings ( March 9 and November 16, 2005). At the conclusion of the November 16 Public Hearing, the Planning Board unanimously approved the proposal for a skate park at Civic Field and forwarded it to the City Council for consideration. Tonight several members of the Work Group will make a 15 minute presentation of their updated proposal. At the conclusion of the presentation the Work Group, noise consultant Julie Weibusch, and staff will be available for questions. Recommended Action: In anticipation of the need for public input on the proposal, a public hearing has been scheduled for December 6, 2005. Packet Pg. 244 6.1.f C°'U 40 Developmental Assets = Search Institute has identified the following building blocks of healthy development HEALTHY YOUTH that help young people grow up healthy, caring, and responsible. CATEGORY ASSET NAME AND DEFINITION Support 1. Family support -Family life provides high levels of love and support. 2. Positive family communication -Young person and her or his parent(s) communicate positively, and young person is willing to seek advice and counsel from parent(s). 3. Other adult relationships -Young person receives support from three or more nonparent adults. 4. Caring neighborhood -Young person experiences caring neighbors. 5. Caring school climate -School provides a caring, encouraging environment. b. Parent involvement in schooling-Parent(s) are actively involved in helping young person succeed in school. _ 7. Community values youth -Young person perceives that adults in the communit}' Value Empowerment youth. 8. Youth as resources -Young people are given useful roles in the community. 9. Service to others -Young person serves in the community one hour or more pet- week. 10, Safety -Young person feels safe at home, at school, and in the neighborhood. Boundaries & 11. Family boundaries -Family has clear rules and consequences and monitors the young persons whereabouts. Expectations 12. School boundaries -School provides clear rules and consequences. 13. Neighborhood boundaries -Neighbors take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior. 14. Adult role models -Parents) and other adults model positive, responsible behavior. 15. Positive peer influence ---Young person's best friends model responsible behavior. 16. High expectations -Both parent(s) and teachers encourage the voting person to do well. 17. Creative activities --Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons of Constructive practice in music, theater, or other arts. Use of Time 18. Youth programs --Young person spends three or more hours per week in spot -is, clubs, or organizations at school and/or in the community. 19. Religious community -Young person spends one or more hours per week in activities in a religious institution. 20, Time at home -Young person is out with friends "with nothing special to do" two or fewer nights per week. Commitment 21. Achievement motivation -Young person is motivated to do well in school. 22. School engagement -Young person is actively engaged in learning. to Learning 23. Homework -Young person reports doing at least one hour of homework every school day. 24. Bonding to school -Young person cares about her or his school. 25. Reading for pleasure -Young person reads for pleasure three or more hours pet- week. 26. Caring -Young person places high value on helping other people. Positive 27. Equality and social justice -Young person places high value on promoting equality and Values reducing hunger and poverty. 28. Integrity -Young person acts on convictions and stands up for her or his beliefs. 29. Honesty -Young person "tells the truth even when it is not easy." 30. Responsibility -Young person accepts and takes personal responsibility. 31. Restraint -Young person believes it is important not to be sexually active or to trse alcoliol or other drugs. _ 32. Planning and decision making -Young person knows how to plan ahead and make choices. Social 33. Interpersonal competence -Young person has empathy, sensitivity, and friendship skills. Competencies 34. Cultural competence -Young person has knowledge of and comfort with people of different culturaUracial/ethnic backgrounds. 35. Resistance skills -Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous situations. 36. Peaceful conflict resolution -Young person seeks to resolve conflict nonviolently.. 37. Personal power --Young person feels he or she has control over "things that happen to me." Positive 38. Self -esteem --Young person reports having a high self-esteem. Identity 39, Sense of purpose --Young person reports that "my life has a purpose." 40. Positive view of personal future -Young person is optimistic about her or his personal future. This page may be reproduced for educational, noncommercial uses only. From Healthy Communities • Healthy Youth Tool Kit, copyright ©1998 by Search institute, 700 S. Third Street, Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55415; phone 800.888-7828; Web site: www.search-instilute.org. Packet Pg. 245 LOCATION ANALYSIS CHART 6.1.f ■ Edmonds Elementary ■ Treatment Plant 113 City Park 0 Old Woodway Elementary i Civic Center ®100 block of 2nd Ave S ■ 7th/Elm El 81 st/212th ■ Old PW Pros Cons Criteria ♦ Natural visibility ♦ Accessibility - sidewalks, bus line ♦ Neighborhood response - proximity to residences ♦ Parking or drop-off area ♦ Already active use area ♦ Natural buffers for noise ♦ Other services nearby, i.e., food, drink ♦ Restrooms A phone ♦ Park layout - how do skaters get in and out ♦ Easy access for police and fire SITE PROS CONS COMMENTS Edmonds Elementary 5 -5 Already used for sports, deli across street, sanican during soccer season, neighborhood response would be minimal, natural buffer for noise. Kids in school, limited site distance, no natural visibility, no pull over area, no a access for police and fire. Treatment Plant 0 -3 Not enough room, would need to resurface, fairly bua streets. City Park 9 -3 Active use park, parking, natural buffer, bus line, crew in do out, food nearby, drinking fountain, restrooms, phone nearby. No visibility from 3rd Ave, could be pedestrian/auto problem if drive used by skaters, maintenance issue with trees. Old Woodway Elementary 2 -4 Bus stop at Texaco Station, sanican. Outside of bowl area, busy ^Civic streets, obscure location, no sidewalks. Future skate park. Center 13 -1 Active use park, easy to get to, close to police A fire, visibility is good, sanican A BAG Club restrooms, parking, drop-off, close to food, B&G Club might be a plus for attracting new skaters, kids could skate before/after soccer, wide open area, lots of eyes to see area, attractive from aparent's standpoint. Neighborhood rep once. 100 block of 2nd Ave 5 0 -2 Surrounded by office buildings, don't own prope0y. 7th/Elm 0 -4 Too many residences, no parking, not on bus line, no food nearby. 81st/212th 4 -2 Large lot, bus line, food nearby, good visibility. Don't own property, outside of bowl area. Old PW 0 -4 In use, may be expansion for WWTP, Dayton Street too busy, kids may be attracted to skate at WWTP nearby Exhibit 2 Packet Pg. 246 �...�';r` --_ .. .�5� ,_L.„ - •. �'I•i^�,.0 �� ______ _— - -�._..._:..,'�� � -. '�y'' III 77 RL AP 45 x 120' y' r, '�+!'a<_'� •� "' `. - - •: :.S'i, Y l sus-' k -, a `'.�'-art'-..- Ra y � �.., �Y.,, . � 4 1s�. _••- •'ate--=rs��--i"or" �, .. - �1r'! !� -,, 'ti�� . �„ �w � � � �;' .7• .ram __-- � r�_ 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Final Skate Park Noise Study for City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 700 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Prepared by: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. 1900 West Nickerson, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98119 November 9, 2005 p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378-0641 www.greenbusch.com 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 248 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GP -OUP, INC. Introduction The intent of this study is to evaluate noise levels associated with activity from the proposed new skate park located at the Civic Center Playfield between 5th and 7th Avenues North along Bell Street, in Edmonds, Washington. The planned location for the skate park is North of the existing track and East of the Boys and Girls Club. The study includes the following primary components: Establishing the pre -construction ambient conditions for the area. Measuring sound levels associated with both modular and in -ground skate systems. Predicting sound levels from the skate activity at the adjacent residential properties based on two skate systems. Summary Using a very conservative approach, and assuming 3 simultaneous skate events and the highest sound levels measured for these events, code compliance would be achieved with either the modular or in -ground system. Evaluating the impact on the community by comparing sound levels from existing peak -use times with the sound levels predicted for the skate park, both configurations are below peak hour ambient. It is our professional opinion that the noise levels from adding the skate park will pose very little impact on this community. We do not recommend mitigation for the currently proposed facility. Terminology The auditory response to sound is a complex process that occurs over a wide range of frequencies and intensities. Decibel levels, or "dB," are a form of shorthand that compresses this broad range of intensities with a convenient numerical scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic. For example, using the decibel scale, a doubling or halving of energy causes the sound level to change by 3 dB; it does not double or halve the sound loudness as might be expected. The minimum sound level variation perceptible to a human observer is generally around 3 dB. A 5-dB change is clearly perceptible, and an 8 to 10 dB change is associated with a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. Definitions Mathematical descriptors have been developed to provide better assessment of sounds that vary over time and the human response to them. . A -weighted Sound Pressure Level, dBA The human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequency sounds falling outside the range of speech and has a frequency response that is dependent on the overall level of the listening environment. Sound level meters and monitors utilize weighting systems to approximate human perception of sound. Measurements made utilizing the weighting system p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 Page 1 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 249 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. designed to simulate the perception of human hearing at medium to high levels are referred to as "A weighted" and are called "dBX. Common sound pressure levels are reported below in Table 1. Table 1. A -weighted Levels of Common Sounds Sound Sound Level (dBA) Approximate Relative Loudness 1 Jet Plane @ 100 feet 130 128 ' Rock Music with Amplifier 120 64 Thunder, Danger of Permanent Hearing Loss 110 32 Boiler Shop, Power Mower 100 16 Orchestral Crescendo at 25 feet 90 8 Busy Street 80 4 Interior of Department. Store 70 2 Ordinary Conversation @ 3 feet 60 1 Quiet Car at Low Speed 50 j2 Average Office 40 % City Residence, Interior 30 1/8 Quiet Country Residence, Interior 20 1/32 Rustle of Leaves 10 1 /64 Threshold of Hearin 0 1 /128 'As compared to ordinary conversation at 3 feet. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, November 1972. Equivalent Sound Pressure Level, Ley An energy -averaged sound pressure level, where high values and low values are logarithmically averaged over time to produce a single descriptor. IV Percentage Sound Level, L(n) L(n) is the sound level that is exceeded n percent of the time; for example, Loa is the level exceeded 8% of the time. L25 is the sound level exceeded 25% of the time. Maximum Sound Level, Lmax Lmax is the maximum recorded rms A -weighted sound level for a given time interval or event. p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 www.ereenbusch-com Page 2 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 250 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Regulatory Criteria Maximum Permissible Sound Levels Edmonds City Code (ECC), Chapter 5.30 regulates noise and quantifies maximum permissible environmental noise levels at this site. Permissible noise levels are established by the zoning and Land Use of the adjacent properties. Zoning The Civic Center Playfield, where the skate park is proposed to be located, is zoned Public Use, which is considered "open space" or Residential by code. Adjacent properties to the North, South and West include condominiums, which are also considered Residential. The following Table outlines the permissible sound levels associated with the various zoning classifications. Table 2. Permissible Noise Levels Source of Noise Receiving Property Residential Business Commercial Residential 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA Business 57 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA Commercial 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA Source: ECC Chapter 5.30. The maximum permissible level at neighboring residential property lines is 55 dBA. For sound levels of a short duration, this code is modified to increase the limits as specified below. Table 3. Permissible Code Exceedence Levels Exceedence Level Maximum Hourly Limit 5 dBA 15 minutes, or 10 dBA 5 minutes, or 15 dBA 1.5 minutes Source: Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-60. To simplify the process of comparing measured values to Code levels for determining compliance, the code limit and exceedence levels are converted to Ln descriptors. Table 4 below outlines the Code limits between Residential zones. Table 4. Permissible Hourly Sound Levels EDNA Class B and Class A Descri for Code Limit L 25 (Code) 55 dBA L08 (Code +5) 60 dBA L02 (Code + 10) 65 dBA Lmax (Code + 15) 1 70 dBA Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. p) 206.378.0569 0 206,378.0641 www.greenbusch.corn Page 3 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 251 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROU11, INC. Permissible levels are further reduced by 10 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM where the receiving property is Residential. However, it is our understanding that the skate park will not operate after 10:00 PM. Affected Environment Land Uses in Project Vicinity The proposed site of the skate park is currently an active playfield. The existing site includes a track with grandstand bleachers, outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts and fields for soccer and baseball/softball. The Boys and Girls Club is co -located on this site, with scheduled outdoor activities. Existing Sound Levels Measurements were taken September 28 and 29, 2005 to document the average pre - construction community noise levels. Measurements were made along the North property boundary, near the residential property in closest proximity to the skate park. The monitor location is shown in Figure 1. Equipment utilized in these measurements included the following: ■ Larson Davis 700 Sound Level Meter SN 1436 ■ Larson Davis CA 250 Acoustic Calibrator SN 1193 The LD 700 meets the requirements for a Type 2 meter as delineated in American National Standards Institute Specifications (ANSI) 51.4-1983 (R2001). All measuring equipment were field calibrated immediately before measurement, and that calibration was verified after the measurements. All equipment had been laboratory calibrated within one year of the date of the measurement. Distant traffic and local yard maintenance dominated sound levels at the measurement site. Results of the average, measured 24-hour sound levels and the average, measured peak use hour sound levels are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5. Average 24-Hour Pre -Construction Environmental Sound Levels (dBA) Date Time L.e L... L2 L8 L25 28-29 Se t 05 24 hour 51 74 58 54 1 50 28 Sept 05 5-6 PM 56 1 81 64 59 54 Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. 2005. Methodology for the measurements was consistent with ASTM E 1503 "Standard Test Method for Conducting Outdoor Sound Measurements Using a Digital Statistical Analysis System". The EPA document entitled "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety" (EPA, March 1974) characterizes the ambient sound levels of this community as "suburban". p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.greenbgsch.c9W Page 4 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 252 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Expected Sound Levels Generated by the Project Noise levels were also measured at two skate park venues; one for modular skateboard systems and one for in -ground configuration. The modular systems were measured in Issaquah at the "SkateWave Demo". These measurements occurred on August 24, 2005. The demonstration was set up on a closed public street with slightly rough asphalt. The modular units were constructed of steel with open rear panels. Proposed units would be of closed construction to minimize sound radiated from the cavity. The in -ground configuration was measured at Connie King Skate Park located at NE 155tn Street and Jh Avenue NE in Shoreline, Washington on September 1, 2005. Connie King Skate Park is located within the Paramount School Park. The surface of this park was smooth concrete. Equipment utilized in these measurements included the following: Larson Davis 2900 sound level analyzer. SN A0386 • Larson Davis 900B Preamp SN 2603 • Larson Davis 2560 Microphone SN 2123 ■ Larson Davis CA 250 Acoustic Calibrator SN 1193 One of the key issues to be addressed by this study is to characterize the random and somewhat impulsive nature of the sound of skating activity. For this study, sound levels were measured within 5 feet of the skater. Measurement duration was 1 second for each event. Results of the measurements are shown in Table 6 below: Table 6. Measured 1 Second Average Sound Pressure Levels Within 5 Feet of the Ar:tiuity Activity Equipment Modular In Ground Notes T e Jump and drop Ramp 81 dBA 78 dBA Metal transition edges of the down ramp modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Up ramp and Ramp 85 dBA 81 dBA Metal transition edges of the impact landing modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Grinding and Rail/bench 82 dBA 74 dBA Asphalt surface at modular Land installation was significantly rougher than concrete of in round Jump and Land Small ramp 80 dBA 74 dBA Metal transition edges of the modular panels tended to "rattle" on impact. Wheel roll -by Worst case 76 dBA 72 dBA Asphalt surface at modular installation was significantly rougher than concrete of in round Source: The Greenbusch Group, Inc. p) 206.378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.v-reenbusch.com Page 5 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 253 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUP, INC. Music was turned off during the measurements at the SkateWave Demo. Music was not allowed in the Connie King Skate Park. Approximately 10 to 15 skaters were present at each location, although no more than three skaters were active simultaneously. Acoustical Model The predicted noise exposure for the proposed new Edmonds Skate Park was created with acoustic modeling using Cadna/A, a software program for prediction and assessment of noise exposure levels. Cadna/A uses the CADNA (Control of Accuracy and Debugging for Numerical Applications) computation engine developed by the Pierre et Marie Curie University of Paris. Conditions were modeled with typical atmospheric conditions and topology accounted for. The model assumed a worst case condition of 3 simultaneous skaters with the following activity: Jump and drop down ramp Grind and land Skate -general wheel roll A conservative approach was taken for this model. It was assumed that this level of activity would occur not more than 25% of the time, thereby coinciding with Code limitations. In reality, the frequency of this level of activity would likely be lower. Frequency Characteristics Third octave band measurements were also made during the test to characterize the spectral content of the skating activity. These data were entered into the model. Evaluation Code Compliance The park will be open for use during daytime hours only. The facility will 10:00 PM or before 7:00 AM so no nighttime penalty is required and has Two configurations were considered in the models: • Modular System • in -ground construction Results of the analysis are shown in Figures land 2 below. not operate after not been applied. p) 206.378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www. reenbusch.com 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Page 6 Packet Pg. 254 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH. GROUP, INC. U Figure 1 Modular System Figure 2 In Ground System �L M ci a c M (L L d CM L L d �d♦ V V V to CO 1- r p) 206,378.0569 0 206.378.0641 www.breen�osch.corn Page 7 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 255 6.1.f THE GREENBUSCH GROUT', INC. Given the conservative assumptions as to location and frequency of this activity, both systems are predicted to be code compliant. A concrete system is preferred from overall sound level generated. It is our understanding the Parks is considering the purchase of Modular units with concrete panels, rather than the steel types that were measured. This would reduce the sound exposure from the modular system further. Community Impact Further evaluation was conducted on the sound exposure along the residential adjacencies, with the greatest sound exposure, assuming the conditions stated for the model. This analysis relied on guidelines presented in the EPA Region X document entitled "Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines." (EPA Region X, 1973.) In the published document, increases in noise are discussed in relation to expected community response to the introduced noise source. The responses are described as follows: Up to 5 dBA increase - few complaints if gradual increase ■ 5 to 10 dBA increase -more complaints, especially during sleeping hours ■ Over 10 dBA increase -substantial number of complaints. Generally no mitigation is required if the increase is less than 5 dBA. Some mitigation should be considered for increases of 5 to 10 dBA. Increases greater than 10 dBA would be considered serious and would warrant close attention The EPA guidelines are not standards and do not have the force of law, but do serve as useful indicators for potential noise impacts of projects undergoing evaluation. The published 1973 document does not indicate either the time interval (e.g., hourly or daily) or the noise metric (e.g., Leq or Lmax) to which these impact/mitigation thresholds should be applied. Therefore, these guideline recommendations are applied in this noise analysis to the predicted cumulative hourly levels (1-25) with some reservations as to their usefulness. The EPA guidelines also do not specify if the increase should be determined from the lowest measured level, the highest measured level, or the average of measured levels. Given the large range in existing average sound levels over a multi -hour period, the ambiguity inherent in the language of the rule makes it difficult to make an objective conclusion for the significance of a noise increase. However, in the absence of another method of determining impact, it is reasonable to assume that the skate park activity would coincide with times of high use of other Civic Playfield activities, when the children are not in school. Assuming that the conditions are similar to those modeled, the increase in average sound level will not exceed the 5-dBA threshold. Table 7 below shows the relationships to existing noise characteristics. Table 7. Comparison of Measured and Modeled Sound Pressure Levels, During Peak Park Use at the Nearest Residence Condition Sound Pressure Level, dBA Above Ambient, dBA Measured 5-6 PM L25 54 Modeled Modular 51 -3 Modeled In Ground 47 -7 source: The Vreenbusch croup, Inc. Since the predicted levels from the new skate activities are below the measured existing levels, the overall noise levels would not be measurably increased. p) 206.378.0569 0206.378.0641 Page 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98119 Packet Pg. 256 6,1,1 January 26, 2005 264 Beach Place: Early this year the City acquired waterfront property adjacent to Olympic Beach Park. The intent was to increase public access to the waterfront. Waterfront acquisition remains a high priority identified in the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Marina Beach Park: Due to the failure of the Willow Creek stormwater outfall pipe under the park's north parking lot last fall, the park has been closed since November. The emergency repairs have been completed. Coincidentally, the western outfall pipe replacement for this line was also scheduled to begin last fall and has immediately followed the emergency project. Current contractors should be finished in early February and clean up work, which includes irrigation line replacement, turf, paving new pathways and parking lots, picnic table and bench replacement, etc., will begin immediately after the contractors are off site. Access to the off -leash area at South Marina Beach Park should be open by early February. The entire park should be restored by late spring. Next, Mr. McIntosh reviewed the upcoming projects for 2005 as follows: Complete master plans for Edmonds Marsh and Hummingbird Park. Work with the Department of Natural Resources and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a master plan/maintenance plan for the Edmonds Underwater Park in anticipation of the renewal of the City's nine-year lease. Work with the Port of Edmonds -to complete a property line adjustment at the west end of Dayton Street and in partnership with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to enter into another -30-year lease for the Edmonds Fishing Pier. Complete the 2004 Community Development/HUD Grant project for elevator replacement and kitchen upgrades to the South County Senior Center and complete application procedures for the 2005 Community Development/HUD Grant project that includes fire detection system improvements and construction of a new entry vestibule and walkway canopy. Begin work on a new sixyear Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Upgrade the playground at Pine Street Park and rename the playfield "Meyring Field" in honor of Edmonds Little League pioneer, Don Meyring, who passed away last fall. Renovate the restrooms at Olympic Beach Park and the fishing pier cleaning stations. Replace 150 feet of trail and bridges at Yost Park by the end of March. Board Member Freeman inquired if the City has any plans to plant more shade trees at Marina Beach Park. Mr. McIntosh answered that he does not have specific details at this time about the landscape plans for the park. The park's landscaping will likely remain close to what it previously was. None of the existing trees were removed as a result of the project. He said he would speak with his staff to see if more shade trees could be provided at the park. Board Member Dewhirst recalled that the City went through a fairly emotional process regarding the -traffic circulation at City Park. He questioned the outcome. Mr. McIntosh replied that City staff decided to take a common-sense approach to the issue. While they did not discount the consultant's recommendation, they did not feel the situation was critical enough to wariatit a total reverse in the traffic flow direction. The staff determined that reversing the traffic would not improve the entrance and exit situation at the park. Therefore, it would be best to leave the traffic in its current configuration. Chair Young suggested that it would be helpful to the Board for staff to remind them where Edmonds fits in as a community in terms of the amount of parkland and park facilities they have per capita. He referred to Mr. Southcote-Want's statement about the need for more athletic facilities in the City. Mr. McIntosh explained that the standards in the City's Comprehensive Plan represent the standards identified by the National Parks Association as the ideal situation. While the City would like to reach these ideal standards, there are deficiencies in many areas. Howtvcr, given the age of the City and the land that is available, they are doing the best they can. REPORT FROM FDAIONDS SKXI-E PARK WO1tK GMOUP Mr. McIntosh advised that on March 23, 2004, staff met with the Edmonds Police Foundation to update them on the possibility of building a skate park in downtown Edmonds. In 1999 the Foundation made a financial donation for this specific Planning Board Minutcs January 26, 2005 Page 7 Packet Pg. 257 6.1.f purpose. Following this discussion a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. Mr. McIntosh further reviewed that on May 17s' the Skate Park Work Group held its fast meeting to talk about the possibility of developing a skate park facility. This meeting was organized by members of the Edmonds Police Foundation and the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department in response to requests from Edmonds skaters, parents, police and community members who believe a facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset for the community's youth. He noted that the need was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan and included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. McIntosh referred the Board to the attachments that were provided to each of the Board Members titled, 'location Analysis Chart" and "Healthy Communities 40 Development Assets." He noted that both of the documents would be referenced in the group's presentation to the Board. He advised that the work group has been meeting monthly to research and prepare their proposal, and they would provide a 15-minute presentation that includes significant background data explaining their process. He advised that the work group would like to move ahead with planning the development of a skate park in the downtown, and they would like to hear from the Board regarding the process they should follow for this type of project. He noted that David McMillan put the PowerPoint presentation together, then he turned the presentation over to the group members. Kai Taylor said she is a mother of skateboarders. She said there are many benefits to having a skate park in Edmonds. In addition to skateboarding being a popular and healthy sport, skate parks are a safe place for kids to play. However, at this time there is a lack of facilities in the immediate area, with Lynndale being the closest. Ben Pruitt pointed out that the growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate. About 11.6 million people between the ages of 6 and 18 were skateboarding in the year 2000, and by 2003 the number grew to 13 million, Researchers expect 15 million skateboarders by 2005. As the number of skateboarders -increases, so does the need for facilities to accommodate the sport. He advised that the Skate Park Association ofthe USA has stated that skateboarding is the third most popular sport in the nation for 6 to 18 year olds, behind only basketball and soccer. The fact is that the sport of skateboarding is growing, and at the core of this popular sport are energetic young kids who now surpass the number of Little League Baseball players. Aaron Taylor continued the presentation by pointing out that aspiring young riders are usually drawn more to the excitement than the fitness benefits, but experts say that skateboarding does provide a great workout. It is cardiovascular and many trainers say it's better than running. In addition, balancing and timingg is key, and the sport develops one's sense of direction and agility. He said that while learning to skateboard requires patience and perseverance, the rewards are many. For example, kids are always progressing, and they are always learning something new. The sport is goal oriented, and is a no -cut sport. Kids see tricks and they want to replicate them. The closer they get to performing the tricks, the more the mystery is solved and the more excited they get. It is a great thing for kids to do. The trend also means that kids spend a lot less time in front of the television and on video games and more time being active. Skateboarding actually gets them outside doing something physical, and that is good. Kai Taylor advised that the City adopted the 40 Developmental Assets Model in their Comprehensive Plan as a goal for youth. She pointed out that a skate park would address the following assets: ? Caring Neighborhood: ? Community Values Youth: The development of a skate park would send the message that adults in the community value youth, 7 Safety: By enhancing support for something,kids enjoy, the City can help young people feel safe at home, at school and in the neighborhood. ? Neighborhood Boundaries: Neighbors can take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior by identifying a place for kids. ? Adult Role Models: Parents and other adults would be present at the park to provide a model for positive, responsible behavior. ? Youth Programs: A skate park would provide a safety place for kids to spend their time. ? Interpersonal Competence: A skate park would provide a place for young people to develop friendship skills. Piaruling Board Minutes January 26, 2005 Page 8 Packet Pg. 258 6.1.f ? Self Esteem ? Sense of Purpose ? Positive View of Personal Future David Boubel explained that safety risk is another issue to touch upon while discussing the skate park. He said that according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there are fewer skateboarding injuries per capita than other popular sports such as baseball, soccer or snowboarding. In comparison, kids under the age of 15 are three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment. In addition, he pointed out that active skate park use yields more positive activities in all areas of the park. With such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it makes sense that by providing additional facilities, communities can provide safe places for kids to go and take part in constructive activities. Also, by encouraging the use of helmets and other safety equipment, the City can send a message that they care and that they want kids to be safe. As other communities have done, the City can develop programs that reward kids who wear helmets. A good example of this is in Poulsbo where police officers patrol the skate park and give kids who are wearing helmets a coupon for a free sandwich courtesy of Subway. He further pointed out that this would not only encourage the use of helmets, but it would also create a bond between skateboarders and police officers, and this foundation could go a long way towards kids making the right choices in life. He concluded his remarks by pointing out that the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. Dylan Packard advised that according to skate park industry statistics, in 2002 there were approximately 1,000 skate parks in the United States, and there are as many as 2,000 more parks projected to be built by the end of 2004. According to the Skate Park Association, 168 communities in the United States have currently posted a want, need or urgency for skate park development in their area. This is just one good example of the popularity of skate parks. He further stated that as the popularity of skateboarding continues to increase, the need for skate parks in neighborhood where kids live also increases. At this time, kids living in or around the downtown Edmonds area have to be driven or ride a bus or ferry to get to a skate park. For this reason, the likelihood of kids skating on the streets of Edmonds has increased. He emphasized that a lot of kids are looking for alternative forms of recreation, and skateboarding is a way for them to express their creativity. He suggested that Edmonds could best support its kids and families by providing a skate park right here in the community. Mr. Packard reviewed slides of nearby skateboard parks that have been constructed in neighboring communities such as Bothell, Everett, Lynnwood/Edmonds, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Shoreline, Tukwila and Woodinville. Alex Witenberg explained that when the group first started meeting, they asked the City's crime prevention officer to email other cities in order to learn more about the positive and negative impacts of skate parks based on location. These responses were used to develop the following site selection criteria: ? Natural visibility 7 Easily assessable by sidewalk or bus lines ? Good neighborhood response and the proximity to residents 7 Adequate parking or drop off areas 7 Minimal impact to the active uses already located in the area 7 Natural buffers for noise ? Close proximity to services such as food and drink, restrooms and telephone ? Easy access for skaters to get in and out. ? Easy access for police and fire Mr. Witenberg advised that after'reviewing each of the potential sites based on the above criteria, the work group identified the Edmonds Civic Center as the preferred location for the skate park. He pointed out that this site would be easy to get to, and it is located close to fire and police services. The visibility of the site is good, and a sanican and the facilities at the Boys and Girls Club could provide restroom facilities. It is located close to businesses that provide food and beverages, and because of its location near the Boys and Girls Club, it could attract new skaters. The site provides an open and wide area, and because it is visible to.people passing by, it is an attractive location from a parent's standpoint. Planning Board Minutes January 26, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 259 6.1.f Ms. Taylor concluded the presentation by pointing out that the Civic Center location would encourage further development of this popular and healthy sport, provide a safe place for kids to skate and address the lack of facilities in the area Board Member Henderson congratulated the group for their excellent presentation. Board Member Dewhirst asked if the City owns the property that has been identified as the preferred site. Mr. McIntosh answered that the property belongs to the Edmonds School District, and the City currently has a 40-year lease arrangement for the use of the property. There is about 20 years left on the lease, and this would likely exceed the Iifespan of the skate park components. The school district has offered verbal approval of the park, but the City must still obtain their written approval. Board Member Dewhirst inquired regarding funding options for the skate park construction. Mr. McIntosh explained that developing the site would be similar to creating a basketball court. Because the skate park would consist of various components, each of them could be purchased separately. The City has received a donation from the Police Foundation to purchase a component fflr the park, and the group will continue to look for other donations, as well. The City's Capital Improvement Program includes funding to develop the park, itself. Chair Young asked regarding the time frame for construction of the park. Mr. McIntosh answered that it is important to make sure the project is done right. At this lime, there is no definite time schedule for the project, but they would certainly like the park to be completed some time on 2005. Board. Member Freeman inquired if the park could be built in phases, with components being added as the funding is available. Mr. McIntosh answered that the group intends to approach service groups in the community with a request for funding to purchase more components. Board Member Guenther inquired if the skate park would be built to serve a particular skill level. Mr. McIntosh answered that the ]iynndalc Skate Park is built to serve a higher skill ieveI than is anticipated for the Edmonds Skate Park. The new park would be designed to meet the needs of younger kids who do not have the transportation to go to the other parks. He pointed out that the skate park would be designed by the youth who are. participating;- in the work.group. Board Member Freeman inquired if there would be. a way to monitor the skate park to make sure the young. kids are not squeezed out of the facility. Mr. McIntosh answered that they have used the -.Tukwila Skate Park asa_good--example. of providing a separate area for the younger kids. He said he is confident that the skate park could be designed for all ages. Mr. McIntosh asked that the Board provide guidance to the group as to what the next step should be. He suggested that if the Board agrees with the project so far, he could work with Mr. Chave to schedule a public hearing as soon as possible. Board Member Dewhirst inquired if the new skate park would require a special use permit. Mr. Chave answered that it would not, as long as the funding is consistent with what is identified in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. Because the project is already identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cbave noted that no formal action by the Board is required at this point, but he would work with Mr. McIntosh to schedule a public hearing. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 8:30 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. F AMPILOACH, ANDCHANCES REQUIRED TO PLAN Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, depending on the final action of the City Council, there might be a number of zoning changes to complete in order to implement the update of the Comprehensive flan. These changes include: ? Zoning code amendment implementing the Comprehensive Plan update related to the RS-10 zoning designation. ? Zoning code amendment implementing the Comprehensive Plan update related to the downtown waterfront districts. Planning Board Minutes January 26, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 260 6.1.f March 9, 2005 ;q Chair Young summarized that while single-family development is an allowed use in the existing zoning designation, the property owners do not feel that the current zoning is compatible with what the neighborhood has been and will continued to be used for. Again, Mr. Underhill pointed out that anyone who wanted to take advantage of the current zoning would have done so by now, and they would like the zoning designation to comply with that fact. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, at some point later in the year, they would be reviewing the mixed -use zoning around the hospital. He said he relayed to Mr. Underhill that, absent of the neighborhood submitting their own application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone; the other avenue would be to present their request at the same time the Board is reviewing the entire mixed -use area. He noted that this review process would include public hearings, and the property owners would have ample opportunity to make their desires known. PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS SKATE PARK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PkRK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS (FILE NUMBER CDC-05-_2.4) Because the Board received a high volume of written correspondence regarding the. Skate Park Proposal, they took a 10- minute recess to read through the information prior to starting the public hearing. Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, said he has had the pleasure to work with the Skate Park Group since it was formed in the Spring of 2004 to investigate and come up. with ideas for locating a skate park in the downtown Edmonds area. He reminded the Board that the Skate Park Group provided their initial report to the Board in January and requested that they be allowed to move to the next step in the process, which is a public hearing on the proposal. He said he has spoken with numerous. citizens over the past few weeks regarding the project, and he appreciates their comments and ideas, as well. He reiterated that the project is still just a proposal, and no final decisions have been made. Mr. McIntosh explained that the skate park proposal came about through impetuous from the Edmonds Police Foundation, who donated funding to the City after the Lynndale Skate Park had been constructed and it became apparent that many of the beginning skaters were being squeezed out. He met -with the Fowidation on March 3, 2004 to discuss the possibility of developing -a skate park in the downtown area. Shortly after, an ad hoc group of youth skaters, parents, members of the Police Foundation,°police officers and other citizens was formed. They held their first meeting on May 17''. He turned the time aver to the Skate Park Group to present their proposed project'. Kal Taylor said she is a mother of skateboarders. She said there are many benefits to having a skate park in Edmonds. In addition to skateboarding being a popular and healthy sport, skate parks are a safe place for kids to play. However, at this time there is a lack of facilities in the immediate area, with Lynndale being the closest. Ben Pruitt pointed out that the growth of skateboarding continues to increase at an exponential rate. About 11.6 million people between the ages of 6 and IS were skateboarding in the year 2000, and by 2003 the number grew to 13 million. Researchers expect 15 million skateboarders by 2005. As the number of skateboarders increases, so does the need for facilities to accommodate the sport. 'He advised that the Skate Park Association of the USA has stated that skateboarding is the third most popular sport in the nation for 6 to 18 year olds, behind only basketball and soccer. The fact is that the sport of skateboarding is growing, and at the core of this popular sport are energetic young kids who now surpass the number of Little League Baseball players. Aaron Taylor continued the presentation by pointing out -that aspiring young riders are usually drawn more to the excitement than the fitness benefits, but experts say that skateboarding does provide a great workout. It is cardiovascular and many trainers say it's better than running. In addition, balancing and timing is key, and the sport develops one's sense of direction and agility. Ile said that while learning to skateboard requires patience and perseverance, the rewards are many. For example, kids are always progressing, and they are always learning something new. The sport is goal oriented, and is a no -cut sport. Kids see tricks and they want to replicate them. The closer they get to performing the tricks, the more the mystery is solved and the more excited they get. It is a great thing for kids to do. The trend also means that kids spend a lot less time in front of the television and on video games and more time being active. Skateboarding actually gets them outside doing something physical, and that is good. Planning Board Min utcs March 9 Packet Pg. 261 6.1.f Kai Taylor advised that the City adopted the 40 Developmental. Assets Model in their Comprehensive- Plan as a goal for youth. She pointed out that a skate park would address the following assets: • Caring.Neighborhood: • Community Values Youth: The development of a skate park would send the message that adults in the community value youth. a� c ■ Safety: By enhancing support for something kids enjoy, the City can help young people feel safe at home, at school and � in the neighborhood. • Neighborhood Boundaries: Neighbors can take responsibility for monitoring young people's behavior by identifyinga' 2 place for kids. • Adult Role Models: Parents and other adults would be present at the park to provide a model for positive, responsible a behavior. c R • Youth Programs: A skate park would provide a safety place for kids to spend their time. a ■ Interpersonal Competence: A skate park would provide a place for young people to develop friendship skills.; ■ Self Esteem • Sense of Purpose • Positive View of Personal Future a� r David Boubel explained that safety risk is another issue to touch upon while discussing the skate park. He said [fiat m V according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there are fewer skateboarding injuries per capita than other > popular sports such as baseball, soccer or snowboarding. In comparison, kids under the age of 15 are three times more likely V to.suf er a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment. In addition,'he pointed out that active cfl skate park use yields more positive activities in all areas of the park. Willi such a young population utilizing skate facilities, it cti° makes. sense that by providing additional facilities, communities can provide safe places -for kids to go and take part in constructive activities. Also, by encouraging the use of helmets and other safety equipment, the City can send a message that they care and that they want kids to be safe. As other communities have done, the City can develop programs that reward kids who ,wear helmets. 1A good example of this is in Poulsbo where-police:officers the-skaw kids 0 00 patrol : park and give who are wearing helmets a coupon for a free sandwich courtesy of Subway. lie further pointed out that this would not only encourage the use of helmets, but it would also create a bond between skateboarders and police officers; and -this foundation could go a long way towards kids making the right choices in life. He concluded his remarks by pointing out that the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. tL 0 r Dylan Packard advised that according to skate park industry statistics, in 2002 there were approximately 1,000 skate parks in m the United States, and there are as many as 2,000 more parks projected to be. built by the end of 2004. According to the Skate Park Association, 168 communities in the United States have currently posted a want, need or urgency for skate park M development in their area_ This is just one good example of the popularity of skate parks. He further stated that as the v3, popularity of skateboarding continues to increase, the need for skate parks in neighborhood where kids live also increases. At c this time, kids living in or around the downtown Edmonds area have to be driven or ride a bus or ferry to get to a skate park. E For this reason, the likelihood of kids skating on the streets of Edmonds has increased. Ile emphasized that a lot of kids are E looking for alternative forms of recreation, and skateboarding is a way for them to express their creativity. He suggested that Lj Edmonds could best support its kids and families by providing a skate park right here in the community. 2 Mr. Packard reviewed slides of nearby skateboard parks that have been constructed in neighboring communities such as ti Bothell, Everett, Lynnwood/Edmonds, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Shoreline, Tukwila and Woodinville. Alex Witenberg explained that when the group first started meeting, they asked the City's crime prevention officer to email aD other cities in order to leant more about the positive and negative impacts of skate parks based on location. These responses ;g were used to develop the following site selection criteria: Q ■ Natural visibility + Easily assessable by sidewalk or bus lines Planning Board Minutes March 9, 2 Packet Pg. 262 6.1.f • . Good neighborhood response and the proximity to residents • Adequate parking or drop off areas • Minimal impact to the active uses already located in the area • Natural buffers for noise • Close proximity to services such as food and drink, restrooms and telephone • Easy access for skaters to get in and out. ■ Easy access for police and fire Mr. Witenberg advised that after reviewing each of the potential sites based on. the above criteria, the work group identified the Edmonds Civic Center as the preferred location for the skate park. He pointed out that this site would be easy to get to, and it is -located close to fire and police services. The visibility of the site is good, and a sanican and the facilities at the Boys and Girls Club could provide restroom facilities. It is located close to businesses that provide food and beverages, and because of its location near the Boys and Girls Club, it could attract new skaters. The site provides an open and wide area, and because it is visible to people passing by, it is an attractive location from a parent's standpoint. Ms. Taylor concluded the presentation by pointing out that the Civic Center location would encourage further development of this popular and healthy sport, -provide a safe place for kids to skate and address the lack of facilities in the area Board Member Dewhirst said he.is perplexed at to why the skate park proposal is before the Board as a public hearing when no conditional use permit or grading permit would be required. He questioned what type of action the Board is expected to take on the proposal after the public hearing. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that no design has been put forth for the skate park. The public hearing is regarding; the location of the proposed facility. They would not complete any design or permit work until after the location has been selected. Board Member Dewhirst pointed out that the Board would not typically hold a location hearing for any other type of recreational facility that is proposed for one of the City's park spaces. He suggested that the public hearing falls outside of any of the Hoard's procedures or rules. if public hearings on park facilities are going to occur on. a regular basis, the Board should have a better understanding of the process. Mr. Mclntosh:.explained that because a skate facility would be a unique use in a park, it is important that everyone have an opportunity to voice comments and concerns. Board Member Dewhirst questioned if the Board held the same type of review and public hearing.::for the Yost Park Pool. Again, he expressed his concern that the public hearing process could end up setting a very bad precedent. Board Member Works asked if the skate park would be supervised and if there would be set hours of operation. -Mr. McIntosh answered that, generally, skate parks are not supervised. They are the same type of amenity as a drop -in basketball court at a neighborhood park. He explained that, in the State of Washington, the Recreational Immunity Act includes skateboard parks, so this provides protection for cities and other government agencies. If the site were supervised or if the City were to charge a fee to use the facility, the Act would not provide the same level of protection. Therefore, skate parks in most communities are self -policed. The City would maintain the facility and check on it to make sure there are no -problems. He rioted that the proposed location is close to the police station, and the police officers would make their presence known at the park. Ile said the hours of operation for the park would likely be from 9 a.m. until sunset. Board Member Young inquired if the facility would have lighting. Mr. McIntosh answered that there could be security lights installed around the site, but no lighting would be provided to allow the facility to be used after dark. Board Member Cassutt questioned if the City would be responsible for keeping the skate park clean. Mr. McIntosh said the City has it policy to take.care of issues such as graffiti within a 24-hour time period. Board Member Freeman inquired if the City has plans to monitor t13e park to ensure no one is using it after the posted hours. Mr. McIntosh answered that anyone found in the skate park beyond the posted hours would be. considered a trespasser. He said the area would be fenced off for security, but because the facility would be open seven days per week, there would not be a park employee available, to lock and unlock the gate each day. Signs would be posted around the facility to make sure everyone understands the hours of operation. 'istttling Board Minetcs March 9, Packet Pg. 263 6.1.f Chair Young asked why the Skate Park Group feels it is so important to have a facility in the downtown area as opposed to somewhere else in the City. Mr. McIntosh said the City made a commitment to the youth to provide 'a facility in the downtown area. Right now, the kids living in the bowl area have to travel quite a distance to get to any other skate park in the area. The skate park in downtown Edmonds would be designed for kids who do not drive. The more experienced skaters would not be interested in the park since it would be designed for beginners between the ages of 6 and 14. The older kids would travel to the other facilities that provide more challenging features. He pointed out that as soon as the Lynndale Skate Park opened, the younger and less experienced skaters were squeezed out. Chair Young asked if an evaluation of the noise impacts associated with the skate park had been completed. He noted that several of the written comments were related to noise. He questioned how the noise level of the proposed skate park would compare to the noise associated with a soccer or baseball game or a tennis court. Mr. McIntosh said the Skate Park Group reviewed literature that supports the level of noise as being comparable to that of a soccer or basketball game. Because the facility would be located in a high activity area, the noise would blend in' at the same level as the other activities that take place in the park throughout the day. Board Member Dewhirst inquired if any measurements have been done from the proposed location to the peripheral boundaries of the park. Mr. McIntosh answered that they have not taken these measurements. Board Member Freeman inquired if the Skate Park Group has discussed the option of installing a sound barrier. Mr. McIntosh said a number of methods could be used to mitigate noise such as berms, landscaping, acoustical fencing, etc. He also pointed out that the type of pieces that would bei placed in the facility are now being designed to be less noisy. While the features, themselves, would not be constructed of concrete, the pad that they are placed on would be made of smooth concrete. There would be a certain level of sound as the skaters transfer from the. pieces to the concrete surface. Chair Young asked if the City contemplates that the -facility would be used for skateboard competitions that draw youth from throughout the region. Mr. McIntosh said the modulated park that is being proposed would have a section set aside for real beginner skaters. The idea would be to progress to the higher and more challenging ramps.. But once the skaters get to a certain level ('intermediate and beyond), they would -likely move to a facility that, providesmore challenging opportunities. _The proposed park would not. likely be a site for competitions. However, there::could be:,opportunities to provide instruction opportunities. Chair Young inquired- about the anticipated peak usage at the facility at any given time. Mr. McIntosh said the Skate Park Group has not investigated these numbers, but the usage would depend on how many features are put in the facility. There are usually about eight to ten skaters at the Lynndale park at any given time, and about eight to ten spectators or pcop Ic waiting to skate To address Board Member Dewhirst's concerns; Chair-Youngpointed.out that this situation is similar to the traffic circulation proposal for City Park. Since the Planning Board is also the City's acting Parks Board, they have a responsibility to gather information and advise the City Council and staff on the matter. Chair Young opened the public hearing. He pointed out that the Board received written comment letters from David Thiele, Carol Green, Brian Berry, Elizabeth Lundstrom, Berry Ehrlich, Emily Ehrlick, Tracy Zickuhr, Lorna Dunsdon and Phillip Butler. David Thiele, 610 Daley Street, said his condominium looks out onto the Civic Center Playfield, and he is opposed to the City's proposal to construct a skate park in this location. He said that much of the Skate Park Group's presentation was related -to the benefits of skateboarding as a recreational activity, but that is not the issue before the Board at this time. The issue is whether the proposed location for the skate park is appropriate, given the fact .that it would become a noise polluter in a park that is surrounded by a densely populated residential area. He suggested the facility should be located -in another area of the City, which has the natural features necessary to absorb the sound associated with the skateboarding use. Ph=bg Board Minuto . Mash 9, 2005 Page 5 Packet Pg. 264 6.1.f Mr. Thiele said his perception of the facts is much different than that of the Skate Park Group. He said he recently visited the Lynndale Park on a warn Sunday afternoon and found that the majority of the skaters appear to be in the same age group as those who spoke in favor of the Civic Center location. They_were not being squeezed out of the existing City skate park. There were very few older youth in attendance. Therefore, he questioned the rationale of opening a skate park at the Civic Center Playfield on the basis that the younger kids have been squeezed out of the Lynndale facility. With regard to the issue of noise pollution, Mr. Thiele said he hag several years of experience listening to the sounds of soccer, baseball, basketball and tennis at the Civic Center Playfield, and those sounds are tolerable and do not constitute a noise.:nuisance. However a skate park would be a particularly harsh noise polluter. The whole purpose of the park would be for the kids to go up the ramps, into the air, and then come crashing down onto the concrete pad. This activity produces a harsh, sharp sound that carries quite far, and is very different in kind to the other sports that take place at the. playfield.. He concluded that a skate park facility would significantly multiply the noise pollution problem in the park. Mr. Thiele pointed out that a long-established high -density residential area surrounds the Civic Center Playfield. Along the four streets that border the playfield, there are 56 homes (42 condos and apartment units and 14 single-family units). There are also two churches, one on the corner of Sixth and Bell Street and one on the corner of 7"' and Daley Street. He expressed his belief that the harsh noise impacts of the proposed skate park facility would adversely impact the well -established neighborhood. In fact, he suggested that noise pollution should disqualify the Civic Center Playfield as a potential site for the skate park. Mr. Thiele explained that the Civic Center Playfield is located at the bottom of the bowl, with hills rising around it on three sides. It would be very enticing for the skaters to ride their boards down the streets in order to get to the new skate park since it would be all- downhill. Some of the City's busiest streets (5'" Avenue and Main Street) would only be I''/Z blocks away from the skate park; °arid he would expect that skaters would use these heavily traveled arterials; which would create a traffic hazard in the downtown. As is common for youth bicyclists, many of the skaters would blow through the stop signs, thus creating the possibility of a real tragedy occurring in the downtown. Next, Mr. Thiele -referred to the methodology that was used by the Skate Park Group to select a site for the now facility. He suggested that"their locational analysis was flawed, and a two-step procedure should have been used. The first step should have been to recognize that the facility would be noise producing. Selection should have been limited to only those sites where the noise would not be a nuisance to the surrounding properties. The next step in the selection process should have been to apply the other criteria to the remaining sites. However, the methodology used by the Skate. Park Group gave one point, either pro or con, for each of the factors identified. on their list. The fundamental factor of noise impact was not given any greater -consideration than any of the other less relevant factors such as restrooms, places to eat, etc. Mr. Thiele asked that the Planning Board find the Civic Center Playfield to be an unsuitable site for the new skate•park. The Board should review -the other sites that would be more suitable for the use because of natural sound barriers, etc. He also suggested that the City expand their search for a site to include areas with the City that are outside of the bowl area. No matter where the facility is located, kids would have to travel from other parts of the City to use it. Therefore, he concluded that there would be no reason to tie the site to the downtown. Planning BoaW Mimutes March 9 packet Pg. 265 6.1.f Derry Ehrlich, 628 Daley Street, said his condominium overlooks the Civic Center Playfield, also. Ile said that although he wrote a letter to the Board regarding his concerns, he also wanted to bring up a few additional points. He pointed out that the Edmonds bowl has the lowest elevation in the City. Ile would suspect that if the skate park were located at the Civic Center Playfield, youth would skateboard down the major streets to get to the park. people currently living oat these streets have indicated that the skateboarders that go past their homes are loud. If a skate park were constructed at the Civic Center Playfield, it would act as a magnet to draw kids to Ole downtown. He said that while lie is a firm supporter of youth activitios, he is concerned about the proposed location. When the kids leave the park to go and get snacks, they will likely use their skateboards for transportation, and this would create a nuisance in the downtown, as well, He also noted that since the Boys and Girls Club closes at 3 p.m. each day and all day on Sunday, their restroom facilities would not be available for the skate park users a great deal of the time. The only restroom facility would be the sanican. He summarized that he felt the City could find a better location for the skate park such as the Meadowdale Athletic Complex or a second park at the Lynndale location. Emily Ehrlich, 628 Daley Street, referred to the chart that was prepared by the Skate Park Group to -rank the nine potential sites. She suggested that the Board reject many of the arguments the group offered regarding the alternative sites. For example, the Skate Park Group cited that the Edmonds Elementary site would be unsuitable because there are kids in school during the day. However, she felt this would be a positive factor since the park would be designed to serve that age level of kids. While the group also indicated that there would be no natural visibility at the Edmonds Elementary School site, there is a wide area of open fields in which the skate park could be located. She questioned the validity of the group's statement that there would be no police or fire access at this site. Since if is used for a school, there must be adequate emergency access opportunities. She concluded that the group's reasons for not supporting the Edmonds Elementary School location are fluffy. Ms. Ehrlich said the Skate Park Group also indicated several negative aspects associated with the treatment plant site. One of their major reservations was that there was no concrete pad available for the facility. However, site noted that a pad would also have to be constructed at the Civic Center Playfield to accommodate the new: facility. The group indicated that City Park would not be a good location because of poor visibility. Since the berms in City Park could act as a sound barrier, they should be considered a positive rather than a negative. Ms. Ehrlich pointed out that the group indicated that the 70' and Elni Street site would be unsuitable because it is surrounded by too marry residential homes. But as pointed out by Mr. Thiele, there are numerous residential homes surrounding the Civic Center Playfield, 'as well. The group also purports that no parking would be available at the 7'h and Elm Street site, but -this is not .the only City block where there.is no parking available on the street. The youth could either walk to the park or find a parking space further away. In addition, there is a major bus stop at 5 h and Elm Street that could serve this site. She concluded that many of the group's conclusions on each of the nine potential sites are inaccurate. Ms. Ehrlich pointed out that the 40 Development Assets document referenced by Mr. McIntosh and Ms. Taylor indicates that a caring neighborhood is the key to developing projects for young people. She said she felt she could safety say from the letters and testimony presented by the citizens, that a caring neighborhood would not be among the attributes the skateboarders would enjoy at the Civic Center Playfield, Jim Underhill, 7410 -- 21P Street, suggested that if one were to read the history of Edmonds; they would find that, decade after decade, the youth have approached City leadership with the request for youth facilities and opportunities. It is clear that the City has tried to respond, but has been pushed. back by the adults of the community. He said he is surprised at the selective views that have been expressed about the impacts skateboarding would have on the community, while people have neglected to talk about the Saturday Market or the Taste of Edmonds that take place at or near the Civic Center Playfield during the summer months. It appears that people have learned to deal with the noise and other impacts associated with these two events_ He pointed out that other communities have learned to accommodate skate parks. Mr. Underhill congratulated the you for doing a good job of coming up will)_appropriate plans. He asked that the Board give consideration to the researcli the youth completed and their willingness to prepare and present their best consideration of a site that would best serve the community. As they went through the entire process, they tried to be very sensitive to the needs of the community of which they are a part. March 9, 2005 Pope 7 Packet Pg. 266 6.1.f Kendall Berry, 610-Daley-Street, said the proposed skate park would be located below her window. She thanked the youth for all of their hard work and said she was impressed with their presentation. She said -she believes skateboarding is a good activity that promotes good health, but she asked that.the Board not just consider the best interest of this one group over the interest of the -community. While i4c youth are the.future of Edmonds, the Board should keep in mind that not everyone would choose skateboarding as an activity at.411 times of -the day or night. She agreed that residents living around the Civic Center Playfield have learned to accommodate the noise from the Time of Edmonds, sporting events and other community events. However, they have significapt concerns about the proposed skate park.- She suggested that the City find another place that would work for everyone in the community. M. I Griffeth, 610 Daley Street, said -that when he heard about the proposal to construct a skate park at the Civic Center Playfield, he took the opportunity to visit skate park facilities in., Woodinville and in Wenatchee. He pointed out that the Woodinville Skate Park is located between the freeway and a park -and -ride lot, and there are no negative impacts to residential property owners. In.Wenatchee.the skate park is located between a middle school and a baseball field. Again, the negative impact to residential neighborhoods would be minimized. The location being proposed by the ,City of Edmonds is close to a. residential neighborhood. He also pointed out that the Civic Center Playfield property has drainage problems during heavy rains. He concluded by suggesting the City find another location for the skate park by conducting a correct impact analysis that considers the impacts to the nearby neighborhoods. Brian Berry; 610 Daley Street, said that although the Skate Park Group's presentation extolled the many benefits the project would have on the youth of the community, it is important to consider the impacts the proposal would have on the people who live around the park. He said he does not believe the Civic Center Playfield is the correct location for a skate park. He asked if the City has completed a study of the impacts the proposal would have on the surrounding neighborhood. The City cannot just address the needs of the youth while ignoring the community that would be impacted by the skate park. He said he is supportive of the City's desire to construct'a skate park in Edmonds, but it should be. built in a location that would have fewer negative impacts --to .the surrounding residential properties. Don Stay, 715 Sprague Street, said he has been reasonably active in the community over the years. He served on the Planning and Parks Board, as well as the Fdmonds Port Commission. He pointed opt that there is a.lot of activity on the playfield now, and --he encourages this use. However, he said he is opposed to the proposed plan to enhance the use by creating a skate pack. He said he finds no fault with the team sporting events that take place at the Civic Center Playfield because they are both healthy and necessary, for the community. While skateboarding is a good recreational sport, the Civic Center Playfield is the wrong location despitq the value it would have for the youth. Nancy McDonald, President of the Edmonds Police Foundation, said the Foundation has had an interest in helping the City create an additional skate park for quite dome time. It was six years ago this spring that the Foundation agreed that there was a need in the community for a skate park, and they donated $4,500 as seed money. She said the Foundation is concerned about the youth of the area, as well as the safety of the entire community. She said she has heard from citizens -about encounters they have had on the streets and Perking lots with.skateboarders who are going very fast. The Foundation's hope is that a skate park would provide a safe place for the youth so they no longer have to use the sidewalks and parking lots. This would, in turn, improve safety for the entire community. Ms. McDonald explained that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and the Skate Park Group have worked hard to keep the Foundation up to date on their progress, and the Foundation would continue to support their efforts on behalf of the youth and the entire community. Shp reported that she recently spoke with a representative from the United States Skateboarding Association. According to a recent poll, there are about 12.5 million skateboarders now, which is an increase of more than 100 percent since 1995. They expect the sport to continue to grow at a rapid pace in future -years. She congratulated the youth for doing such a great job to prepare and present their plan to the community. Don Krieman, 24006 — 95* Place Wept, said he was impressed by both the youth presentation and the community comments. He suggested that when reviewing the site alternatives, oneof the most important aspects should be the site's proximity to police service. The Civic Center Playfield is located very close to the Police Department, which would help to ensure safety. He pointed out that the playfeld has been a park for longer than most of the residential property owners have owned their homes. The residents knew the location of the park when they purchased their homes. He said he supports the Planning Board Minutes March 9, Packet Pg. 267 6.1.f proposed location because the kids would be safe. If the noise is too great, the police who are right next door could take care of the problem. He took.exception to citizen comments that the youth would skateboard down the streets and sidewalks to get to the new skate park. Skateboarding is not allowed on the streets and sidewalks in the downtown area, He said he bicycles five days a week, and often in the downtown area. He has never seen more than three or four skateboards in a single day. He said the citizens should not assume the youth would break the law, He concluded by stating that if the kids who participated in the presentation or indicative of the type of youth who would use the park, the neighbors should be pleased. The kids worked hard on the project. He said he understands that adults like to enjoy nice quiet neighborhoods, but he questioned if they should ask the kids to do the same. He pointed out that there are not very many recreational opportunities in downtown .7 Edmonds for the youth, and a skate park would provide a place for them to get their energy out. Bruce Witenberg, 8725 Madronno Lane, pointed out that what sets this project apart from the many others the Board has reviewed is that it has been planned and presented primarily by the youth of the community. During his two terms on the a Planning Board, he. cannot recall a time when the youth of the community worked so hard on a project and made a c presentation to the Board, and they deserve credit for their hard work. He said many citizens are aware of the problem of kids 2 skating in downtown, Edmonds because there is no skate park. During the last ten months, he said he has had the pleasure of . a working with the Skate Park Group as a liaison from the Edmonds Police foundation, with support from the Police y Department, the Parks Department and other citizens in the community. Throughout this process, the -youth have learned how fe an idea can develop into what they hope wiII become a reality for them. They have also received a hands-on lesson about how' L a project winds its way through City government, c Mr. Witenberg said that while the kids are likely disappointed with many of tileU comments that were received, he is confident m they will approach the comments with the same resolve and enthusiasm they have demonstrated over the past ten months. Be > is confident that the kids will attempt to mitigate resolutions for the issues that have been raised. He thanked the citizens who U provided constructive comments and suggestions. But lie suggested that those who condemned the concept using innuendo and generalities about skateboarders did a disservice to the youth of the community. He asked that the Board and community eo support the dedication and commitment of the youth and work with them in a positive and constructive manner to make the skate park a reality. To THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 0 m a� Board Member Henderson pointed out that sound seems to be a major issue with 'the surrounding property owners. He inquired if the Parks Department Staff had ever visited the Lynndale Skate Park with a decibel reader to record the noise f° level. This type of recording could be played hack at the proposed site to determine the noise impacts the new skate park rL would have oil the surrounding properties. lie suggested that this would be a logical next step. Mr. McIntosh said staff' has 0 not taken a sound reading at the Lynndale Skate Park. He suggested that a better choice would be to measure.the decibel readings at a modular skate park that is similar to [lie one being proposed. Board Member Crim pointed out that, according to data collected from the National Skateboarding Association, the noise 3 N level of a skate park would be fundamentally the same as the noise created by other recreational activities such as soccer, _ basketball and tennis. lie emphasized that national organizations such as this one are typically very careful about making a� E these statements, and they likely have the data to support their claim. He applauded the youth who worked so hard to put E together a well thought out plan and proposal. He suggested that the community does them a disservice when they criticize U their proposal without hard facts to support their claims. 2 Chair Young agreed that the youth did a great job of putting dieir proposal together. They have shown the need for the skate a park and that it is a great idea for the community. The question is whether or not the Civic Center Playfield is the appropriate c site for the facility. lie suggested that the next step in the process would likely involve another public hearing. He said it E would be interesting to hear how the other communities referenced in the group's presentation have reacted to their skate -;r 0 parks. in addition, he agreed with Board Member Henderson's suggestion that decibel readings be taken and played back on r the proposed site to determine if the noise impact would be significant. He also agreed with Board Member Crim that tile' Q Board and community should deal with the facts and not what they think might happen. if it can be demonstrated that noise. would not be an issue, they need facts and eXperiences from other communities to support that claim. LM . Planning SvsrO Mintftc:5 March 9, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 268 6.1.f Board Member Dewhirst said he would like to see a site plan for the Civic Center Playfield that identifies the proposed location of the skate park and the distance between the proposed skate park and the various edges of the park. Personally, he felt the issue boils down to whether or not the noise would be significant or if it could be mitigated. He said the Civic Center Playfield could be a good location for the skate park because it is across the street from the Police Department and is centrally located to serve a wider area .of youth. The ambient noise level that currently exists at the Civic Center Playfield is probably no different than any other park in the area, given the location of the Police and Fire Departments and the team sports that take place on the site. The existing noise level would probably act as a good buffer, itself. However, he agreed that further research on noise impacts should be conducted. . Board Member Works asked that the Skate Park Group offer ideas for mitigating the noise impacts associated with the proposed skate park. The Board took a ten-minute recess at 8:50 p.m. BRIEFING OF EDMONDS SCIIOOL DISTRICT #15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN(CFP) UPDATE Mark Johnson, Edmonds School District Planning and Property Management' Specialist, 9003 Olympic View Drive, provided a brief overview of the Edmonds School District's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). He said that very few changes have been made to the document since the City approved it two years ago. He advised that the district is the largest in Snohomish County, which covers 36,000 square miles of land and serves a student population of 20,175. He explained that the CFP is a planning document that is required by the Growth Management Act. Its objective is to forecast future capacity and facility needs and articulate a facility and financial plan to address the future needs. Mr. Johnson said the Edmonds School District does not qualify for funding from mitigation fees because they are experiencing a downward trend in their student enrollment, and they have adequate. capacity in their existing facilities. However, the district is still recommending that cities within their boundaries adopt a school mitigation ordinance in the event that it would become necessary in the future. Mr. Johnson provided a graph depicting the downward trend of enrollment for the Edmonds School District. He noted that although Snohomish County projects an increase in student enrollment in the next six years, the Edmonds School District's enrollment has and will continue to move downward. He pointed out that while Snohomish County projects that the Edmonds School District would have a student population of 23;085 by the year 2014, the District believes the actual number of students would 'be about 17,000. The District's forecast is similar to that of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He concluded that the projected student enrollment demonstrates enough capacity for the next several years to come since enrollment is turning downward. Board Member Dewhirst asked if the District has any plans to surplus. or sell any of their school properties given the significant downward trend in enrollment. He said he has always felt schools were underutilized as a community asset, and he questioned how the City and the District could come up with a plan to utilize the schools, particularly those that are not needed by the District, as community facilities. He said he has been part of a regional design effort in Puget Sound, and the role of schools in the future has entered into the discussions. While he doesn't expect an answer right now, the concept is definitely something the District and City should work to encourage. He felt this effort could provide interesting opportunities in the future. Mr. Johnson advised that the Edmonds School District has interlocal agreements with various jurisdictions regarding the community's use of existing school facilities. He said the District is aware of the opportunities for interacting with the local cities to more effectively use the community assets. Chair Young noted that the District encourages municipalities in which they operate to establish a mitigation ordinance, even though they cannot utilize the concept this time. He questioned how this type of ordinance would benefit the District right now since enrollment in the Edmonds area is static. Mr. Johnson said the District would like -cities to adopt an ordinance to g s address lontandnig issue in areas where infrastructures need to be improved. They would like to receive funding for these projects from view development. honing Board Minutes March 9, Packet Pg. 269 6.1.f October 26, 2005 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 2005 Chair Young called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 50' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Young, Chair Janice Freeman, Vice Chair Virginia Cassutt Judith Works John Dewhirst Cary Guenther Jim Crim Don Henderson READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT.' Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Frances White -Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The Board agreed to place Item 7a (Further Review and Discussion on the Skate Park Work Group's Proposal) before Item Sa (Progress Report on Public Streetscape Plan) so the young people in the audience could go home earlier. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Don-Kreiman expressed his belief that many citizens in the community support the proposed skate park in the proposed location. Because it would be located close to the Police and Fire Department Buildings, emergency access would be readily available if a problem were to arise. He said it is important that the kids who use the skate park are safe. He pointed out that the older kids in the City need a place to play. Edmonds currently has a lack of these facilities, and kids tend to get in trouble if they don't have something to do. He concluded by stating the proposed location for the skate park is excellent, and the facility would be a wonderful addition to the City. Roger Hertrlch said he attended a recent Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting at which they conducted a design review for File Number ADB-05-124. He pointed out that while the public was not allowed to comment on the proposed design, he was able to provide some general comments about the requirements of the newly created Master Planned Office and Residential (MPOR) zone such as height, massing, transition, etc. He said he was surprised to find that, although the Packet Pg. 270 6.1.f ADB was being asked to conduct a design review for a development proposal in the MPOR zone, they had received very little education about the zoning requirements,;, They were being asked to make a decision with very little information and no public input. He noted that the ADB expressed numerous concerns regarding the proposed design. He concluded by expressing his objection to the fact that there was neither audience participation nor adequate information provided for the design review, and he asked the Board to keep this in mind for future situations. Emily Erlich said she wants the City to develop a good skate park facility for the youth, and that is why she has been so involved in the project. She distributed the proposed plans that were prepared by the group, Friends of the Civic Playfield, which outline the intended uses of the civic center playfield and their commitment to the youth. She said this group is concerned that the new skate park be a "state of the art" park that Edmonds can be proud of. She noted that more information is available to the public on their website at www.friendsoftheeivicplayfield.org. She said she appreciates the City's willingness to fund this important project for the youth. Sharon Ellingson said she was present to represent herself and three other families who live in a residential building in the vicinity of the proposed site for the skate park. She said they are concerned that a premier skate park be developed in the area that would be suitable, permanent, and would not need water maintenance. She recalled that a few years ago the City ran out of money and couldn't even pay for the flower program. It is important that the skate park can be maintained for a long time for all of the children to enjoy. Alex Witenberg said he is 16 and a sophomore at Edmonds Woodway High School with a 4.0 grade point average. He said he enjoys many activities, including guitar, friends and skateboarding. He pointed out that skateboarding is a healthy opportunity for youth who are not interested in team sports. He expressed his belief that youth should actively participate in the community, and that is why he volunteered to participate on the Skate Park Work Group for the past 18 months. He received a good civic lesson and worked hard with the other group -members to put together a plan for the Board to consider. They listened to all of the views and tried to accommodate the concerns to the best of their ability. He urged the Board to recommend approval of the skate park plans so the next phase of the project could begin. FURTHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE SKATE PARK WORK GROUP'S PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS, INCLUDING CONSULTANT REPORT FROM SKATE PARK NOISE STUDY(FILE NUMBER CDC-85-29 Brian McIntosh. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, reported that since the March 90' Planning Board hearing on the skate park, two refinements have been made to the proposal to further address the concerns presented by the public. First, he explained that after reviewing the original location adjacent to the current basketball courts and observing the play patterns in the park, it was noticed that shifting the skate park slightly to the south and east (See Exhibit D) would better utilize the field space. In particular, he noted that the north field would keep most of its usable dimensions and the softball field would keep its consistent 285-foot parameter. In addition, the distance from the north perimeter fence to the proposed: skate park would be increased from 120 feet to 220 feet. Secondly, Mr. McIntosh reported that since the March 9a' meeting the Skate Park Work Group continued to visit other skate parks, including a recently installed pre -cast concrete modular park in Kenmore (See Exhibit E). They found that this product would be much quieter than wooden or steel components, and coupled with an equally smooth concrete pad; it would be a considerable improvement in comparison with the asphalt landings currently in place at the Kenmore Park. He further pointed, out that the newly proposed concrete modular type of skate park would incorporate simpler "streetscape" features that are popular with skaters, more appealing aesthetically, and should result in less maintenance concerns than other types of modular ramps. Mr. McIntosh advised that a scope of work was developed (See Exhibit B) to perform an ambient noise study and The Greenbusch Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical and audio/visual design firm, was selected to perform the study. He introduced Julie Weibusch, Company President, who was present to review the findings of the Skate Park Noise Study (See Exhibit C) and answer the Board's questions. Planning hoard Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 2 Packet Pg. 271 6.1.f Ms. Weibusch. provided some background information regarding the terminology used in the report. She advised that the study included three primary components: establishing the pre -construction ambient conditions for the area, measuring sound levels associated with both modular and in -ground skate systems, and predicting sound levels from skate activity at the adjacent residential properties based on two orientations of the skate park and two skate systems. She referred to Figures 1 through 4 on Pages 7 and 8 of the Report. She explained that the City has decided to look seriously at the concrete version of the modular system. She advised that although she did not model that particular system, it would be very similar to an in - ground system and significantly quieter than the modular system that was originally proposed. In addition, since the report was prepared, the City has decided to pull the skate park 100 feet further away from the north property line, which would make the noise level about 5 or 6 decibel (dB) less for the residents to the north. Ms. Weibusch explained that the human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequency sounds falling outside the range of speech and has a frequency response that is dependent on the overall level of listening environment. Sound level meters and monitors utilize weighting systems to approximate human perception of a sound. Measurements made utilizing the weight system designed to simulate the perception of human hearing at medium high levels are referred to as "A weighted" and are called "dBA". Ms. Weibusch referred to Chapter 5,30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), which regulates noise and quantifies the maximum permissible environmental noise levels for the proposed site. She noted that the Civic Center Playfeld, where the skate park is proposed to be located, is zoned Public Use, which is considered "Open Space" or "Residential" by the code. Adjacent properties to the North, South and West include condominiums, which are also considered "Residential." She further noted that the proposed site of the skate park is currently an active playfield, which includes a track with grandstand bleachers, outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts and fields for soccer and baseball/softball. In addition, the Boys and Girls Club is co -located on the site with scheduled outdoor activities. Measurements were taken on September 29't' and 290' and were made along, the north property boundary, near the residential property in close proximity to the skate park. Ms. Weibusch advised that the maximum permissible noise level at neighboring residential property lines is 55 dBA. She reported that the average measured 24-hour ambient conditions were about 50 dBA. The peak -hour (4 - 6 p.m.) conditions were measured° -at 54 dBA at the fence line of the condominiums to the north. If a concrete system were used instead of a modular system, the reading would be less. Also, shifting the skate park 100 feet to the south would also lower the reading by about 5 or 6 dBA. She concluded that the noise level from the new skate park would be less than what is currently generated by the existing baseball field and basketball courts, Therefore, it is her professional opinion that the noise levels from the new facility would pose very little impact on the community and no mitigation should be required. Ms. Weibusch said that as she observed the behavior of kids using other skate parks in the region, she expected to see more noise as a result of the voice levels. However, she found the kids- to be very focused on what they were doing and the behavior was quite good. She concluded that the noise level from the civic center playfield would not increase as a result of the new skate park, particularly now that the site would be shifted more to the south and a concrete design would be used. The new facility would have very little impact to the surrounding community. Chair -Young said he appreciated that Ms..Weibusch's report was very well laid out and straightforward. He summarized that people who live near the Civic Center Playfield hear a certain level of background noise all the time that they don't pay attention to anymore. According to the report, there would not be a perceptible change in the noise level that would require regulatory action or relocation. He asked Ms. Weibusch to characterize what the difference in noise level generated by normal skate park use would be compared to people driving by on the street. Ms. Weibusch answered that other than the occasional slap of a skateboard when someone jumps, she does not anticipate the surrounding property owners would hear any noise from the facility. Mr. McIntosh said it is the goal of the, Skate Park Work Group to have the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council as soon as possible. Chair Young noted that although a public hearing has already been held on the proposal, significant changes have been made to the location and design. Therefore, he suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to conduct another public hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. The remainder of the Board agreed to schedule a public hearing for the proposal on November 160'. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 3 Packet Pg. 272 6.1.f Chair Young noted that the proposed footprint for the skate park would be 45 by 120 feet. He asked how this size compares with other skate parks in the area. Mr. McIntosh answered that the Kenmore skate park is 40 by 135 feet, so the square footage would be similar. However, a whole range of dimensions can be found when reviewing skate parks in the region. He reminded the Board that the new skate park would be intended for beginning and intermediate skaters, so it would be smaller in size. Board Member Freeman asked if there would be an age limit placed on the new facility. Mr. McIntosh explained that there would be no age limit, but -the more advanced skaters would probably only try the park once and then find that it is not challenging enough. Board Member Dewhirst referred to Exhibit D, which illustrates the proposed location of the new skate park. He pointed out that all of the dimensions identify the public street right-of-way widths except for the north dimension, which stops at the southern boundary. In order to be consistent, he suggested that all public right-of-way widths be identified on the exhibit. In addition, Board Member Dewhirst requested that staff prepare an updated, comprehensive report outlining the goals and, intent of the proposal. In addition, the report should identify ideas regarding operations, maintenance, etc. He noted that the public and the Board raised many issues previously, and verbal answers were provided. But it would behoove everyone to have all the information in one report. This same report could then be•forwarded to the City Council along with the Board's recommendation. Board Member Crim said it would also be helpful to incorporate the new location and design into the report that is presented at the public hearing. Issues related to maintenance should also be addressed. PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC STREETSCAPE PLAN (FILE NUMBER, CDC-05-101), Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager, said she was present to provide an update on the Streetscape Plan Study and to allow the Board Members an opportunity to comment on what they would like to see in the project. She reported that a public meeting, facilitated by CREA Affiliates, was held on October 171h to invite public input on the 40' Avenue Arts Corridor concept. The meeting was attended by 28 people, including members of the Planning.Board and Councilmember Moore. Over half of those in attendance were residents or property owners in the corridor. Ms. White Chapin reported that the consultant resented examples of Streetscape treatments in other communities followed by brainstorming in' two groups for ideas about 4 Avenue. The groups generated several dozen ideas toward creating a vision for the Arts Corridor, noting both the constraints and the opportunities. The groups specifically discussed -concerns regarding the existing narrow sidewalks, street lighting and street parking. It was noted that 4'h Avenue is already heavily used by pedestrian traffic, and there seemed to be an interest in making it more attractive as a pedestrian corridor. There was comment that not much happens along 0 Avenue and in the downtown after 7:00 p.m., and 4'h Avenue is pretty dark at that time. Comments also emphasized that 4'h Avenue should be considered a major connection between the new art center that is being constructed and downtown Edmonds. It also acts as a gateway to the downtown. There were comments about the need to preserve the scale and feel that exists along the street, as well as the different art elements, street lighting, etc. that could be provided to enhance the street. She advised that the consultants would present some preliminary concepts, based on ideas generated at the public meeting, to the staff advisory committee (consisting of staff from Parks, Planning and Engineering, Public Works, Economic Development, and Community Services Departments) on October 281h.' She further advised that the next public meeting would be scheduled for mid -November; possibly November 10h. At the meeting the consultant would present preliminary concepts for the Arts Corridor. A work session with the Planning Board and the consultant has tentatively been scheduled for January I Vh, and a third public meeting would be held before the final designs are presented to the Planning Board for review in February. Board Member Works asked if there are participants on the advisory committee who can provide a reality check on the feasibility of some of the ideas that have been presented to date so that the end result is realistic and within the context of what the City can actually do. Ms. White Chapin answered that the Staff Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from various City Departments, will serve in this capacity. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2005 Page 4 Packet Pg. 273 Novein b er 16, CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 16, 2005 Chair Young called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 -- 50i Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Young, Chair Janice Freeman, Vice Chair Virginia Cassutt Judith Works John Dewhirst Cary Guenther Jim Crim Don Henderson RE' ADIIHGIAPPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder Approval of the minutes from the November 9m meeting was postponed until December 14'h. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Mr. Chave suggested, and the Planning Board concurred, that Item 7a (further discussion on the downtown waterfront component of the Comprehensive Plan) be replaced with a discussion about the Planning Board's extended agenda and 2006 work plan. AUDIENCIE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC FEE ARING ON THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS LFILE NUMBER. CDC-05-29 Chair Young clarified that the Planning Board is also the acting Parks Board for the City, and that is why the public hearing for the proposed skate park is being heard by them. After the public hearing, the Board would make a recommendation to the City Coutncnl, who would be responsible for making the final decision on the matter. Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, explained that the intent of the Skate Park Work Group's presentation is to provide a complete report on the history of the proposal, their findings, answers to previous questions from the Planning Board and public, improvements and changes from original recommendations, and to answer any further questions that may arise. Packet Pg. 274 6.1.f Mr. McIntosh reviewed that at the October 26, 1999 City Council Meeting, the Edmonds Police Foundation donated'$4,500 towards the fixture development of a skate park facility in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, the Council, and City staff recognized the health and social benefits of skateboarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park, which was jointly funded by Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the park was heavily used and many younger, inexperienced skateboarders had difficulty getting to the park. He pointed out that the need for a local skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and has been included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Mr. McIntosh further reviewed that on March 23, 2004, staff met with the Police Foundation to discuss the possibility of building a skate park in the downtown area, and it was decided to form a Skate Park Work Group. The first meeting of this group was held on May 17, 2004, and participants included Edmonds skaters, parents and community members who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset to the community's youth. On January 26, 2005, the Skate Park Work Group presented a report to the Planning Board of their findings to date. Committee members reported on different aspects of the proposal, which included health benefits; growth and popularity of the sport; the 40 Development Assets that are nationally recognized building blocks that help young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible; safety; risk management; the Recreation Immunity Act; pictures of skate parks in surrounding communities; criteria for selecting a skate park site; and the proposed location of the Civic Center Playfields. Mr. McIntosh reported that a public hearing was held on March 9, 2005, and at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Board asked the Work Group to return at a later date to answer questions concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of the park. On October 26, 2005, Julie Weibusch from the Greenbusch Company, Inc. presented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements to the original proposal were also presented at that time. First, the location of the proposed facility was changed within the Civic Center Playfields. Second, there was a significant change proposed for the product that would be used for the facility. Mr. McIntosh reviewed the following twelve points: Goal: The parks and recreation community recognizes skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to be accommodated in our parks system The goal of the Skate Park Work Group is to continue their efforts to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skateboarders. Popularity of Skateboarding: The interest in this sport continues to grow at a fast rate. Estimates of the number of people between the ages of 6 and 18 who skateboarded in 2003 was 13 million, with numbers expected to reach 15 million this year. This number exceeds the number of Little League Baseball players and trails only basketball and soccer in participation. As the sport grows, so does the need for facilities as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in most communities surrounding Edmonds. Safety/Liability: As mentioned in earlier presentations, there are far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than many other popular sports such as baseball, soccer, or snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 are twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment and three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury. The skate park would not be directly supervised, but if constructed to industry standards and maintained properly, the Recreation Immunity Act would protect the City from liability for skateboarding accidents. All City playground and park amenities are inspected and maintained regularly, and equipment logs are kept on all inspections. The City's Park Maintenance Staff respond immediately to reported problems with equipment or vandalism. Due to the high active use at Civic Field, park crews visit the site almost daily. Security/Police: Early in the development of the proposal, the City of Edmonds Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities, specifically to determine what common problems they may have. In addition to emphasizing the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area, many communities encouraged a strong police presence, especially during the fast few weeks. This sets a tone early that the police are aware of and interested in the success of the facility, and it helps create a bond between skaters and officers. Parents watching and community spectators also promote security and caring and give the participants a chance to perform. With a good start, users do take ownership and peer pressure to protect the facility can be powerful. At the present time, the police are not able to Planning Board Minutes November l6, 2005 Page 2 Packet Pg. 275 6.1.f direct kids that are skating on public facilities and restricted areas to a local park in downtown Edmonds. Lynndale Park is the closest facility, and it is about three miles away. • Location; The survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group. yielded a set of criteria that the group used to determine the best location in the downtown area for the skate park. The group identified nine areas that might have potential as a site. Members traveled independently to each site, applied criteria to those sites, and selected the Civic Center Playfrelds as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so having easy access to police and fire was scored the same as availability of restrooms and phone. Attachment 6 is a location analysis chart that provides more information about the site that was selected by the Work Group. • Location Within Civic Playtield: The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence line and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north field a consistent 285-foot perimeter softball field. Distance from the nearest residents was increased from 140 feet to 240 feet. Attachment 7 illustrates the proposed location of the facility, which would be more centrally located and provide more direct site lines from the police station. • Noise Study: At the request of the Planning Board, due to concerns from the neighborhood about the potential noise impacts from a skate park facility, a scope of work was developed to perform an ambient noise study. The Greenbusch Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical and audio/visual design firm, was selected to perform the study. The original study measured from the location adjacent to the basketball courts and concluded that noise levels would pose very little impact to the community. The analysis did not recommend mitigation. The study provided in the Board's packets was updated to reflect noise levels at the new proposed location, which would be 240 feet from the nearest residences. The noise study continued to use the wooden ramp design, which is considerably noisier than the new proposed design of concrete structures. ■ ` Rules: Simple rules similar to other skate parks and following the recommendations of the Washington Cities insurance Authority would be posted. This type of park is designed for skateboards and roller blades. The Washington Cities Insurance Authority is the City's insurance carrier, and staff has talked at length with them about the proposed facility. They have indicated no problems with skate parks in municipal areas. • hours of Operation/Lights: The facility would not be equipped with lights and would be open from 9 a.m. to dusk, -which is about %: hour past sunset. Anyone using the facility beyond those hours would be trespassing. • Fencing: To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., the proposal includes an 8-foot fence on the north, a 1 0-foot -fence on the east, and a 4-15oot fence on the west and.south where play is minimal and spectators could observe. The fencing would be removable to enable flexibility for special events. • Drainage: The field area north of the proposed site and east of the basketball courts has had an ongoing problem that makes the area unplayable for significant parts of the year. In coordination with the development of the park, a separate drainage project would be undertaken to rectify this problem, This would extend the season in which the field could be used for events. • Design/Accommodation: The original proposal called for a modular park with steel, wood, or like surfaces to enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Work Group continued to visit other parks to explore surfaces, including markedly quieter pre -cast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product can be designed to match any skating feature and usually duplicates the "streetscape" forms that are designed, requested by, and popular with skaters. Streetscapes mimic real street features. These are Iow maintenance, permanent and the 2 to 6-tone concrete weight of each piece absorbs sound and creates stability. The forms would be place don an approximately 5,400 square foot smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorses the design and would be able to work on and around the skate park. Board Member Works asked if the City has funding available to maintain the park. Mr. McIntosh explained that the City's Capital Improvement Plan identifies $200,000 for construction of the new facility, and the project should stay within that range. The facility would be maintained on the regular maintenance schedule and they do not anticipate a lot more maintenance than is currently done at the Civic Playfields. Planning Board Minutes November 16 Packet Pg. 276 6.1.f Board Member Freeman noted that the proposed new pre -cast concrete design would be permanent. She asked if the structures could be moved if the proposed location doesn't work out. Mr. McIntosh said that once the pieces are installed, they would be considered permanent. However, because they are modular, they could be moved to another site if necessary. Board Member Works pointed out that the noise study indicates that the noise would be within a tolerable range for the nearby residences. However, she asked what kind of mitigation could be done in the future if the noise is found to be greater than anticipated. Mr. McIntosh answered that there are several different mitigation options, such as landscaping and rubber padding on the side walls to the east and north to reflect the noise back into the park. However, the staff has discounted the use of permanent berms or solid concrete walls. Chair Young said he found the background packet provided by staff to be very thorough, and it provided a good summary of all of the information provided thus far. He pointed out that the need for the skate park facility was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and has been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan since that time, as well. However, it would be helpful for the Board to have a clear understanding of the specific Comprehensive Plan policies that pertain to skate park facilities. He reminded the Board that they must formulate tight recommendations to the City Council showing that they are good policy decisions and that the potential impacts have been evaluated. Mr. McIntosh explained that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan is updated every six years, and the next update is scheduled for 2006. This element of the Comprehensive Plan was compiled after a lot of public input and is considered to be the official planning document for parks. Because skateboarding was a recognized need as long as ten years ago, a policy was included in the plan to emphasize the need to provide varied recreational opportunities for the youth of Edmonds. Emily Erlich said she was present to represent the group, Friends of the Civic Playfield, which consists of approximately 100 residents whose homes surround the playfield. She said the group is seeking a comprehensive and objective siting analysis for a premier skate park in Edmonds, one that creates a winning situation for the kids and the residents. She provided pictures comparing modular skate parks to underground concrete parks. The Friends do not feel the aesthetics of a modular park would meet the same quality standards of some of the other parks in Edmonds. She provided pictures to compare what the City might be able to construct using the same amount of money were they to construct a premier underground park instead. Ms. Erlich said the Friends are thrilled and grateful that so many concessions have been made and so many of their points have been addressed. She thanked the Skate Park Work Group, the City Staff and the Nanning Board for all the work that has been done. However, the Friends would like to see a little more work done in the direction of a premier, in ground skate park that would require less maintenance, be more durable, and available to the youth year round. Ms. Erlich referred to the location analysis chart that was prepared by the Friends using the work performed by the Skate Park Work Group. She noted that the location analysis chart places Edmonds Elemcntary School at the top of the list along with City Park. The Civic Playfield site was actually seventh on the chart when measured straight across. In addition, the natural buffers that were seen as a positive aspect of the City Park location were not balanced with the fact that the Civic Playfield site did not have natural buffers. She explained how the Friends evaluated and weighed each site differently than the Work Group. First, to address the point of children who cannot drive being able to walk to the park, the Friends analyzed the school population date from the Edmonds School District. This data indicates that the lowest number of children live in the downtown area.. If a skate park were to be placed in a neighborhood where the highest number of non -driving children live, it would be located in the Seaview or Chase Lake neighborhoods. Next, Ms. Erlich referred to two pages of comments that were provided in the packet to represent what other organizations and the media are saying about residential setbacks and the sounds that come from nearby skate parks. These comments illustrate how other residential neighborhoods have been impacted by the proximity of skate parks close to their homes. Ms. Erlich said the decibel readings provided in the sound report prepared by the Greenbusch Company, Inc. matched those identified by the Friends, but it would be helpful if the study could explain why the dynamics of sound reflection was not addressed since this is a significant concern of the people living near the playfield. Planning Board Minntcs ' November 16, 2005 Page 4 Packet Pg. 277 6.1.f Ms. Erlich noted that several references were made in the documents provided to the Planning Board regarding the impact the skate park would have on economic development, which is a valid and strong point. However, the construction of a premier skate park, as proposed by the Friends, would have an even greater economic impact than would the modular design. People from outlying areas would likely be more interested in driving to downtown Edmonds if the park were unique. In summary, Ms. Erlich asked that the Board consider the points provided by the Friends of the Civic Playfield through letters to the editor in the local newspapers, ad campaigns, their website and their presentation to the Board. She asked them to give c the children in Edmonds a premier skate park that would do the City proud. Jim Underhill said he finds the proposed park would be good for Edmonds and a right use of the public field. The plan for a� x V the placement of the park at the Civic Field has been developed over time, allowing all parties to participate, evaluate and 0 consider the goodness of the proposal. It has been an open process with scheduled meetings, minutes posted for public a - review, and allowance for continent. The skate park project married policy with data and scientific processes. By use of a good matrix assessment tool by the youth, research about skateboarding as a worldwide sport, the determined need for this a type of park for a segment of Edmonds' youth population, and by data presented by a reputable acoustic measurement g company, the Work Group has shown that the policy is solid ground and is defensible. y nz Mr. Underhill further stated that the addition of the new facility would be consistent with the City's policy of providing many; and varied activities through its parks and recreation programs. He pointed out that the Fall CRAZE Catalog includes 21 pages of offerings for all ages just in Edmonds. The skateboard park could provide introductory classes for the younger V residents and any adult willing to strap on a helmet and knee pads. Finally, he stated that construction of the skate park would V provide a sign of respect for the youth of the City. Several youth have worked with the City staff, the community and the V Police Foundation to prepare and preseixt a solid plan. Having waited five years, it is time to act by offering support for the project. He referred to the other ideas that have been offered regarding the design and location of the facility. However, he 00 pointed out that a "premiere skate park" has not been the plan for the past five years. The proposal should move forward v using the current design and proposed location.. L Aaron Taylor said that last April he had an opportunity to visit New Zealand. While there he had the privilege of visiting 11 m different skate parks in towns of less than 1,000 people. When talking to the local police departments, he learned that many of these parks were designed by children working with the cities. All spoke positive about the asset to the community. He c said that in his opinion, New Zealand is forward thinking as far as comnimities supporting the youth. He asked Edmonds to support the youth by moving forward with the proposed plan to construct a skate park. a 0 Sandy Zickuhr said she feels it would be wonderful to construct a skate park for the youth, but she hasn't heard anything r m about how the City would address the concerns raised by the residents who live in the condominiums adjacent to the proposed site. She said her home is located uphill from the proposed site, and she invited Board Members to visit her, property and E listen to the sound that tonnes from the Civic Playfield on a regular basis. Because noise from the Civic Playfield reverberates N Uphill, the skate park should not be constructed in the proposed location. She said she is not really bothered by the soccer games, etc. that take place on the field, because these are not year-round activities. If the skate park is added, the noise would drive the uphill residents crazy. She reminded the Board that they are taxpayers and their concerns should be considered, E She summarized that there must be other locations for the proposed skate park that would have less impact to neighboring 0 residential properties. Katy Re€schling said her son enjoys skateboarding, and they live near the proposed site. She said the noise would not be as ti significant as what comes from the current soccer games that take place on the playfield, the Arts Festival, or the weckly Sunnier Market. There are already a lot of adds hanging around the Boys and Girls Club until quite late at night, and the E skate park would provide the youth with something to enjoy that is legal. She noted that the kids get in trouble when they t skateboard on City streets. Because she works, she is not able to take her son to the other skate parks in the area during the weekdays. She said that placing a skate park in the proposed location, in clear view from the Police Department, would be Q appropriate. The skate park would fulfill the need for pre -teens and teens that do not like to play team sports but want to develop a skill of their own. Planning Board Minutes November t Packet Pg. 271 6.1.f Cal Taylor said she spent a lot of time working with the Skate Park Work Group and visiting different parks in the area. She visited the new Kenmore Skate Park recently because it was the type of facility they wanted to build in Edmonds. She took time to listen to the noise that was generated by the park users. She found that while the skateboarders are on the ramps, the noise level is very low. The only noise was generated when the skaters were on the asphalt surface. This would not be the - case for Edmonds, since the proposal is to start with a concrete surface. She suggested that the noise concerns have been overestimated. She invited the Board Members to visit the Kenmore Skate Park and see how quiet it actually is. William Tamblin said he likes to skateboard, but it is not allowed on many of the City's streets. His mother works during the day, so she can't drive him to skate parks in the surrounding areas. He said he prefers skateboarding over team sports. Before he was told he couldn't skateboard on City streets, he and his friends used to be outside all afternoon. He was invited by the Police Department to get involved with the Skate Park Work Group. He said he feels the Civic Center Playfield would be the best location for the new skate park, and he hopes the Board will support the proposal. Don Kreiman complimented Ms. Erlich for a wonderful presentation on behalf of Friends of the Civic Playfie Id. However, he reminded her that the Civic Playfield was in place before she purchased her home. It is a central place for the youth to hang out since it is located near the Frances Anderson Center and the Boys and Girls Club. He said he rides his bike around Edmonds almost every day, and he would be able to watch the kids at the proposed location. He noted that the users of the new facility would be younger children. He reminded the Board that the youth designed the facility and the Police Department has indicated their support, as well. He asked them to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Nancy Crim said she lives in the Bowl of Edmonds and understands the concerns that have been raised by the residents regarding noise. However, she asked how many of them hear the trains at night. She suggested that to live in the Bowl means you must accept noise. She said she is a volunteer with the Edmonds .Police Foundation, who .gave the City $4,500 six years ago as seed money for the skate park. She said she would like to -see construction of the new facility get started soon, and she asked for the Board's support of the project. She concluded by stating that she is a real estate agent and could help people sell their condominiums if they don't want to be located so close to the new facility. John Pierre said that as he came through the east entrance of. the Public: Safety Complex he noted that there were several soccer .games going on at the Civic Playfield, and there must have been 100 children participating. He said that when he was raising his children in Edmonds, they would have been overjoyed to have such a facility as the one proposed available to them. He asked that the Board support the project in the proposed location. Kristen Leupold said she recently experienced a situation in which she was in her car and a skateboarder came out into the street in front of her. This illustrates the need for the City to provide a safe place for the children to skateboard. She concluded that the proposed park is very important to the youth in the community. Roger Hertrich reported that last evening the City Council considered a problem raised by residents living between Walnut and Alder Streets regarding a trail. The City Council listened to the residents' concerns intently, which is something the Board should do, as well. It is important that the Board work to protect the fragile status of the neighborhoods surrounding the playfield. They already have to deal with a number of different disturbances. He expressed his belief that if neighborhoods are disturbed too much, the residential uses eventually become multi -family. In this situation, the uses are high -quality multi -family units that are already subject to many disturbances from the playfield. Mr. Hertrich said the Board has the opportunity to look at the entire City when deciding the appropriate location for the new facility. However, they have only focused their review on the Civic Playfield site. While they did much more than they started out to do because of public pressure from those who live in the neighborhood, they should have given more consideration to the impacts the proposed project would have on the surrounding properties. He suggested that a more appropriate location would be the old Woodway High School site, where quite a bit of development is currently being planned for future sport uses. He noted that this area is isolated from residential development and would be a good location for a skate park. Planning Board Minutes November 16, 2005 Page 6 Packet Pg. 279 6.1.f Mr. Hertrich said it appears the Board has made the decision to not talk about the other sites. Instead, they have talked about how to mitigate the impacts for the central location at the Civic Playfield. He said he can picture skateboarders riding their boards on City streets to get to the new facility. He urged the Board to follow the City Council's example and work to protect_ the fragile neighborhoods. A skate park can be constructed anywhere, but a neighborhood cannot be moved. Bruce Witenberg said he is a member of the Edmonds Police Foundation and has served as a liaison to the Skate Park Work Croup. He son, Alex, also had the opportunity to serve as part of the Work Group. He wasn't able to attend the meeting, so he asked him to read the following letter into the record: L My name is Alex Witenberg. I am 16 years old and attend Edmonds Woodway High School. Tonight, I am attending a c� a� lecture on Hurricanes with my honors chemistry teacher at the University of Washington. The City of Edmonds needs a skate park for the youth. It is really intended for younger, beginner and intermediate skaters. a Since I am a sophomore, in two short years I will be in college and therefore, will not be able to use the park. However, this cra a. is not the issue. The issue is that there are kids who will come after me, wanting a skate park. This.is our opportunity to fulfrll their dreams. There are people here tonight who will say that Edmonds needs a premiere skate park: a concrete, in- w ground facility that is world class. This is an excellent idea, however, in the words of the Rolling Stones, arguably the 2 greatest rock band of all time, ' jyou can't always get what you want, but ifyou try, sometimes you can get what you need". This is the situation that we are faced with. A premiere, in -ground, concrete facility would be excellent. However, especially c in politics, you can't always get what you want. U The answer,- therefore, is the skate park design at the Civic Playfeld location that the Skate Park Work Group has v > reasonably presented after 18 months of work The design is supported by the noise study done on the area by the V Greenbusch'Group. The youth generally do not have a large say in what goes on in this city, This is our chance for input on 00 an issue that -we care about. This about the future of our city, and the youth are the future. We will not be around forever, 1-1 but there will always be kids. Therefore, I implore you, listen to the voice of the youth, listen to the science, and pass the skate park on to the City Council. 0 Mr. Chave4eferred the Board to a -mails the Board received just prior to the meeting regarding the proposed skate park m project. He reviewed each one as follows: c • Pat Gow: I do not have any strong feelings one way or the other, but if the skateboard facility does happen, can we a please be assured that the kids will be leaving that area no later than 9: 00 p.m. I live directly across from the field and o if someone from the decision making panel has time to go over to the field at that time of night, they will notice how lovely and peaceful it is then. I would love to keep it that way. Kids should be home by that time anyway, don't you think? E • M.B. Walsh: I attended the last meeting when the noise study was presented. There is one question I have regarding w the study. When the study was presented, they used three skateboarders to determine the noise levels at the proposed park. Does this mean there will be limits for the number of skateboarders using the park atone time? Or does the noise level of three skateboarders mean the proposed park can only accommodate three people atone time? I would suggest E that the -noise study be revised to consider use by store than three people. If the park is so limited that only a few people E 0 can use it atone time, ]'would suggest that the site selection be revisited to accommodate a larger park Kendall Berry: During the Planning Board Meeting last spring, I spoke in opposition to placing the skateboard park on the Civic Mayfield. I believed that other sites in the bowl area could easily accommodate a skate park I was also concerned about using modular equipment. After that meeting, I joined the Skate Park Work Group as a neighbor ti Z.: interested in finding a resolution that could benefit both the neighbors and the skaters. I do still feel that another site a0i could work for the skate park, but the Civic Playfreld is the one being considered this evening. The Skate Park Work E Group has done a fabulous job of revising their plan to address the legitimate concerns of residents surrounding the U park: Many thanks to Renee McRae and Brian Mclintash and all of the Work Group members for their efforts. I Q support the plan and ask you to approve it in its current form. • Chris Brevik: This letter is in support of the skate.park being considered for downtown Edmonds. The Brevik family are residents of the Edmonds bowl and unanimously support this effort. Our family has two children (12 and 14) that have often referred to Edmonds as "Deadmonds. " Their friends also reflect this attitude because Edmonds is not a kid PlanningBowd Minutes November 16 Packet Pg. 280 6.1.f friendly city_ It almost seems like if a project is not in direct support of senior citizens, there is a high chance it will fail. My kids and their friends are goad kids that are doing very well academicaIIy. They enjoy riding skateboards (like most kid that age) but would be breaking the law if they were caught riding downtown. My wife and I are constantly amazed when we visit other waterfront cities and communities that encourage the public of all ages to enjoy their waterfront by - providing paths that people can walk, run, ride, roller skate, skateboard, etc. Look at West Seattle, Lake Washington, Bothell Kirkland, along with a multitude of other waterfront communities. These areas have vibrant waterfront areas that invite all age groups to participate in healthy activities. Edmonds needs to quit being afraid of change and truly become "The Friendliest City on Puget Sound. " Please support and allow a skate park in a location that is convenient to the bowl kids that will provide a health activityfor all our children. Lisa Conley: I think it's a great idea to put a skate park at the Civic Center. I live near the Lynndale Skate Park and my two boys (ages 7 and 9) enjoy riding their skateboards and scooters at the park. We try to go before 11:00 a.m. because after that time the park is crowded with the bigger kids. Since my youngest plays soccer at the Civic Center, my oldest would enjoy having the opportunity to skateboard while his brother is playing soccer. I also have noticed skateboarders at our school because there are not enough skate parks for them. They like to grind on our concrete curbs which costs the schools money to repair. If there were more parks for them, I feel they would be less likely to go to the schools. Bill Dalziel: I am writing to show support for the skateboard park to be located at the Civic Field in Edmonds. I look forward to working with the City staff in maintaining the park and the appropriate behavior at the park. My reservations are only that the Boys and Girls Club will be the focal point with any issues that may arise. Obviously, my largest concern is from the negative aspect. I am confident that with open communication and the involvement of all stakeholders, the skateboard park in Edmonds will be an asset to the community. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M Mr. Chave informed the members of the audience that they could place their names on the sign up sheet in order to be notified if the City Council decides to hold a public hearing on the proposal. He noted that anyone who received a notice for this public hearing would also be notified of a future public hearing. Mr. McIntosh expressed his belief that many of the questions: that.. were.raised-by thet=audience=were also answered by other speakers. However, he pointed out that a premiere skate park would cost at least $300,000 to construct, and the one that was recently built in Mukilteo cost about $900,000. Typically, these types of parks are much.•larger in size than the one that is proposed for the Civic Playfield. Julie Wiebusch, Greenbusch Group, Inc., requested an opportunity to respond to the comments that were made regarding the Sound Study. She pointed out that there is not much located around the proposed site. It is an open field, and the Boys and Girls Club building is the only structure the sound could reflect off of. The little reflection coming from the Boys and Girls Club structure would not have a significant impact on the properties located uphill. She further explained that they reviewed the worse case conditions by identifying the highest levels of sound from the loudest events and combining them for the study. They compared these numbers to the noise levels identified in the City's noise ordinance. Even if the sound created by the Fowl effect were doubled, the levels would still be below the noise ordinance and below any of the activities that already exist on the site. Second, Ms. Wiebusch explained that while the study reviewed the noise created by three skaters, the park would not be limited to just three skaters. She explained that while there would typically be a larger number of kids using the park, only a maximum of three skaters would be able to use the ramps at any one time. The rest of the skaters would be waiting in line for their turn. The kids are very polite because of self preservation. Regarding the possibility of siting the new facility at the old Woodway High School site, Mr. McIntosh agreed that this would be a great location for a skate park in the future, but it is two or three miles from the bowl area. A presentation would be made at the November 290' City Council Meeting regarding preliminary ideas for the high school site. Board Member Freeman said staff mentioned that they are planning to have the skate park open from 9 am. to %s hour after sunset. She noted that this would be quite late in the summer. If the park is being designed for younger children, perhaps it PWming Board Minutes Novdnbex 16, 2005 Page 8 Packet Pg. 281 6.1.f could close before sunset in the summer. In addition, she noted that most of the kids are in school so there would be very little activity at the new facility during the daytime hours on the weekdays. Mr. McIntosh agreed that during the school hours, the facility would be used very little. Most of the activity would occur when the weather is dry and kids are out of school. Board Member Freeman also inquired if the gate for the new facility would be locked during the evening hours. Mr. McIntosh answered that the gate would not be locked. In answer to Board Member Dewhirst's question, he further stated that the Boys and Girls Club is typically staffed from about 10 a.m. into the evening hours. Chair Young pointed out that the proposed location is the most centrally located site with maximum access for the greatest number of kids. He asked if this was considered as one of the siting criteria. Mr. McIntosh answered that the siting criteria was not specific as to the greatest number of kids who could access the site. However, the proximity of the proposed site to the Boys and Girls Club and the opportunity to welcome the kids to the downtown were very important. Chair Young expressed his belief that the skate park should be located in an area that is accessible to the greatest number of kids. Mr. McIntosh agreed and noted that the Civic Playfield is certain an active area already, as is the Boys and Girls Club and the Frances Anderson Center. Board Member Dewhirst recalled that when the proposal was first presented to the Board, staff stated that isolated sites in other communities have not been successful because they are hard to get to and there are no eyes on the facility to keep problems from starting. Ms. McIntosh referred to the survey the Crime Prevention Officer conducted of 14 or 15 skate parks in surrounding jurisdictions. The survey indicated that skate parks should not be put in isolated locations. He referred to the comments provided by Mr. Dalziel from the Boys and Girls Club, who has personal experience with a skate park that was constructed in Sultan next to the Boys and Girls Club. Both facilities were relatively isolated and he was often called upon to solve problems at the skate park Chair Young asked if the proposed design of the facility would hold the long-term interest of skateboarders in the community. The skateboarders in the audience answered affirmatively. Board Member Crim summarized that the Board has heard a lot of opinions from the public regarding the proposal, and it is clear that Edmonds is a divided community on many issues_ Many people have the attitude that there mind has been made up. Oftentimes,,when they encounter a report that supports something they are opposed to, they tend to dismiss it as inaccurate. He pointed out that the noise study was thorough and well based, and he believes it supports the conclusion that the impact of the skateboard park would be minimal, at best. Therefore, he said he would support the proposal as presented. Board Member Dewhirst said that no matter where the facility is proposed, it would be opposed by someone. Based on that, he feels that the proposed central location is good. Having knowledge of some of the other sites, he feels that most do not have anywhere near the proverbial eyes as what would exist at the Civic Playfield. The Boys and Girls Club would be able to provide a restroom facility, telephone service, and drinking fountains with no additional cost to the City. In addition, the close proximity to the fire and police station make the site a superb location. He noted that the old Woodway High School site is isolated. and kids tend to get in trouble in these situations. While there are other possible sites for the skate park, none of them have the amount of setback from surrounding residential uses that the Civic Playfield site can offer. Board Member Dewhirst said he read through the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan pertaining to skate parks, One of the supporting documents contained in this plan is the Community Youth Report dated July of 2001, which emphasizes the need to engage the youth of the community in the decision making process. He said he doesn't know of a better example of the kids being engaged from the beginning of a process. They have followed it all the way through to the: public hearing. The location was moved and the design of the facility was changed to address the concerns of the surrounding property owners, and the noise study indicates that the impacts would be minimal. He said he would support the proposal. Board Member Freeman said that before the noise study was completed, she was concerned about the impact the skate park would have on the residential properties. However, the results of the study have alleviated these concerns. She said she likes the central location and what the kids have done to promote the plan. The fact that the site would be in an open area and all eyes could be on the facility is definitely a good thing, as well. She said she would support the proposal. Planning Board Minutes November t Packet Pg. 282 6.1.f Board Member Cassutt agreed with the comments provided by her fellow Board Members. She said she would support the proposal, too. Board Member Works said that when the proposal was first presented to the Board, she didn't think it would be a good idea. - But after reading the facts presented in the noise study, she now plans to support it. However, if there is a problem with noise after the park is constructed, she would hope the City.cou',[d mitigate the problem. She also commented that, given the economic climate of the City, a premiere skate park is not a reality at this time. Board Member Guenther said he likes the proposed location because it can create a synergy between the Frances Anderson Center, the Civic Playfield, the Boys and Girls Club, and the downtown. Also, the site's proximity to the police station is another important positive factor. He said he does not believe the park would create significant noise impacts to surrounding properties, and he plans to support the proposal as presented. Board Member Henderson said he was initially concerned about noise, but the noise study was well done and answered his concerns and questions. He said he plans to support the proposal, with the proviso that he would like the City to make a commitment to measure the sound levels once the park is operational to verify that the projected sound levels identified in the study are accurate. If they are not, the City should take action to mitigate the problem. Chair Young pointed out that the proposed skate park is supported by the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This type of facility has been discussed and a need has been identified. The proposal has been reviewed and analyzed to identify negative impacts, and the closest residential property would be 240 feet away. In addition, only two or three skateboarders would be making noise at any one time. He emphasized that the Civic Playfield is the outdoor recreation center for the City, and that is the type of activity that occurs there. The site is not located on the edge of a wetland or swamp. It is located in the middle of Edmonds. He said he would rather the kids be at the Civic Playfield skateboarding with eyes on them than at the mall playing video games. If there were a better location to consider, they would have something to talk about, but they have to do something now for the children who live in the community. If the proposed project would help the kids in the community, he doesn't see any externalities that haven't been dealt with. BOARD MEMBER:WORKS MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FILE NUMBER CDC-05-29, A PROPOSAL BY THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS, WITH ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS. BOARD MEMBER CRIM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:35 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA AND 2006 WORK PLAN Mr. Chave recalled that at the Board's last meeting, they talked about the need to create -a new extended agenda and identify their work items for 2006. He said that as he started working on this project, it becameapparent that there are many items on the Board's plate for 2006. He pointed out that as the new year starts, there will be new City Council Members and perhaps a new direction for the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, he suggested it would behoove the Board to present their proposed work program to the City Council early in 2006 for additional direction. This would enable them to obtain feedback from the City Council before they spend a lot of time addressing each issue. The Board discussed comments from some City Council Members about the possibility of reconsidering their previous Comprehensive Plan decisions. Board Member Crim explained that City Council Members_ can only ask for an issue to be reconsidered if they voted one way on the issue and they want to change their vote. Mr. Chave said the rules that apply depend upon the type of decision that was made. While some decisions can be reconsidered, those associated with Comprehensive Plan amendments must go through the process again. Zoning decisions cannot be revisited once a property owner has acted upon the action. Planning Bmw minutes November 16, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 283 6.1.f concern has been compliance with the case law, Anderson v. Issaquah, which requires specific and processes. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMPKBER MOORE, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NO. 3577, EXTENDING ORDINANC O. 3556, A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070 {3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT V S. Councilmember Dawson recalled she voted against this matter ce previously due to her opinion that the Council should be able to clarify via the ordinance that vipWprotection could be considered. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBPKDAWSON OPPOSED. 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING Administrative Services Director Dan ements advised this year end ordinance had been reviewed and approved by the Council Finance nmittee on November 7. The amendment adjusted the $70.3 million 2005 budget by approximate 459,000. He highlighted major adjustments such as $62,800 in the General Fund for insuranc nd fire training grants, $170,000 for LID bonds, $126,000 to close the Public Safety Construction F , and $30,000 for additional fuel costs for fleet management. Mayor Haake opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audi e who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3578, THE FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh addressed questions raised by the Council at the November 29 meeting. With regard to Councilmember Wilson's inquiry about the history of siting park amenities and other controversial installations, he recalled when the playground in City Park was scheduled for replacement, the existing location was deemed too small for peak usage. Residents of the adjacent condominium located within 100 feet of the proposed playground expressed concern with the noise, size and color of the playground. Following installation, the neighbors realized they enjoyed watching the children and their previous concerns had not been realized. As an added bonus, the increased visibility increased safety and deterred vandalism. In response to Councilmember Wilson's request to compare the cost of the skate park to other playgrounds, Mr. McIntosh pointed out there were often hidden costs associated with playgrounds. He explained to withstand the normal wear and tear, playground amenities must be durable, low maintenance and built to current industry and safety standards and park staff must be certified to inspect and perform necessary playground structure repairs when necessary. The City had replaced half its aging playground structures in the past four years which have a standard unlimited warranty. The cost of the 1995 installation at City Park was $154,000 with over half for retaining walls and drainage systems; $85,000 for the installation in Seaview Park in 2001 with $28,000 for retaining walls and drainage; $59,000 for the installation at the Frances Anderson Center in 2001 and $53,000 for the installation at Pine Street. WOODELL Att. 4 - Council Draft Minutes 12.6.05 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 8 Packet Pg. 284 6.1.f In response to questions raised by Councilmember Plunkett regarding the budget, Mr. McIntosh explained the need for a skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the project has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Currently $200,000 was budgeted with 50% for site preparation and the approximately 5,400 square foot concrete pad and the remainder to purchase and install features. Due to the peat bog under the Civic Center Playfields, development at the site in the 1980's required additional excavation and fill. He referred to information regarding the estimated cost of the skate park that detailed components of the total cost for construction and concrete modular features of $195,200. He advised the construction costs were calculated within the last week and the concrete modular features were similar to the features installed at the Kenmore skate park three months ago. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the $30,000 cost of removing 600 yards of peat type soil, recalling a question regarding the cost savings if removal of the peat type soil were not required. He explained even on a perfect site, a 1-foot excavation would be required; he estimated savings of approximately $18,000 if the peat type soil did not have to be removed and $8,000 for installation of dry pit run, a total savings of $26,000 if the skate park were installed on a perfect site. In response to Councilmember Plunkett's questions regarding maintenance, Mr. McIntosh explained all city parks and playgrounds were inspected and maintained regularly with inspection logs kept. Parks maintenance staff responded immediately to reported problems or vandalism and visited the Civic Center Playfields nearly daily due to its active use. Due to high use and the visibility of the site, staff did not anticipate the skate park being a maintenance burden. He noted in many communities skate park users took ownership and peer pressure helped control vandalism. The preferred streetscape style features were fiberglass reinforced concrete with a double polyurethane finish. These have been used in Europe for approximately ten years and North America for six years and have proven to be virtually indestructible. The features have an initial 5-year unlimited warranty and extended 10-year parts replacement warranty. Other communities who have installed this product have been satisfied with the product and service. To address Councilmember Plunkett's question regarding the cost of other cities' skate parks, Mr. McIntosh provided costs for parks in Everett, Snohomish, Lynnwood, Marysville, and Mukilteo. He pointed out each park was different and used various funding sources including in-house labor, etc.; therefore, it was difficult to compare costs on a square footage basis. He noted some of the parks had been constructed as early as 1999; construction and material costs have increased considerably since then. Mr. McIntosh reviewed the background of the project, explaining in October 1999 the Edmonds Police Foundation donated $4,500 toward the future development of a skate park in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, Council and staff recognized the health and social benefits of skateboarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park jointly funded by the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the Lynndale Park was heavily used and it was difficult for inexperienced skateboarders to get to the park. The need for a skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. In March 2004 staff met with the Foundation to discuss the possibility of a skate park in the downtown area and a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. The Work Group, comprised of Edmonds skaters, parents, Foundation and Police Department members, Parks & Recreation Department staff and members of the community held its first meeting in May 2004. Staff and the Work Group met with the Council's Community Services/Development Services Committee in July 2004 who encouraged the group to move ahead with planning and development of a skate park in the downtown area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 9 Packet Pg. 285 6.1.f In January 2005, the Skate Park Work Group made a presentation to the Planning Board and following questions, the Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for March 2005. At the March 9, 2005 public hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return with answers to the Planning Board's questions regarding noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and to provide an active site plan of the park. The Greenbusch Group provided a comprehensive noise study to the Planning Board on October 26, 2005 and refinements to the original proposal were presented, 1) a revised location within the Civic Playfields, and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site. Mr. McIntosh explained the Parks & Recreation community recognized skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to accommodate in the City's park system. The goal of the Skate Park Work Group was to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skateboarders. Mr. McIntosh commented on the increasing popularity of skateboarding, 11.6 million riders between the ages of 6 and 18 skateboarding in the year 2000 with an expected 15 million skateboarders by 2005 which he noted exceeded the number of little league baseball players and was only exceeded by basketball and soccer participation. He pointed out the need for facilities as the popularity of the sport increased as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in communities surrounding Edmonds. With regard to safety and liability, Mr. McIntosh reiterated there were far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than any other popular sport such as baseball, soccer and snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 were three times as likely to suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on a playground. The skate park would not be directly supervised and if constructed to industry standards and maintained properly, the Recreation Immunity Act protected the City from liability for skateboarding accidents. With regard to security and police, Mr. McIntosh recalled early in the development of the proposal, the City's Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities regarding common problems they encountered. Other cities emphasized the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area and many encouraged a strong police presence particularly in the early weeks to set a tone that the police were aware of and interested in the success of the facility and to assist in creating a bond between skateboarders and officers. Parents watching and community spectators also provided security and caring as well as provided the participants an opportunity to perform. This facility would also provide a place for the Police Department to direct skateboarders who were skating in restricted public/private areas. With regard to location, Mr. McIntosh explained the survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group yielded a set of ten criteria the group used to determine the best location in the downtown area for a skate park. The Work Group identified nine potential sites. Following independent visits to each site, the Work Group applied the ten criteria and selected the Civic Center Playfields as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so easy assess by the Police and Fire Department was scored the same as availability of restrooms and phone. Mr. McIntosh explained the original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence and 140 feet from the nearest residents. Upon further observation, it was discovered that shifting the skate park south and slightly east retained most of the usable dimensions on the north field and the consistent 285-foot perimeter of the softball field and increased the distance from the nearest residence to 240 feet. Mr. McIntosh advised rules similar to other skate parks and following the Washington Cities Insurance Authority would be posted at the park. The park would be designed for skateboards and rollerblades. The park would not be lighted and would be open from 9:00 a.m. until dusk; anyone using the facility Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 10 Packet Pg. 286 6.1.f outside of these hours would be trespassing. He note the hours could be adjusted. To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., the proposal includes 8-foot fencing on the north, 10-foot fencing on the east, and 4-foot fencing on the south and west. Fencing will be removable to enable flexibility for special events. With regard to drainage, Mr. McIntosh advised the field area north of the proposed site and east of the courts has had an ongoing drainage problem that made the area unplayable for significant parts of the year. A separate drainage project will be undertaken to rectify this problem in coordination with the development of the park. Mr. McIntosh explained the original proposal was for a modular park with steel, wood or like surfaces to enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Work Group visited other sites and explored alternate surfaces including the markedly quieter precast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product could be designed to match any skating feature; units that duplicate real streetscape forms are popular with skaters. The features are low maintenance, permanent and the 2-6 ton weight of each concrete piece absorbs sound and creates stability. Forms would be placed on an approximately 5,400 square foot, smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorsed the design and indicated they would be able to work on and around the design for special events. Julie Weibusch, Greenbusch Group, Inc., advised they were contracted to conduct a noise study to evaluate the noise from a modular and an in -ground system. She reviewed the three components of the study, established the preconstruction ambient condition at the site, measured noise from each system type and put the data gathered into a computer model to predict the exposure level on the surrounding neighborhood. She explained noise measurements were made of the loudest events within 5 feet of the skaters during a 2-3 hour visit to a modular facility in Issaquah and an in -ground system in Shoreline. She clarified the noise measurements were not an average taken over a long period of time. The study concentrated on the closest residential properties, three condominiums on 6t" Avenue. The study first compared the noise exposure levels to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.30 that identified permissible noise levels based on zoning. The Civic Center Playfield is zoned Public Use which has the same permissible noise levels as residential; the maximum permissible noise level at the neighboring property line is 55 dBA. Ms. Weibusch noted at the time the meter was set, the background levels were dominated by traffic on local streets and yard maintenance equipment operating in the area. She commented the operation of the yard maintenance equipment was part of the overall condition and not intended to elevate the noise level. The ambient condition at the site, determined via a 24 hour average, was 51 dBA. She noted the average noise level increased during the hours of 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. due to activity on the field. The measured levels from skateboard activity were then placed in the model. She reported her observation when making the noise measurements of how polite the skateboarders were and taking turns for safety reasons, with usually no more than three skaters moving at a time. She noted there was not a lot of conversation occurring as the skaters were focused on their tricks and no music was allowed. For the model, three of the loudest events were used and assumed to occur simultaneously which she noted was unlikely to occur. She commented the measurement of three events did not limit the park to three skaters; it was unlikely more than three would be actively using the features at one time due to logistics. She noted the measurement was conducted on a modular steel unit as the decision to use concrete modular features was made after the study was complete. She noted the concrete features were heavier and the noise levels would be similar to the in -ground features. The noise was measured at 51 dBA at the condominium for the steel modular features and 47 dBA for the in -ground features. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 11 Packet Pg. 287 6.1.f Ms. Weibusch explained the study also considered impact on the community. She clarified this was not whether residents would hear the sound or be annoyed by it, but how much the noise level increased over existing conditions. She referred to established EPA parameters that indicate a 0-5 dBA increase had a slight impact. Comparing the existing noise level to the predicted noise level, their study found the predicted noise levels were below existing conditions during the sports use, meaning there would be very little impact on the neighborhood. She clarified this did not mean the neighborhood would not hear the sound but that the exposure level did not increase a great deal. With regard to a question about the topography, she explained their study was based on the nearest residences, however, she made predictions of sound to 71h Avenue of 47 dBA with the modular units and 42 dBA with in -ground units. She noted even if the noise energy were doubled for the topography, it was a logarithmic addition and would only add 3 dBA. With regard to a question about reflections, she noted there was not a lot for the sound to reflect off and other than the Boys & Girls Club, the skate park was located in the center of an open field. She did not consider the barrier affect provided by the Boys & Girls Club building in order to consider the worst case scenario. She noted the area was not a complete bowl thus there would be little reflection from the hillside. Ms. Weibusch stated their conclusion that the impact on the community would be marginal predicated on the amount of activity already occurring on the site. Councilmember Orvis asked the impact of shrubs and trees on sound. Ms. Weibusch answered 100 feet of dense forest would reduce the sound by 3-4 dB. She explained the human ear perceived 3 dB as barely audible. Councilmember Moore asked how construction of the skate park would affect the use of the rugby field. Mr. McIntosh answered the width of the field remained quite large, approximately 70 yards. He noted the rugby players did not use the field for games, only for practice and it was his experience that they would practice anywhere there was space. Council President Marin asked how long the fields had been in use. Mr. McIntosh answered the City took the fields over when the junior high school was vacated in the mid-1970's. He estimated the playfields had existed for at least fifty years. Councilmember Orvis asked if the hours of operation could be changed if problems arose. Mr. McIntosh answered yes. Councilmember Dawson referred to an email she received today from Darrell Marmion stating neighbors had not received adequate notice. She asked what notification was provided to residences within earshot of the park, commenting if the neighbors learned more, they may realize their concerns would not come to fruition. Mr. McIntosh pointed out this was the third public hearing on the skate park proposal; for each public hearing the site was signed two weeks in advance, notices were published in the newspaper as required by law, notices were mailed to residences within 300 feet of the site and articles appeared in the newspaper. Councilmember Dawson noted this was the first public hearing before the Council. She pointed out sound traveled more than 300 feet and questioned the rationale for mailing notices to residences within 300 feet. Mr. McIntosh answered that was the standard radius for notices. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised in addition to the notice Mr. McIntosh described, notice was posted at several public buildings throughout the city, notice was broadcast on Channel 21 and the City's website, and notice of tonight's public hearing was included on the Council's November 29 agenda. Councilmember Dawson Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 12 Packet Pg. 288 6.1.f acknowledged the City had done more than the required notice but was concerned the sound impacts may affect a larger area. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the time frame for approval. Mr. McIntosh advised once a decision was made, planning would begin in the spring. Construction would not begin until after the Taste of Edmonds in mid -August. Councilmember Dawson asked if the project would be delayed if the Council requested further public input. Mr. McIntosh answered it would depend on the length of the delay. As this was not a complex project, he estimated three months lead time would be sufficient. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He referred to the additional communication the Council received from Phil Burkhart, the Griffith family, Emily Ehrlich, Ron Bussiere, and Darrell Marmion in opposition; and from Kendall Berry, Debbie Daniels, Bill Evans, Ron & Carol Robinson, Doug & Carol Sheldon, Ann Brown, Joanne Otness, Jim Underhill and Cheryl Hay in favor. He added that as he reviewed the correspondence there seemed to be a recurring theme that the City had acquired or was acquiring property at the old Woodway High School. He advised that was incorrect; the City was working on a joint venture to provide athletic fields at the former Woodway High School. In discussions with the Edmonds School District today, they indicated there was no space in the current or future athletic field configuration for a skate park. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the former Woodway High School had not been considered by staff as a potential location. Emily Ehrlich, Friends of Civic Playfield, extended her thanks to the following people for their efforts: Mary Beth Walsh who walked the neighborhood collecting signatures, Finis Tupper for his historical perspective, the mayor and her husband. Ms. Ehrlich provided a presentation, listing topics discussed at each Work Group meeting and expressing concern that not as many youth as they had hoped participated in that effort. She referred to comments made by the Boys & Girls Club Director expressing his reservations. She displayed photographs of the Friends of Civic Playfield's preferred skate parks, parks with in -ground features. She displayed a comparison of other municipalities' costs for skate parks. (Council President Marin agreed to allow Ms. Ehrlich additional time to make her presentation due to the number of people she represented.) Ms. Ehrlich reviewed the Friends of Civic Playfield's analysis of the sites identified by the Work Group. She referred to Mr. McIntosh's statement that the skate park was intended for youth who do not drive, noting it appeared this skate park would be located in a neighborhood where the least number of children lived. She provided a brief audio recording approximating the noise at a skate park. She read a quote from a resident near a skate park in Vancouver that expressed support for a managed skate park facility and describing their inability to open their windows or use their balcony due to the noise from the skate park. Ms. Ehrlich estimated the noise from skateboards impacting a surface was 75-80 dB. She urged the City to consider other funding sources such as from skateboard and apparel companies. She asked whether the City had sought grants from state agencies or the Tony Hawk Foundation. She recommended an in -ground facility via a process that included input from all citizens and broad funding sources. Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, expressed the need for more activities for young people. He recalled his pride when during his tenure as a Councilmember, the Council approved and built the Lynndale Skate Park that is well used year-round. He explained the Civic Center Playfields was nearly an ideal site, it was central, within walking distance for thousands of residents and there were many young people interested in skateboarding. He reported on his visit to the Kenmore Skate Park that had the concrete modular units, commenting it was very quiet and not nearly as loud as the tape the Friends of Civic Playfield played. The Kenmore Skate Park had asphalt between the modular features which made it much louder than the smooth concrete platform proposed for this skate park. He recalled there were about 15 youth between the ages of 7 and 18 skating at the Kenmore facility today who were very respectful and supportive of each other. He was impressed by the participation and leadership of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 13 Packet Pg. 289 6.1.f young citizens who have worked tirelessly on this effort. He hoped the Council would recognize that the youth had identified the best location and answered all the questions that had been raised. He pointed out the need to encourage families to live in Edmonds, noting the children here tonight were the City's future. He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park tonight. Mary Beth Walsh, Edmonds, commented her concerns regarding the noise survey had been answered. She expressed her support for an in -ground skate park and would accept that at the Civic Center Playfields. She asked how much the existing noise level at Civic Playfields increased between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Nancy Crim, Edmonds, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented on negativity and NIMBY (not in my backyard) and suggested residents strive toward more positive efforts. She commented on the negative affects of negativity on ones health. She noted one of the things that made Edmonds such a wonderful place was the diversity of ages. She recalled the number of children at the tree lighting ceremony, a positive aspect of Edmonds. She urged the Council to approve the skate park as planned and studied. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented he was not necessarily opposed to the skate park but as a resident on the hillside to the east, he was concerned about constructing a skate park on the Civic Playfield absent sufficient data to ensure it would not negatively impact the neighborhood. He referred to information he provided to the Council, a map from the noise study that identified affected buildings and the map superimposed on an aerial photograph, pointing out properties that should have been notified of the public hearing due to the noise impacts. He urged the Council not to make a decision tonight due to the incomplete noise study that did not consider the amphitheater affect of the hillside. He noted from his house on the hill he could hear a Police Officer close his car door at the police station when conditions were right. He advised they moved to their house because of the view of the park and they enjoyed the sounds of sports in the park, however, the proposed skate park would be a different type of noise. Leslie Haan, Edmonds, parent of four boys two of whom skateboard, referred to comments regarding the importance of doing things for kids and questioned the impact on adults and taxpayers. She pointed out children interested in skateboarding had Lynndale. She acknowledged there may be a need for another skate park but questioned whether the Civic Playfields was the appropriate location due to the numerous activities on that site already. She disagreed the City needed to site a skate park within a few blocks of downtown to prove the residents loved children. She suggested the funds allocated for the skate park be used for a year-round pool which would provide activity for a broader range of residents. She summarized the playfields were already overrun with children and adding a skate park would be too much. She questioned how the skate park would affect the Taste of Edmonds and recommended more time be devoted to considering alternate locations. She referred to the audio of a skate park, noting the ongoing noise from a skate park was different than the existing noise. Nancy McDonald, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented the Foundation had supported the concept of a downtown skate park since 1999. The Foundation received regular updates from the Work Group and Parks Department and members attended several meetings and public hearings. She commended the youth involved in the Work Group for their tremendous efforts. The Work Group has been thorough and fair and addressed the concerns expressed by the community. She concluded the Civic Playfields was the right location for the skate park, particularly in its revised location. She encouraged the Council to approve the proposed plan for the skate park so that it could be built before some of the older members of the Work Group left for college. Teresa Pruett, Edmonds, parent of a 13-year old skateboarder who is a good student at Meadowdale Middle School and who takes his citizenship very seriously. To dispel the perception that skateboarders were a different type of person and would attract trouble to a skate park, she assured her son and his Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 14 Packet Pg. 290 6.1.f friends were good kids who developed amazing friendships via that activity as well as participating in this process to bring the skate park to the Council. She reported on visits with her son to skate parks in the area and in California, commenting they were amazing facilities and there was nothing detrimental about skate parks in other communities. She agreed the Civic Playfields was the best location due to the great visibility and proximity of the Police and Fire Departments. She agreed with Council President Marin's point that the playfields had existed for a long time and anyone moving near a playfield did so because of the open space and a skate park was a foreseeable use of a playfield. Because the playfields were used for a lot of activities, she supported the finding that the skate park would not have a large impact on the neighbors. She concluded the Work Group had provided scientific analysis regarding the noise, had moved the skate park to a better location addressed concerns and have presented a good project. She urged the Council to approve the proposed project. With regard to notice, she pointed out the community had been on notice for the past 18 months. Christin Leupold, Edmonds, relayed a near -accident she had with a skateboarder while driving on an arterial. When discussing the incident with the teens involved, she realized they were unaware of the potential danger of colliding with a car. She concluded constructing a skate park would make a difference by providing a place for skateboarders to ride without putting their lives in danger. She pointed out the skate park gave the Council the opportunity to save a child's life every time they used it. Robin Heslop, Crime Prevention Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained her professional opinions regarding the preferred location of a skate park in Edmonds were largely influenced by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) which used the existing built environment to reduce fear and the incidence of crime. She described her evaluation of the potential sites for a skate park, noting the two that influenced her selection the most were natural surveillance and the current and future users. Combining these principles, the goal was to attract the appropriate young people and adults to the site and make it a place that was safe and devoid of crime which required it to be a highly visible site with regular daily usage where positive activities occurred. She noted the old Woodway High School site was isolated and completely surrounded by woods, making it a poor location for a skate park. She sited positive reasons for selecting the Civic Playfield site, the site is well used but not over used, open natural surveillance of the site and use by numerous members of the public throughout the day, current use by good users make it less likely to attract bad users, and close proximity to emergency services, telephone, restrooms, and convenient for officers to visit. She commented parents would likely feel safe leaving their children at the skate park while shopping downtown. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented the family ambiance of City Park was not compatible with a skate park and trees in the woodland area in the southern area of City Park would have to be removed to construct a skate park. Conversely the water logged section of property at Civic Center Playfields proposed for a skate park would be fixed prior to construction, improving the existing condition. He pointed the Civic Playfields had been playfields since the high school was constructed and were leased to the City by Edmonds School District for recreation only. He found the Civic Playfields the ideal location for a skate park due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments, visibility, and proximity to the Boys & Girls Club where restrooms, water, telephone and a safe environment for youth of all ages was available. He expressed concern with statements on the ACE website that they did not support a skate park at the Civic Playfields, recalling the history of Edmonds was blue collar workers whose priority was their children. He feared if the residents arotind Civic Playfields could prevent the City from siting a skate park, what would be next — the Taste of Edmonds, 4th of July, sports teams or the Boys & Girls Club? He expressed dismay that ACE appeared to be prioritizing their interests over the best interests of children. Michelle Bretz, Edmonds, expressed support for the skate park at Civic Playfields. She suggested the Council consider which members were supported by ACE. She stressed the importance of having a place Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 15 Packet Pg. 291 6.1.f for young people to hang out, to support each other, and be mentored by each other. She commented it appeared Edmonds wanted to hide their kids; she did not like Lynndale Park due to its limited visibility. She assured youth would walk, skate, bike from all over the city to use the proposed skate park. She noted the skateboarders were among the City's future voters and she urged the skateboarders who would be voting soon to vote for candidates who supported kids and their projects. She thanked the youth involved on Work Group for their efforts to move the skate park forward. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the 2001 survey to determine the types of facilities and services residents wanted. He recommended the skate park issue be sent back to the Planning Board for further study. Evie Wilson-Lingbloom, Lynnwood, reported on her participation on the Edmonds Youth Advisory Committee that prepared a Community Youth Report in July 2001. She recalled talking with many young people during the preparation of the report who, although they knew Lynndale Park was being constructed, expressed the need for more skate parks due to transportation issues. She suggested the Council reexamine the Community Youth Report, pointing out the skate park would address many of the recommendations in the report. She recognized the efforts of the youth involved in the Work Group, learning about grass roots political organization and the importance of proper research and documentation. She quoted from the report, "involve us, listen to us, plan with us, and hold us accountable, we will not disappoint you." She urged the Council not to disappoint these youth. Tom Knutson, Edmonds, representing the rugby team that used the Civic Center Playfields, expressed the team's support for the skate park. After reviewing the revised plan and the proposal for a new field at the former Woodway High School site, the team determined they could work with the Parks Department to play at the Civic Playfields until the new field was available. Aaron Taylor, Edmonds, skateboarder, commented visitors to New Zealand often refer to the country as going back in time; however, his experience touring New Zealand earlier this year gave him the impression that in terms of their support for kids, they were well ahead. He relayed skating at 11 different skate parks, many in towns with less than 1,000 residents, most in parks or near schools and in areas frequented by other support and activities. He learned from talking to the local Police Department in Arrow Town, a small town on the south island near Queenstown, that most of the parks were the result of kids working with the cities and towns and that the skate parks have been a positive enhancement to the community. He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park in support of youth. Alex McDonald, Edmonds, skateboarder, explained a skate park served youth that were not necessarily involved in team sports. He pointed skateboarding was just as legitimate a sport as baseball, football or soccer and was at least if not more physically demanding and provided the same camaraderie. To those who think youth should use Lynndale, he pointed out many do not have transportation to Lynndale. He concluded a lot of kids would use a skate park at the Civic Center Playfields and the young people here tonight represented a much larger group of skateboarders. Molly Thomson, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the skate park and urged the Council to make a decision soon. Kaylene Wilson, Edmonds, expressed her support for the skate park and urged the Council to vote on it tonight. She noted the skate park also provided a venue for kids who did not skate to watch. Kal Taylor, Edmonds, commented no one had spent as much time watching at a skate park as she had at parks through the U.S. and other continents. She noticed when talking to parents in other communities that originally adults were opposed to skate parks but once they are constructed, the parents and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 16 Packet Pg. 292 6.1.f community supported them. She recalled hearing the wish at many parks that the skate park was bigger once residents realized what a wonderful thing it was for the community. She encouraged the Council to approve the skate park tonight. Nancy Carroll, Edmonds, noted the Edmonds Police Foundation provided a significant amount for a skate park for the youth of Edmonds and the Foundation and Police Department agreed on the importance of the skate parking being within eye and earshot of the Police Department. She expressed her thanks to the young people for their perseverance in their cause and for standing their ground, urging them to be proud of their presentations and the manner in which they conducted themselves. She hoped the youth would remember the importance of these meetings and to instill in their own children the values exhibited during this issue. Robert Rhein, Edmonds, stated it would be a mistake to deny these youth this skate park because they were asking for so little. He commented on the difficulty asking the presenters, boys between the ages of 13 and 16, for anything if this reasonable request were denied. He questioned why one would purchase property adjacent to a park and not expect noise from children's activities. He encouraged the Council to vote in favor of the proposed skate park to show the youth that the City would stand behind them. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, endorsed skateboarding but was concerned with the proposed location and the sound from the park. The Work Group did not consider the Woodway High School site and the City had not approached the school district. He was concerned with the City's budget and the cost of this project. He could endorse a skate park that was well received by the neighborhood but did not support a skate park that was a deterrent to reasonable living in the neighborhood. He noted none of the Council lived near the proposed skate park and most of the proponents did not live in close proximity. He emphasized the importance of preserving the quality of neighborhoods. He relayed a conversation with a neighbor who planned to move because she could not stand any more activity at the Civic Playfields. He referred to the $26,000 savings if the skate park were sited elsewhere, noting the $4,500 donation from the Edmonds Police Foundation resulted in a $30,000 excavation and drainage project. He concluded the decision regarding the location of the skate park was short sighted, recalling a similar short sighted decision 15 years ago not to purchase a cover for the Yost Pool at a cost of $100,000. He urged the Council to consider the concerns expressed regarding the location, cost and noise. He expressed concern with the safety of the raised modular units compared to in -ground units. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, original member of the Skate Park Work Group, emphasized the need for a skate park for beginner and intermediate skaters. He acknowledged more advanced skaters would not enjoy the proposed park, reducing the potential for young skaters to be intimidated by more experienced skaters. He referred to the noise study that indicated there would be minimal noise impact on the neighbors by the location proposed by the Work Group. The park would be in a central location that was safe due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments. He described the experience of participating on the Work Group, transforming an idea into a project for presentation to the Council. To those who questioned the need for a skate park, he found it difficult to describe the joys of skateboarding because it had to be experienced to be fully understood. He found skateboarding exhilarating to do and awesome to watch. Youth often did not have much say regarding what happened in the City; this was their chance to have input about a subject they cared about. He implored the Council to listen to the voices of youth and the science, reflect on the compromises they made and the good citizenship they have exhibited and unanimously approve the skate park at the Civic Playfields as a testament to youth in Edmonds. Ray Martin, Edmonds, suggested further consideration needed to be given to alternate funding sources such as those suggested by Ms. Ehrlich. He questioned whether now was the appropriate time to expend 1/4 million dollars plus annual maintenance. He commented there were good and bad kinds of noise — skateboard noise was among the bad kinds, the sound of a train was a good kind of noise. If Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 17 Packet Pg. 293 6.1.f skateboarding was such a fast growing sport, he questioned why schools did not have skate parks. He also questioned why proximity to the Police Department and visibility was an important feature of a skate park. He pointed out the importance of considering the concerns of residents surrounding the playfield, suggesting consideration be given to a sound barrier to address Mr. Marmion's concerns with noise impacts on upslope properties. He questioned the number of skateboarders the park would serve. He suggested this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right and suggested they conduct further research so that the skate park was sited in a location that was best for the entire community. John Pierre, Edmonds, questioned how much more research was needed, pointing out this issue had been researched since 1999. He strongly encouraged and recommended the Council approve the skate park tonight. Andrew Manning, Edmonds, pointed out there were a lot of kids in Edmonds who liked to skateboard; however, most schools, parks and private property had signs prohibiting skateboarding. He recommended the Council approve the proposed skate park. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, stated although he had the opportunity to serve on a number of committees in the past 16 years, none had given him greater pleasure than the opportunity to work with the youth of the City on this skate park project as the liaison to the Edmonds Police Foundation who provided seed money to the project. He described the citizenship and responsibility displayed by the youth, often in the face of harsh criticism of skateboarders as a group from the opponents of this skate park. He pointed out the flexibility the youth displayed in revising the original location within the Playfield and in selecting different, state-of-the-art materials for the modular units out of respect for the neighbors' concerns. In the face of demeaning remarks early in the process, the youth were undeterred. They reflected on the comments of the opposition, made significant compromises in an effort to satisfy reasonable and justifiable concerns while maintaining their position that the Civic Center Playfields was the ideal and location supported by the Edmonds Police Department, Police Foundation, research, professional noise study as well as many adults and youth in the community. The youth involved in this process have demonstrated maturity far beyond their years and should be an example for all; they've stuck to the issues and not gotten into innuendo and personal attacks on their opponents. They have willingly engaged in dialogue with all who have raised questions. Mr. Witenberg recalled Kendall Berry, a Main Street condominium owner and early opponent of the project who attended many of the Work Group's meetings and voiced legitimate concerns on behalf of her neighbors which the Work Group addressed. Ms. Berry now supports this location as confirmed by a letter in the Council packet. He noted none of the other opponents attended any of the Work Group meetings. Several of the Work Group members would receive little benefit from the group efforts because they were advanced skaters and the park's design was for beginner and intermediate skaters, but they have served unselfishly so that others could benefit from their work. He urged the Council to reward the youths' efforts and show their faith in the youth of the community by approving the proposed skate park in the Civic Center Playfields. Harold Huston, Edmonds, complimented the youth for their efforts with regard to the skate park. He commented on his completion of a motorcycle defensive driving course attended by a number of young people. A volunteer in many programs, he urged the City to do something for kids in the community to keep kids involved. He commented on the amount of study that had been done on this issue, pointing out there was no need for another survey or further public hearings. He viewed this as a golden opportunity for the Council to take an affirmative action and he urged the Council to approve it tonight. Aaron Greenmun, School Resource Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained police were responders. In his job he had the good fortune to be on the positive side of Police Department, dealing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 18 Packet Pg. 294 6.1.f with young people in a positive manner. He was honored to serve on the Skate Park Work Group, commenting the youth had been mentors to him, pouring their hearts into the project. He relayed that the youths' passion about the project was an inspiration to him and truly what civil service was about — getting involved in the community. The only question now was how the City would respond to the youth. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to questions regarding funding, Mr. McIntosh assumed the grants suggested were IAC grants, a grant process the City had utilized in the past. He noted the City usually sought IAC grants for major renovations and not park amenities; however, that was a route that could be pursued if the Council chose. With regard to the Taste of Edmonds at Civic Playfields, he met with the Taste of Edmonds Committee who indicated they did not have a problem with the proposal. In response to Mr. Martin's suggestion for a sound barrier on the east side that did not block views, Ms. Weibusch explained a wall would need to be exceedingly high to block the sounds because usually if you could see an activity, you could also hear it. She noted a wall around the skate park would also create a shadow zone that would block the sound near the skate park but would reflect the sound that would have gone toward the water onto the hill. She noted the only solution to that problem would be to create a concrete box with a lid which would eliminate visibility. In response to the question regarding increase in existing noise during evening hours, Ms. Weibusch advised the existing dBA averaged over the hour of 4:00 & 5:00 p.m. was 52 dBA and 56 dBA between 5:00 & 6:00 p.m., and 54 dBA between 6:00 & 7:00 p.m. With regard to the audio demonstration by Ms. Ehrlich, Ms. Weibusch commended her for the diligence with which she had studied the issue, but pointed out it was extremely difficult to enter audio recordings into evidence. She noted although the recording may have been 45 dBA when recorded, it was not when it was played back. She noted if everyone in the Council Chambers was extremely silent and held their breath, the ambient sound level might be 45 dBA. With movement, etc. the ambient level was likely up to 50 dBA and the recording was at least 75 dBA. She noted the sound quality of the recording was also very different than what she heard at the skate parks. She cautioned the Council regarding the weight they gave the recording as it was not 45 dBA. Mayor Haakenson agreed with Mr. Martin that this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right, noting the skate park was one of the rare opportunities for the City to do something for the youth of Edmonds. He explained the Work Group and City staff had done an excellent job researching this project and even better job of addressing the neighbors' concerns. He questioned what better place for a skate park than an existing area of high youth activity, next to the Police Department and adjacent to a Boys & Girls Club. He pointed out a playfield was land used for and usually equipped with facilities for recreation, especially for children. He concluded this was an opportunity for the Council to put their money where their mouth was, recalling comments by candidates regarding the need to support the youth of Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson supported this project and this location because it was the right thing to do for the youth of Edmonds and they deserved it. Hearing no further questions of staff, he remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF AND THE SKATE PARK WORKGROUP TO PROCEED WITH THE SKATE PARK PROJECT AS PROPOSED AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS. Councilmember Orvis did not fault anyone's concern with impacts or process but he was impressed with the arguments made by those who supported the skate park and particularly the changes that were made in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 19 Packet Pg. 295 6.1.f response to the sound study as well as the proximity of the site to the Public Safety facility. He indicated he would support the motion. Council President Marin referred to a letter in the packet from a doctor in Mukilteo about his concern when he learned there would be a skate park next to their building and their dread of the noisy and crazy teens, tweens and twenty -somethings disturbing them. The doctor went on to state that after the park went in, they did not regret having them there at all. Council President Marin described his experience in San Diego where at an intersection in Pacific Beach various performers would provide periodic exhibitions. He was fascinated by the tricks they would do and soon found he had favorites he liked to watch. He hoped as the park was constructed and used, nearby residents would discover they developed favorites and would enjoy the free entertainment. He indicated he would support the motion. Councilmember Olson referred to the Council's decision to ban motorized foot scooters for riders less than 16-years of age. If the Council took activities away from kids, they had to provide places where they could go and experience things like skateboarding. With regard to the comment why schools did not have skate parks, she recalled soccer became popular with teams before it was incorporated into the school. She envisioned in the future schools might have skate parks. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the skate park. Having been involved in the public process for 25 years, he estimated he had attended 4,000 — 5,000 public hearings; the presentation by the Skate Park Work Group was the best he had seen and especially from a lay group. He commended the Work Group for their efforts and actions, commenting the group had always held themselves to the highest standards, standards the Council and other participants in the public process should hold themselves to. He agreed it was time for the community to give back to the youth and provide opportunities. Too often adults want kids to fit into a mold or activity and if they did not fit the mold, adults did not support it. The skate park would provide an opportunity for youth to express themselves in an increasingly popular sport, allowing them to achieve goals they set for themselves. In response to the comment that none of the Council lived close to the Civic Center Playfields, Councilmember Moore clarified she lived about 2'/z blocks away and looked forward to watching the skateboarders. She noted everyone who used the track would enjoy the entertainment while doing laps. She thanked the kids for their citizenship as well as the adults who testified on behalf of the kids and who complimented the kids on their citizenship. Councilmember Moore referred to the petition submitted by the Friends of Civic Playfield and her skepticism whether those who signed it understood it. She reported the comments made by 18 of the 37 signers who provided telephone numbers when she contacted them: 1) still concerned abut noise; I just don't believe the study, 2) the noise is a trouble and kids riding to the park on skateboards, 3)1 don't feel strongly about it at all the youth need something to do, 4) 1 don't think it's a problem because I realize people who move next door to a park should really expect the noise, 5) things have changed now and we no longer oppose it, 6) 1 was caught off guard by a woman, I'm not opposed to it at all, I just signed the petition, 7) I don't like skating by the ferry, it has to be legal and safe so if it's a sturdy park I would feel good about it, 8) it's not a concern to me, 9) I think the noise might be loud; I just don't know, 10)1 was at the farmers market and this woman came up but I have no information and I don't really care about it, 11) no I want the skate park; the lady told me it would be metal and I just wanted something more solid, 12) six members of the rugby team who believed their field would be eliminated (a representative indicated tonight they had changed their position), 13) a woman from the condos just asked me to sign it but I don't really know anything about it, 14) my opinion really should not count; I really don't have an opinion, 15) my grandchildren skate at every park in the area and I was just concerned about the flimsy construction; I want something permanent; 16) the condo owners really ought to know better if they bought here, 17) I'm not opposed to kids having fun so I'm not adamantly opposed to this unless the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 20 Packet Pg. 296 6.1.f noise is too bad, and 18) I really don't care about that skate park; what I'm really concerned about is the Taste of Edmonds that's when we get some really bad people around this neighborhood who drink at the beer garden and come into my yard to relieve themselves. Councilmember Moore cautioned the Council and others about the value of signatures on petitions such as this. Further this petition was quite dated and the people who signed it were not aware of the changes the Work Group had made. She looked forward to having the skate park in her neighborhood and was pleased to have a facility for kids in that age group to use. Councilmember Dawson agreed the Civic Center Playfields was a very good site for the skate park; however, what made it a good site was also what people didn't like — it was visible and it was already being used by a lot of people. She acknowledged no matter where a skate park was sited, there would be concerns of some kind. She expressed her support of the motion with the caveat that the Parks & Recreation Department and Work Group explore funding alternatives such as the State Wildlife and Recreation funding as well as opportunities for private groups to co-sponsor the skate park. She anticipated the neighborhood would be surprised by the sound level because the ambient noise level would be so much less than other sports that occur in the park. Student Representative Steven Landry expressed support for the skate park, noting none of the students he spoke with felt the skate park would be a bad idea or anticipated sound being a problem. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Huston regarding senior skaters, commenting he was sure there were skateboarders who would be willing to teach skateboarding to adults. He commented there was not a lot for youth to do in the Edmonds area; positive choices were better than possibly doing something negative. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RELATED TO AUDIENCE COMMENTS TING PROCEDUI Council President Marin asked whether any Councilmember objected to the addition he following sentence in the Council meeting procedures: "In accordance with RCW 42.17.13 , ie opportunity for public comment shall not include comments which promote or oppose can tea for public office or ballot measures except during the course of a public hearing." He ciarif leis sentence was intended to address statements promoting or opposing specific candidates dur tiye campaign period and was not intended to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights. Councilmember Dawson did not see a need to inclu its sentence in the Council procedures. She noted the City's long standing policy of not encour g campaign speeches at the podium had been honored other than two people who made stateme about specific candidates this year. She was concerned that this had gone too far unnecessarily. noted this issue had never arisen before and she was concerned it was content based even thougl was intended to be neutral. She concluded it perhaps sent the wrong message. She appreciate r. Snyder's memo regarding the PDC's indication that the Council could include this langua oting the PDC regulations had also been struck down by the Supreme Court recently based ontent. n ember Plunkett recalled opponents of certain Council candidates made campaign statements at podium prior to the 2001 and 2003. He agreed it needed to be clarified whether that was allowed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 6, 2005 Page 21 Packet Pg. 297 6.1.f Response to November 29, 2005 City Council Questions History of Siting Amenities in Parks: When the playground at City Park was scheduled for replacement, the existing location was deemed too small to construct the playground needed when peak numbers of families, day camps, and school groups were using it. In June -September, it is not uncommon to have 50+ children enjoying it at one time. Neighbors in the adjacent condominiums, located within 100 feet of the proposed playground, were concerned about too many children and the associated noise, size, and color of the playground. Soon after installation, the neighbors realized that they enjoyed watching the children and their previous concerns have not been an issue. The added bonus is that the increased visibility only helps increase safety and deters vandalism. Cost of Playgrounds: To withstand the normal wear and tear that all park playground amenities experience, playground fixtures need to be durable, low maintenance, and built to current industry construction and safety standards. Parks staff must be certified to inspect and perform necessary playground structure repairs when necessary. The City of Edmonds has replaced half of its aging playground structures in the past 4 years and these have a standard two-year unlimited warranty. The development costs for the 1995 City Park installation and replacement costs for three other parks are: City Park, 1995 Play structure $ 51,000 City labor preparation 30,000 Retaining wall and drainage system installation 73,000 Total cost $154,000 Seaview Park, 2001 Play structure $43,000 City labor preparation 14,000 Retaining wall and drainage system installation 28.000 Total cost $85,000 Anderson Center, 2001 Play structure $47,000 City labor preparation 12,000 Total cost $59,000 Pine Street, 2005 Play structure $43,000 City labor preparation 10,000 Total cost $53,000 5katepark Budget: The need for a skatepark was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Currently, $200,000 is budgeted with roughly 50% dedicated to preparing the site with an approximately 5,400 square foot smooth concrete pad and the remainder to purchase, transport, and install the features. Due to the underlying peat bog nature of the Civic Center, development of amenities at this site, such as the tennis courts in 1980, require additional excavation and fill. Mai tea e: All City parks and playgrounds are inspected and maintained regularly with inspection logs kept. Parks maintenance staff respond immediately to reported problems with any equipment or vandalism and they visit the Civic Playfields site almost daily due to its active use. Due to the high use and high visibility at the site, staff does not anticipate that a skate park will be a maintenance burden. In many communities, skatepark users take ownership and peer pressure helps control vandalism, litter, and bad behavior. The preferred Concrete Concepts streetscape style features are fiberglass reinforced concrete with a double polyurethane finish. They have been used in Europe for 10 years and in North American parks for 6 years and have proven to be virtually indestructible. They have an initial 5- year unlimited warranty and an extended 10-year parts replacement warranty. We have checked with other communities who have installed this product and they are satisfied with both the products and service. Other City Skate Parks & Costs: Everett, 1999 14,300 square feet $267,000 Lynndale, 1999 5,000 square feet $120,000 plus design costs Snohomish, 2002 Marysville, 2002 Mukilteo, 2004 9,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 20,000 square feet $243,000 $387,000 $900,000 Background/History At the October 26, 1999 City Council meeting, the Edmonds Police Foundation donated $4,500 toward the future development of a skate park facility in downtown Edmonds. At that time, Mayor Fahey, Council, and city staff WOODELL Att. 5 - Response to 11.29.05 Coun Packet Pg. 298 6.1.f recognized the health and social benefits of skate boarding and the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park, jointly funded by both Edmonds and Lynnwood after a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the park was heavily used and many younger, inexperienced skateboarders had difficulty getting to use the park. The need for a local skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. On March 23, 2004, staff met with the Edmonds Police Foundation to discuss the possibility of building a skate park in the downtown area, and it was decided to form a Skate Park Work Group. On May 17, 2004, members of the Police Foundation and the Parks & Recreation staff organized a meeting. Edmonds skaters, parents, and community members who believed a skate facility in downtown Edmonds would be a valuable asset to the community's youth attended to form an ad hoc committee. On July 13, 2004, staff and committee members met with the City Council Community Services Committee and were encouraged to move ahead with planning the development of a skate park in the downtown area. On January 26, 2005, the Skate Park Work Group presented a report to the Edmonds Planning Board with their findings to date. Committee members reported on different aspects of the proposal which included health benefits; growth and popularity of the sport; the 40 Developmental Assets, nationally recognized building blocks that help young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible; safety; risk management; the Recreation Immunity Act; pictures of skate parks in surrounding communities; criteria for selecting a skate park site; and the proposed location at the Civic Center Playfields. A Public Hearing was scheduled for March 9, 2005. On March 9, 2005, a Public Hearing was held with many comments, questions and suggestions from the public. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return later to answer questions from the Planning Board concerning noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and provide an accurate site plan of the park. On October 26, 2005, the Greenbusch Company, Inc., presented a comprehensive noise study. Two other refinements to the original proposal were presented; 1) a location change within the Civic Center Playfields; and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site. Goal The Parks & Recreation community recognizes skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to be accommodated in our parks system. The goal of the Skate Park Work Group is to continue their efforts to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skate boarders. Popularity of Skateboarding The interest in this sport continues to grow at a fast rate. Estimates of the number of people between the ages of 6 and 18 who skateboarded in 2003 was 13 million with numbers expected to reach 15 million this year. This number exceeds the number of Little League Baseball players and trails only basketball and soccer in participation. As the sport grows, so does the need for facilities as evidenced by the installation of skate parks in most communities surrounding Edmonds. Safety/Liability As mentioned in earlier presentations, there are far fewer skateboarding accidents per capita than many other popular sports such as baseball, soccer, or snowboarding. Children under the age of 15 are twice as likely to be injured on playground equipment and three times more likely to suffer a bicycle injury. This skate park would not be directly supervised. If constructed to industry standards and maintained properly the Recreation Immunity Act protects cities from liability for skateboarding accidents. Security/Police Packet Pg. 299 6.1.f Early in the development of this proposal, the City of Edmonds Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities specifically to determine what common problems they may have. In addition to emphasizing the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area, many communities encouraged a strong police presence, especially during the first few weeks. This sets a tone early that the police are aware of and interested in the success of the facility, and helps create a bond between skaters and officers. Parents watching and community "spectators" also promote security and caring, and give the participants a chance to perform. With this good start, users do take ownership and peer pressure to protect their facility can be powerful. At the present time, the police are not able to direct kids that are skating on public facilities and restricted areas to a local park. Location The survey conducted by our Crime Prevention Officer and other readings and research by the Work Group yielded a set of criteria that the group used to determine a best location in the downtown area for the skate park. The group identified nine areas that might have potential as a site. Members traveled independently to each site, applied the 10 criteria to those sites, and selected the Civic Center Playfields as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so having easy access by police and fire was scored the same as availability ofrestrooms and phone. Location Within Civic Playfield The original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence line and 140 feet from the nearest residences. Upon further observation, it was noticed that shifting the skate park south and slightly east would keep most of the usable dimensions of the north field and the consistent 285-foot perimeter of the softball field. Distance from the nearest residences now increased to 240 feet. Noise Study At the request of the Planning Board, due to concerns from the neighborhood about the potential noise impacts from a skate park facility, a scope of work was developed to perform an ambient noise study. The Greenbusch Group, Inc., an acoustical, mechanical, and audio/visual design firm was selected to perform the study. The original study measured from the location adjacent to the basketball courts concluded that noise levels would pose very little impact on the community. The analysis did not recommend mitigation. The study in your packets is updated to reflect noise levels at the new proposed location, 240 feet from the nearest residences. Rules Simple rules similar to other skate parks and following the recommendations of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority would be posted. This type of park is designed for skateboards and rollerblades. Hours of Operation/Lights This facility would not be equipped with lights and would be open from 9 am to dusk (1/2 hour past sunset). Anyone using the facility beyond these hours would be trespassing. Fencing To protect skaters from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., this proposal includes 8 foot fencing on the north (facing open grass field area), 10 foot on the east (facing the baseball diamond), and 4 foot on the west and south where play is minimal and spectators could observe. The fencing will be removable to enable flexibility with special events. Drainage The field area north of the proposed site and east of the courts has had an ongoing drainage problem that makes this area unplayable for significant parts of the year. In coordination with the development of the park, a separate drainage project will be undertaken to rectify this problem. Design/Accommodation The original proposal called for a modular park with steel, wood, or like surfaces to enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Skate Park Work Group has continued to visit other parks and explore surfaces including markedly quieter precast concrete recently installed at the Kenmore Skate Park. This product can be designed to match any skating feature and usually duplicates "streetscape" forms designed, requested by, and popular with skaters. Streetscapes mimic real street features. These are low maintenance, permanent, and the 2 to 6 ton concrete weight of each piece absorbs sound and creates stability. The forms will be placed on an approximately Packet Pg. 300 6.1.f 5,400 square feet smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorses this design and will be able to work on and around the design. Packet Pg. 301 6.1.f Cunningham, Diane From: linda malan <lindajoemalan@frontier.com> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:40 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Civic Field Development Dear Ms. Cunningham, We have been Edmonds residents for twenty-six years, the past seven living in the Shelbourne Condominiums at 636 Daley St. The Civic Field is now our front lawn, as our condo faces south across the narrow alleyway on the north side of the field. We enjoy living close to downtown and getting to watch many of the activities that take place in the field. Thus we have been active participants in the citizens input for the planned park construction. We appreciate the challenge of creating a "Signature Downtown Park" that is surrounded on three sides by residences, most especially when the majority of those residents are only a narrow setback from the park borders. Unlike the first two plans presented to the public, this third Hybrid Plan seems to overlook every aspect of concerns that we have mentioned in all of our communication regarding the new park. Most upsetting was the placement of the skateboard park immediately beneath our windows! We have always been grateful for the careful concern given to the placement of the current skateboard park, as it's placement was equidistant from all residences. We cannot imagine how Walker -Macy could overlook the extensive planning that went into building it in 2005, and place it where it is in this Hybrid plan. Please consider leaving it in the area initially approved by all and that has worked successfully. Living as we do next to the church parking lot on our east side, we have witnessed many near misses between young children dashing across the alleyway to soccer practice and cars traveling on our narrow alleyway. There are 23 garages that empty into this narrow space with cars coming and going all day and evening. Even the UPS driver chooses to use this alley! Placing a children's play area along this busy border feels like a recipe for disaster. In fact, nearly all the busy, active portions of the park have been placed along this north border with nothing to protect children from traffic sharing this same narrow space. Please give some consideration to these concerns. Respectfully, Linda Malan Packet Pg. 302 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Public Hearing of the Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan (20 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On March 15, 2016, City Council authorized Snohomish County to prepare an updated Hazard Mitigation Plan on behalf of the City (Resolution No 1353). On January 10, 2017, staff and Snohomish County presented the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the City Council. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the January 24th consent agenda for approval. Narrative A Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is a preparedness document that describes the potential hazards that could impact the City, details the relative likelihood that those risks might impact people, property, and the economy, and lists mitigation action items being planned or undertaken to minimize or eliminate risk from those hazards. A FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan is required for the City to receive federal funding to cover disaster related costs. The City's most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed in 2009 with ESCA and South Snohomish and North King County municipalities/special purpose districts, expired in September 2014. With assistance from Snohomish County, City staff completed the 2016 City of Edmonds Annex to the Snohomish County HMP in early June 2016, and conducted an Open House on June 21, 2016 to gather public input. The document was revised and forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) for review. FEMA approved the City of Edmonds' Annex to the Snohomish County HMP (pending local adoption) on December 8, 2016. Attachment A is the City of Edmonds' Draft Annex to the Snohomish County HMP. For reference, Volume 1 of the Snohomish County HMP is available at the following link: http://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23981. Once the City Council adopts the document, then FEMA can officially approve it, making the City eligible to receive federal funding for disaster preparedness and recovery. FEMA is currently reviewing a grant application for the Dayton Street Pump Station project. Attachments: Attachment A - Draft Annex to the Sno. County HMP Packet Pg. 303 s.2 Attachment B - Proposed Resolution Packet Pg. 304 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex 6.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Michael Cawrse, Stormwater Technician 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA, 98020 Telephone: 42 5-771-0220 e-mail: michael.cawrse@edmonds.wa 6.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Alternate Point of Contact Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA, 98020 Telephone: 42 5-771-0220 e-mail: mike.deliIla@edmondswa.gov The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction/district and its history: • Date of Incorporation-1890 • Current Population-40,381 • Population Growth —The rate of population growth has been relatively stable at about 1% per year with major increases occurring primarily as a result of annexations in the 1960s and 1970s. Based on forecasted continued growth at 1% per year, the population in 2025 is projected to be 44,880. • Location and Description— The City of Edmonds is located in the southwest corner of Snohomish County, about 14 miles north of Seattle and 18 miles south of Everett. It has a population of about 40,7601 people residing on about 8.9 square miles, or 5,717 acres, of land. Edmonds is the third largest city in Snohomish County. Most properties in the City already contain some development. Of the remaining undeveloped land, about 75% is designated for single-family residential use. Edmonds' commercial activity is concentrated in two three areas: the Downtown/Waterfront, the Westgate area, and the Highway 99 corridor. The latter includes Stevens Hospital and the medical facilities affiliated with the Hospital. This Hospital region provides critical facilities, and restoring routes to and from the Hospital will be a priority in any disaster. The City of Edmonds is a key link in the region's transportation routes. The City has three state routes that connect the region to both the Port of Edmonds and the site of the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Terminal. The former provides mooring for approximately 1,000 boats and watercraft. The latter is located in the Downtown/Waterfront core and provides a steady stream of vehicles and ferry -commuters into the area. The Burlington -Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the City's shoreline and links Everett to Edmonds to the north and Seattle to the south. The rail line is currently used for freight and AMTRAK passenger rail service; approximately 40 trains pass through the City each day. Conflict between 6-1 Packet Pg. 305 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a north -south rail traffic and east -west access to the waterfront and its regional facilities (ferry, port, and parks) is an ongoing concern for its potential effect on response and recovery activities in emergency situations. • Brief History— The City of Edmonds grew out of a homestead and logging operation started by George Brackett in 1876. Incorporated in 1890, the original town site is now occupied primarily by the downtown and adjacent residential areas. The Great Northern Railroad reached the town in 1891 and for many years provided access for goods and passenger travel. Although fires destroyed many of the waterfront mills, shingle production continued to be the primary industry in the city into the 1940s. Ferry service to Kingston began in 1923 when a ferry terminal was built near the location of the existing ferry dock. The present ferry terminal was built in the early 1950s after acquisition of the ferry system by the State of Washington. The city continued to grow during the 1940s and 50s, resulting in a more active role of the municipality in providing water, sewer and streets for residential and commercial expansion. The Port district was formed in 1948 and began waterfront improvements. Completion of Interstate 5 and increased growth in the Puget Sound region led to a gradual change in the character of the city with more emphasis on residential development and less industrial use. • Climate— On average, the warmest month is July; the highest recorded temperature was 96°F in 1991. January is the average coolest month; the lowest recorded temperature was 117 in 1989. The maximum average precipitation occurs in December. • Governing Body Format —The City of Edmonds is a Mayor —Council form of government; seven elected council members and a full-time mayor govern Edmonds. The Mayor is the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, and shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city. The Mayor is in charge of all departments and employees, and has authority to appoint all director -level positions in the city's adopted budget, including the police chief. These appointments are subject to city council confirmation. The City Council is the legislative body that establishes City policy. • Development Trends— Growth in Edmonds is anticipated to be moderate over the next 20 years, and due to the limited supply of vacant land, will take place primarily through redevelopment of built parcels. This redevelopment will occur with a combination of increased densities and mixed -use zoning in Neighborhood Business areas (Westgate and Five Corners neighborhoods) and the development of Activity Centers in the Downtown Waterfront and Medical/Highway 99 corridor areas. Employment in Edmonds will continue to be driven by the services sector (health care, food service, arts and entertainment, and professional services), which currently comprises 70% of jobs in the City. 6.3 JURISDICTION/DISTRICT-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 6-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA Identified Repetitive Flood Loss Properties: 2 • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss Properties that have been mitigated: none 6-2 Packet Pg. 306 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex 6.4 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 6-2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. 6.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of Edmonds' legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 6-3. The assessment of Edmonds' administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6-4. The assessment of Edmonds' fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6-5. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-6. 6.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 6-7 lists the initiatives that make up Edmonds' hazard mitigation plan. Table 6-8 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 6-9 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 6.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 6-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. 6.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/VULNERABILITY N/A 6.9 INTERNAL PLANNING PROCESS The internal planning process was begun on March 1, 2016 at Edmonds City Hall. Representatives from City Finance, Police, Public Works, Engineering, Community Services/Economic Development, and Development Services/Planning/Building attended the kick off meeting, which was facilitated by Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management. The plan development process was discussed, along with a general timeline for completion of the annex. The template and planning resources were provided to the City. At this meeting, the local risk rating also took place and is documented in Table 6-2. To further completion of the draft annex, Initiatives from the previous Hazard Mitigation Plan (see Table 6-10) were distributed to appropriate staff to determine if the initiative should be carried forward to the new Hazard Mitigation Plan. Staff were also tasked with developing new Initiatives to be included in the new Hazard Mitigation Plan. All Initiatives were compiled in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 and the tables were shared via email in advance of an Initiative Prioritization meeting held on May 31, 2016 to evaluate and discuss each Initiative. In attendance were representatives from Public Works/Facilities/Engineering, Development Services/Building, Community Services/Economic Development, and Parks and Recreation. Recommendations from the prioritization meeting were incorporated, and the draft annex was sent to the following Department Directors for final review: Development Services, Public Works, Police, Community Services and Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, and Finance. Comments were incorporated in advance of the Open House on June 21, 2016. 6-3 Packet Pg. 307 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex 6.10 EXTERNAL PLANNING PROCESS An open house was held on June 21, 2016 from 5 to 7 pm in Edmonds to make the draft hazard mitigation plan available for review by the general public. In addition, staff were available to answer questions. To notify the public, a press release was sent to local media, including the Everett Herald, Edmonds Beacon, and myEdmondsnews.com, one week before the event. The press release was also posted on the City's web site. Notice of the open house was also posted on the City's Facebook page one week prior to the event, and was reposted one day prior to the event. 6.11 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS NA 6.12 MITIGATION INTEGRATION AND VULNERABILITY TRENDS The City of Edmonds' planning mechanism is centered on the City's Comprehensive Plan, which includes by reference several stand-alone documents (i.e., Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan; Sewer/Water/Stormwater Utility System Comprehensive Plans; and Shoreline Master Program). The Comprehensive Plan, including the utility system comprehensive plans, inform the six -year Capital Improvement Plan/Capital Facility Program (CIP/CFP) for determining actions and projects to be included in the annual budget. This planning mechanism is supplemented by ongoing programmatic and facility assessments conducted by each department for actions and projects that are needed to improve facilities or correct deficiencies. These actions or projects could also be added to the six -year (CIP/CFP) for discussion of inclusion in the annual budget. Integration of the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) with the City's planning mechanism occurs primarily through the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as during CIP/CFP development and department assessments. The Community Sustainability chapter of the Comprehensive Plan calls out the preparation and implementation of a hazard mitigation plan to reduce and minimize the exposure of Edmonds citizens to future disasters or hazards. Initiatives from the HMP are then considered for inclusion in the CIP/CFP, and also as solutions for improvements or corrections noted in assessment reports. At present, two initiatives (ED-16 and ED-20, Table 6-7) from the current HMP have been moved forward to the design phase. With the combination of more stringent development -related codes, particularly for development in hazard prone areas, and plans to study and plan for potential impacts of climate change, vulnerability to risk has remained the same or decreased slightly compared to development during the previous hazard mitigation plan. Changes to the City's critical areas code include a requirement for a geotechnical report for development projects within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area; a requirement for the use of a geotechnical report to establish setbacks and buffers in geologically hazardous areas rather than the use of standardized setbacks and buffers; and the retention of at least 30% of native vegetation in development projects within landslide hazard areas. With regard to frequently flooded areas, the City's building code has been updated to require that buildings within Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones have the lowest floor elevation be at least two feet above base flood elevation. Due to the limited supply of vacant land in Edmonds, most recent development has taken place through redevelopment of built parcels. Because only a small portion of that development has occurred within hazard prone areas, and the development in these areas would have been done under more stringent requirements, vulnerability to risk would be decreased compared to similar development occurring during the previous hazard mitigation plan. Packet Pg. 308 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a Finally, climate change was added to the current HMP, and an initiative was proposed for reducing the vulnerability to risk (see Table 6-7, ED-23). The project is a partnership between Edmonds and Western Washington University, with the task of assessing the risks of climate change and a related sea level rise and developing strategies to mitigate those risks. Implementation of these strategies would likely lower the City's vulnerability to risk to this hazard. 6-5 Packet Pg. 309 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-1. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FEMA Disaster # (if Type of Event applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment Wind storm 4249 Nov 12-21, 2015 Flooding, landslides, mudslides. $46,120. Wind storm 4242 August 29, 2015 $63,074 Rain storm NA Oct 11, 2014 No recovery operations, localized flooding and minor property damage. Rain storm NA Aug 29, 2013 No recovery operations, minor property damage. Severe winter storm 4056 January 14-23, 2012 Snow, flooding, landslides, mudslides. $49,717. Rain storm NA Nov 23, 2011 Minor property damage, no recovery operations. Snow storm NA Nov 21-25, 2010 Heavy snow fall and icing conditions City-wide. $15,700. Rain and wind storm NA December 3, 2007 Flooding, landslides, road damage $1,000,000. Nisqually Earthquake NA Feb 28, 2001 unknown I Packet Pg. 310 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-2. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) Description of Risk (Describe the community impacts) 1 Earthquake 54 Property damage to buildings and infrastructure. 2 Severe Weather 48 Property damage due to extreme winds, rain, and flooding. 3 Climate Change 18 Flooding and property damage due to sea level rise along shorelines and waterfront/downtown. 3 Flood 18 Flooding and property damage along urban creeks, Lake Ballinger, shorelines and waterfront/downtown. 3 Landslide/Mass 18 Property damage/loss in landslide hazard area in North Edmonds Movement and along critical/steep slopes. 4 Tsunami/Seiche 12 Property damage and flooding along shoreline and waterfront/downtown. 5 Volcano 9 This risk rating pertains to ash fallout. N/A Avalanche 0 N/A Dam Failure 0 N/A Wildland Fire 0 TABLE 6-3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Y N N Y ECC Title 19 adopted 6-28-2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ord. 3926; 6-11-2010 Ord. 3796 Zoning Y N N Y ECC Title 15 through 21 adopted 6-30-95 Ord. 3030 Subdivisions Y N N Y ECC Title 20.75 Subdivisions Ordinance adopted 7-12-1983 Ord. 2379; updated regularly. 6-7 Packet Pg. 311 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a Stormwater Management Y N N Y ECC Title 18.30 adopted April 26, 2010 Ord. 3792; pending substantial update Dec 2016. Post Disaster Recovery Y N N N ECC Title 6.60 adopted 8-18- 1981 Ord. 2224; updated 3-17- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1998 Ord. 3196. Real Estate Disclosure N N N N No adopted regulations Growth Management Y N N Y ECC Title 15.05 Comp. Plan adopted July 28, 2015 Ord. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4003. Site Plan Review Y N N Y ECC Title 18 adopted 4-6-2010 Ord. 3788; Title 19 adopted 6- 18-2013 Ord. 3926; Title 20 adopted 3-19-1996 Ord. 3076 and updated annually. Special Purpose (flood Y N N Y ECC Title 23 Natural Resources management, critical areas) (Critical Areas regulations) adopted 11-23-2004; update adopted May 2016. Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Y N N Y Comp. Plan adopted 3-19-1996 Ord. 3076, major update adopted 7-28-2015. Floodplain or Basin Plan No adopted plan. Stormwater Plan Y N N Y Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan adopted July 6, 2010. Capital Improvement Plan Y N N N Capital Improvement Plan for 2016-2021 adopted December 8, 2015. Habitat Conservation Plan N N N N No adopted plan. Economic Development Plan Economic Development Element (Comp Plan), updated/adopted 7-28-2015. Emergency Response Plan Y N N N ECC Title 6.60 adopted 8-18- 1981 Ord. 2224; updated 3-17- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1998 Ord. 3196. Shoreline Management Plan Y N N Y Shoreline Management Program updated, adopted 7- 18-2000, Ord. 3318. CD 00 ti T a. 2 r c 0 U 0 a U) m t 0 41 K m c c a r c� i Q .: Packet Pg. 312 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a Post Disaster Recovery Plan Y N N N ECC Title 6.60 adopted 8-18- 1981 Ord. 2224; updated 3-17- 1998 Ord. 3196. .• Packet Pg. 313 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-4. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Floodplain manager ----------------------- Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers Y Development Services/Planning and Building Divisions: Director, Building Official, Planners, Permit Coordinators Public Works/Engineering Division: Engineering Program Manager, Engineering Technicians Y Development Services/Building Division: Building Official, Plans Examiner, Building Inspectors Public Works/Engineering Division: Director, City Engineer, Utility Engineer, Transportation Engineer, Capital Project Managers, Stormwater Manager, Engineering Program Manager, Engineering Technicians. Y Public Works/Engineering Division: City Engineer, Utility Engineer, Engineering Program Manager, Engineering Technicians. Development Services/Planning and Building Divisions: Building Official, Planners, Plans Examiners, Building Inspectors. Y Finance: Director ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Information Services: GIS Analyst Development Services/Planning Division: Planners Public Works/Operations: GIS Technician N ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Public Works/Engineering Division: Traffic Engineer 6-10 Packet Pg. 314 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-5. FISCAL CAPABILITY IAccessible or Eligible I Financial Resources to Use? Community Development Block Grants No Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes ----------------------------------------------------- Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Service Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas Yes State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes ------------------------- Other - Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), Local Infrastructure Yes - REET Financing Tool (LIFT), Conservation Futures 6-11 Packet Pg. 315 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-6. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System No N/A N/A Building Code Effectiveness Grading Yes 3 2-4-2015 Schedule Public Protection Yes 3 2-1-2015 Storm Ready No N/A N/A Firewise No N/A N/A Tsunami Ready No N/A N/A TABLE 6-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or In existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets? Mitigated Met Lead Department Cost Funding Timeline Plan? ED-01- Replace water mains to maintain critical functions, minimize earthquake/landslide damage, and ensure adequate water pressure. Existing Earthquake; 9 Public High Water Utility Short term Yes Landslide/Mass Works/Engineering Fund Movement ED-02 — Continue partnership with City of Everett and Alderwood Water District to educate consumers about drought impacts and ways to minimize water waste. Existing Climate Change 5 Public Low Water Utility Short term Yes Works/Operations Fund ED-03: Integrate earthquake hazard mapping data and improve analysis of potential hazards (e.g. HAZUS). Existing Earthquake 1, 2, 3 Development Medium General Fund, Short Term Yes Services, Public Grants Works/Facilities ED-04 — Conduct non-structural seismic retrofit activities. Existing Earthquake 3,9 Public Medium General Fund Short term Yes Works/Facilities 6-12 Packet Pg. 316 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a TABLE 6-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or In existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets? Mitigated Met Lead Department Cost Funding Timeline Plan? ED-05 — Encourage reduction of structural and non-structural earthquake hazards in homes, schools, businesses and government offices by providing information about retrofitting buildings and securing contents such as filing cabinets and other furnishings. Existing Earthquake 3,9 Development $20,000 General fund, Ongoing Yes Services grants ED-06 — Identify public buildings and infrastructure that require seismic retrofitting. Existing Earthquake 3,9 Public Low General Fund Short term Yes Works/Facilities, Development Services/Building ED-07: Use updated data & mapping for floodplains to update flood -loss estimates for City. Existing Flood; Climate 1, 2, 8 Development Medium Grants Short Term Yes Change; Severe Services, Public Weather Works/Facilities ED-08 — Develop acquisition and management strategies to preserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat, and water quality in the floodplain. Existing Climate Change; 4, 5, 8, 9 Public Works, Parks High FEMA HMGP, Long term Yes and New Flood; and Recreation RCO/Salmon Tsunami/Seiche Recovery, State and Local Funding ED-09 — Continue to enforce regulations regarding development and maintenance within landslide hazard areas. Develop public information to emphasize the risk when building in landslide hazard areas, as well as information on maintaining and enhancing slope stability. Existing Landslide/Mass 1, 2, 3, 9 Development Low General fund, Ongoing Yes Movement; Services Grants Earthquake ED-10: Encourage construction & subdivision design to reduce potential steep slope hazards. Existing Landslide/Mass 1, 2, 8 Development Medium General Fund Ongoing Yes Movement; Services, Public Earthquake Works/Engineering ED-11— Enhance public safety strategies for severe weather events. CD 00 ti T (L 2 A c 0 U 6 c U) m t 0 K m c c a c� i Q 6-13 Packet Pg. 317 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or In existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets? Mitigated Met Lead Department Cost Funding Timeline Plan? Existing Severe Weather; 3,5 Public Low FEMA HMGP, Ongoing Yes Climate Change; Works/Operations Stormwater Flood Utility ED-12 — Develop/implement programs to coordinate maintenance and mitigation activities to reduce risk to public infrastructure from severe weather events. Existing Severe Weather; 5,9 Public Low FEMA HMGP, Ongoing Yes Works/Operations, Utility Funds Facilities ED-13 — Develop and implement programs to reduce risk from trees during severe weather events. Existing Severe Weather; 3,5 Public Medium Street Fund, Ongoing Yes Earthquake Works/Operations FEMA HMGP ED-14 — Investigate opportunities to work with electrical utilities to use underground construction methods where possible to reduce power outages from severe weather. Existing Severe Weather; 9 Development Low Local Funding Short term No Earthquake Services, Public Works/Engineering ED-15 — Continue policy for maintaining back stock of air filters for key vehicles (Police, PW-Operations, etc.) and equipment (generators) as preparation for volcanic ash fall. Existing Volcano 9 Public Low Local funding Ongoing Yes Works/Facilities, Fleet ED-16 — Conduct a study to investigate the condition of the Five Corners Water Reservoirs in terms of meeting current seismic standards and take action as appropriate. Existing Earthquake 9 Public High FEMA HMGP, Short term No Works/Engineering Water Utility Fund ED-17 — Continue North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Program including groundwater well monitoring and slope stability studies. 6-14 Packet Pg. 318 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or In existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets? Mitigated Met Lead Department Cost Funding Timeline Plan? Existing Landslide/Mass 1, 2, 9 Public Medium Stormwater Short term No Movement; Works/Operations, Utility and Earthquake Engineering General Fund ED-18 — Conduct study to identify hazard avoidance zones, evaluate condition of street infrastructure in those zones, and take action as appropriate. Existing Earthquake; 3, 5, 9 Public High FEMA HMGP, Long term No Landslide/Mass Works/Operations, State and Local Movement; Engineering Funding Flood; Tsunami/Seiche; Severe Weather ED-19 — Willow Creek daylighting and Edmonds Marsh Restoration design/construction and flood plain property acquisition. Existing Climate Change; 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Public High RCO/salmon Long term No Flood; 9 Works/Engineering, recovery, Tsunami/Seiche; Parks and FEMA HMGP, Severe Weather Recreation Corps CAP, local funds ED-20 — Dayton/SR104 Stormwater Lift Station construction. New Climate Change; 5,9 Public High State and Local Short term No Flood; Severe Works/Operations, Funding Weather Engineering ED-21 - Public communication, including public safety alerts and related response information, using Facebook, Twitter and the City of Edmonds website. New and All 3,7 Community Minimal General Fund On -going No existing Services additional cost ED-22 - Assessment of economic impact of events to assist in recovery funding. 6-15 Packet Pg. 319 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-7. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or In existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets? Mitigated Met Lead Department Cost Funding Timeline Plan? New and All 3 Economic Minimal General Fund As needed No existing Development, additional Director cost ED-23: Sea level rise mitigation planning, including assessment of risk and strategies to address. Existing Climate Change; 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Development Low General Fund Short Term No Flood; Severe 9 Services, Public Weather Works, Parks and Recreation 6-16 Packet Pg. 320 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a TABLE 6-8. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant- Under Existing # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/Budgets? Prioritya ED-01 1 High High Yes Yes Yes Medium ED-02 I 1 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium ED-03 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes Medium ED-04 2 Medium Medium I Yes No Yes Medium ED-05 2 Medium Low Yes ' Yes No Medium ----------------- --- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ED-06 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium ----------------- ED-07 -------------------------- 3 i Medium Medium ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes Yes No Medium ED-08 4 Medium High No Yes No Medium ED-09 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium ED-10 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No High ED-11 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High ED-12 2 High Low Yes Yes Yes High ED-13 2 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High ED-14 1 Medium Low Yes No No Medium ED-15 1 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium ED-16 1 High High Yes -------------------------------------------------------------- Yes Yes High ED-17 3 Medium Medium Yes No Yes High ` ED-18 3 Medium High No Yes No Medium ----------------- ----------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ED-19 _________________ 6 Medium ___________________________ High No ________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes No Medium ED-20 2 ' High High Yes Yes Yes High ED-21 2 High Low Yes No Yes Medium ED-22 1 High Low Yes No Yes Medium ED-23 6 Medium Low Yes Yes No High c 0 a c 0 M a� 0 N M x am z r 4- 0 a� c �L M m x 2 0 a 0 00 1- IL x c 0 0 0 6 c W d z 0 x d c c Q L a 6-17 Packet Pg. 321 City of Edmonds Annex 6.2.a a. Explanation of priorities • High Priority: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short-term project) once funded. • Medium Priority: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. • Low Priority: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and timeline for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). • Packet Pg. 322 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex TABLE 6-9. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type (see Notes) 3. Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emergency 6. Structural Hazard Type 1. Prevention Protection Awareness Protection Services Projects 3, 9, 10, 14, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 3, 9, 10, 13 1, 3, 13, 14, 16, 18, 4, 5, 6, 16 Earthquake 17 14, 16 14, 17, 18, 21 22 Severe 7, 11, 12, 14, 12, 14, 19, 20 7, 11, 12, 13, 11, 12, 13, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 19,20 Weather ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19,23 14, 18, 21, 23 20,23 20, 22, 23 Climate 7, 8, 11, 12, 8, 12, 19, 20 2, 7, 11, 12, 21, 8, 11, 12, 19, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23 8, 19, 20 Change ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19,23 23 20,23 7, 8, 11, 12, 8, 12, 19, 20 7, 11, 12, 21, 23 8, 11, 12, 19, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23 8, 19, 20 Flood -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19,23 20,23 Landslide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 10, 17 1, 9, 10 9, 10, 17, 18, 21 9,10 1, 18, 22 Tsunami -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8,19 8,19 18,21 8,19 18,22 8,19 Volcano 15 21 15,22 Notes: 1. Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. 2. Property Protection: Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter -resistant glass. 3. Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. 4. Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. 5. Emergency Services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. 6. Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. 6-19 Packet Pg. 323 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Action # ED-01-M H-ST ----------------------------- TABLE 6-10. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Compl Carry Over to Removed; No eted Plan Update Longer Feasible Comments X Carried over as ED-01. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X Carried over as ED-02. X Carried over as ED-03. X Carried over as ED-04. X Carried over as ED-05. X Carried over as ED-06. ED-11-L-ST X ED-12-L-ST X ED-13-S-ST --------------------------------- ED-14-S-ST --------------------------------- E D-15-S-ST ED-19-V-LT ---------------------------------- ED-20-W-LT ED-21-W-LT X X X X X X X EI X 11 X X X Carried over as ED-07. Carried over as ED-08. Carried over as ED-10, changed to include continued management through regulation. Included in critical area update in 2016. Included in critical area update in 2016. Carried over as ED-11. Carried over as ED-12. Initiative coordinated by Snohomish Fire District, no longer a City department. Carried over as ED-13. Carried over as ED-14, changed to more collaborative effort with utilities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not practical, the City will make use of County or region -wide models developed by others. ----------------------- Carried over as ED-15 Initiative coordinated by Snohomish Fire District, no longer a City department. Initiative coordinated by Snohomish Fire District, no longer a City department. 6-20 Packet Pg. 324 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher Rd CITY OF EDMONDS Imo~ s Critical Facilities I a I N Bridge © Communication 168thStSv i �----- ® Dam �� 176thStSW q 1 ® Government Hazmat ® Medical i s $ Power i _ 1 ® ® protective ter' m j X �, " Ouget Dr SR 524 r 2 School Q = � Wastewater � 200th St S Wes'' P — > Water Tp r / ^3' -.+' •..- - ¢ i 204th St SW �� a m d' m �AaiQ St �� r Q Other --- 208th St SW p° 3 212�ySt SW — Date sources ,�nWiomsA County } u Q % S D 025 05 1 / d rn r 1Q� � 2 � t 220th St S -. ; cv 3 1 Mlles 0 025 05 1 v I �n _ , { --' � > c th St SW —i P! 5 W ¢ r �auualy zot5 Snohomish County ' L_ ��_.L/ W ¢ _ SURFACE NM TER MANAGEMENT �'= m • � � � nermeeon meem nerc m�enree ern nrrr I � � I—,t � d Jt1� <v\x/> cm°nwen°. ycoce umr.on., mnr nn°hw�m ue not onomirn county ma°en no epreunpum or m Hh ronc[rnw0 tn[ content, eccencr, wmncr, -__-- 2441h St SW <�> NE 205th St Map 6-1. City of Edmonds Critical Facilities 6-21 Packet Pg. 325 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex RSl-.er Rd CITY OF EDMONDS r� Earthquake Peak Ground Acceleration I 100-year Probabilistic i Scenario I— 168thStSW h j Mercalli Scale, Potential Damage IV, None f 176th St SW �9 V, Very Light i VI, Light % VII, Moderate i ¢ VII I, Moderate -Heavy / ¢ ¢ IX, Heavy rn m `o L }� uget Dr I I SR524 i _ 'm ON 200thStSW mi Q �y _w a l 204thStSW Q Data Sources' Main St O t" snohomtsh County 208th St SW yl HAZUS2.1 Output, USGeolog..1Survey / i,—f Washington State Dept of Natural Resources, C y 212th St SW Div.- of GeWogy.Ad Eetth Resources E L—_ _—_—__ m Q a m 0 0.25 0.5 1 $ _ Q Miles �+ 220th St S W L rn 9 � 0 025 0-5 1 s — o PI _ Q Q denuary m6 Snohomish County o 22�thStSW e _I r b1 � > Q L £ m PUBLIC WORKS SFACE WATER MANAGT MANAGEMENT UR (4p5) EMEN �� \� r � � 'ti >t<n[mnn moxsoniy xaoueno<m ee mn C.anonm m �� I Q N O- NnenCmenlsenanuoaetesin itne ona,iwelnerwin me engiwoie[uun �[udu nmrwonc, meyuvvW u��cn ere not L— � _ _,t N eA unNm bnnn ar p � K exrpr saNa eesnaenY�'�rnnry ormnnrmenrndoNo�nmem br iI. —,deW .. zaath slaw AY NE205thSt cnA.zsaacw,oro.e:w'.:�aw o f IpvinwrtbrplEmwflencyMprrf WAZ115120}SFIAIP W�sIPYvnIC.iivelEtlrtwide_iCOyrPt3A. rreC Map 6-2. City of Edmonds 100-year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario 6-22 Elf Q Packet Pg. 326 i i 1� Puget Dr i Sl_ j Main St / v I - < 6y h_� I 220thStSW m � I Q � I \o� 22�thStSW I� h 1 I \ L_I I I I � I 244thStSW Map 6-3. City of Edmonds 500-year Probabilistic Earthquake Scenario 6-23 v c N 168th SI SW 176th St SW I � 3 Z 4; 011 47 _J SR524 I L 200thStSW �I m a 204thStSW r- II 208th St SW 212th St SW Q � / r 4 I � q --i m 1 PISW ¢ 4 L I I � efJ StSE NE205thSt 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex CITY OF EDMONDS a Earthquake Peak Ground Acceleration 500-year Probabilistic Scenario Mercalli Scale, Potential Damage IV, None V, Very Light Vt, Light VII, Moderate mAll, Moderate -Heavy < m IX, Heavy s �g m` a Data Sources Snohorrtish coWry 1-lAZUS 2. r MAW, US G.W.91-1 Survey Washington Stale Depl ofMatural Resources, Division rGeorogy and Earth Resources 0 0.25 0.5 , Miles 0 0.25 0.5 , s I(ifameters y q Snohomish County � January 2015 PUBLIC WORKS P�9 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (4p5) 3663"64 an (7 enh w0 ere eN loFEew YhrtO oncM1l ou�ny [ob- �eMmenaep (0 9 upaeteetatAe Oele �IoOnner WlA otpn n�pprmae coon �[me �vwona, meyappM whim are not - nrr meFu no mPreoenlellon er ti ownN wnwmn9 ma mment amrmry, mmeney, mpnrnru or o.aro ormr oam wme�nra nrrcm ena �n a�.a.:n..m� �an>n.r,nmrn.m.alrr o<ra,.®er w n� WIXyb wiryaw � c qz so ucw cove:w+...a e. t�.e�m oo a.0 I IpwlewmlwnlEmer9ersYltP+yWAZU61y515F1MPVA�.m IP1enICAiesrEdmwrtl�500yrA?A-rma Packet Pg. 327 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher Rd CITY OF EDMONDS d a M Devil's Mountain Fault Peak Ground Acceleration j 7.1-Magnitude Scenario Shake Map I— 168thStSW ihl J — Mercalli Scale, Potential Damage �" IV, None ` / 7 176th St SW V, Very Light � VI, Light j VI I, Moderate VII I, Moderate -Heavy L IX, Heavy a L \ Puget Dr I SR 524 % FFj v ! _ � 200ih5iSWS'' d �5 a 204th St SW Main St I �{ $' Data solrces s o Gmsh cowry 20$th SS $W 2.9 Output. j USG We Gao 1- St Survey Washington Slane Dept or Naturall2esounres, � t' 212th St SW Orvson of Geology and Earth Resourres E 7 K o ozs os 9 Mlles 220th St 0 025 05 1 — I ------------ L `p m Kilometers L 1 t/226_thPI S W 4 P ¢ January 2015 Snohomish County O 226th StSW PUBLIC-3 ' l + L �_ i -t�L> �,•) _CUM TERM2M93EU 34VT t j L.11m I O a ei °. �cw°awy Pa n.n F 0.1. oii w Al -------------------�-�_—� 2441hStSW i 2 St NE 20Sth St 9 l.lpw It w mpfgl Eme.gelx yMgMWAN54�a i SHMPVAapi W aMCI[eSlEtlmo,MS_OeHb MIMGA.m.O Map 6-4. City of Edmonds Devil's Mountain Fault 7.1 Magnitude Earthquake Scenario 6-24 Packet Pg. 328 / Puget Dr j — a° Main St I rn O m E Q 220thStSW qj-_ rn 22 thStSW r— i I 244th St SW Map 6-5. City of Edmonds South Whidbey Fault 7.4 Magnitude Earthquake Scenario 6-25 Fisher I i I 168thStSW 176thStSW a' � L a tD �p Cb 4- -j SR524 I L 200th St SW Q'I � 204thStSW cLD I 208thStSW Il_IL � 212th St SW Q I � Q 7226t� PI S W a Z L_ L_ � + o _l h 2�4thStSE NE205thSt ___ 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex CITY OF EDMONDS Q South Whidbey Fault M Peak Ground Acceleration 7 4-Magnitude Scenario Shake Map Mercalli Scale, Potential Damage IV. None V, Very Light VI, Light VII, Moderate 3 } VII I, Moderate -Heavy M IX, Heavy �h cL Data Sources Snohamish comfy HAZUS 2.1 Output, USGeolog-I soNey Washington State Dept of Natural Resources, Drvtstoa or GeoNgy erM Earth Resources 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 0 025 05 1 s lglometers a Snohomish county January 2015 PUBLlC WORKS cam', SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (925) 38&3499 mw'� o��cmn� .� PPN..n,m°m 6nn er minpdcnw eremlb et inr o ale mnie:nca nrrcm ena K P.. �s �re�hNf bury or mnry b cn..¢sa acw�°�.e .vne•�a ..�n��a.e 11pwbMrrlpgl ErswgercyMprrIWAZU312Jf5£fAIPWeDeWervlCrt¢s�£dmvn�SWhtlfnyP3A naA L N fR tU t r 0 0 S to tJ 7 a 01 Go rZ. - Packet Pg. 329 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher HO CITY OF EDMONDS National Earthquake Hazard Z Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil Site Classes I 169th St SW Site Class F - Requires site — - — - — - specific investigation Site Class E - Soft Soil 176th St s W g� Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class C - Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock } Site Class B -Rock r - Water Jv Ice a+ t Puget Dr SR 524 v v _ fa m 200thStSW � h J co 204th St SW i Main St m Data sou car snohomsh County 208thStSW HAZUS2.1 Offipa, 7 US Geological Survey 2121h St S W tt K Washrngfon Stafe Dept MMatural Resources. �i D .hm Or Geology elld Eanh RBSWICBS 0 0.25 0.5 1 ''p�p L—____--yii. N 220th St SW 9 15 g 125 s i----- -- _ Kilometers I > a C Ate, _ M ! / Pi ¢ � ¢ 'Ij� gnohomish County O 228th StSW � S W - / January 2015 PUBLIC WORKS W WPR CE WATER MANAGEMENT i- W I-' \ -- _ 2,Ith St SE NE 20511h St e".a�:°m":•.�a �,�gae,..we�,'&eee°re.m.m� ca:zssacw�o.o:en rei.:�< ::mm o.o a.o 15prkxrepglErneryercyilprrl WAZ[151N thNMPWePs WenlCaiclEtlmonda_NENRP3oNs.nse Map 6-6. City of Edmonds National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classes 6-26 Packet Pg. 330 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher R _ CITY OF EDMONDS Liquefaction Susceptibility Sa i < Liquefaction Susceptibility 168thStSW K High i — Moderate to High �l J' 7 Moderate i 176thstSW g Low to Moderate Low j f Very Low to Low /l Very Low Q ¢ Q Not Susceptible to Liquefaction Bedrock �l Puget Dr SR 524 v Peat 200th St SW �' Water Ice 'bp! 7 < IS i 204th $t SW \h nets Sou'ces Main St 7a \ z � + _—_' J J 208thStSW 117 S SnCJmersh Coundy HAZu92.1 odpw, Wa GBORIgbel Survey wasnington state DeptWNatural Resource rn 212th St SW "I.- f Geology and Earth Resou . a I ------ I ¢ 0 0-25 0.5 1 rn \ I + 7 Q ¢ 0 025Miles 0-5 1 1 I 220LhStSW f m � a �-------- ! '� - /1 I � � Q Kilometers 44 {I i ©I in _ II 228tt1 St$W _ 1226ttf1 PI SW m Q 4 January 2015 Snohomish County PURUCWORKS c7 3 R5 CE MTER MANAGEMENT 33&3464 CD C't -� m certe �:mm i � ae�me om. meeeee .ro.H.anw � � w1 alxyb ---------------------- \ 244th St SW `i --- Af1 tht SE ---� 2 S NE 206ih St a e9e , Map 6-7. City of Edmonds Liquefaction Susceptibility 6-27 I�P.b�nYP91Z+ne„W�YNP.� WAZU3�201�NMPW4�WlenlGliae�EMmnW_W�ecOm.mN Packet Pg. 331 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher Rd CITY OF EDMONDS Flood Hazard Areas � I h� Special Flood Hazard 168th St SW Area (100 Year) _ I ��- Special Flood Hazard 11 Area (500 Year) (91 176th StSW g� Special Flood Hazard Area (Floodway) a' < L -Z E M �SR 524 1 CZ 200th St S W s 204th St SW Y, m M_3in St _ I 2081h s.rdro..,sn co.< Y Date sources St3W FEMA DGIal Fbotl in— Rate Maps c� Washingt- Sate DeptdNetaral Resources 212th S t S W ,s Dr,isbn orcedogy and Eera. Resources � Q �i 0 0.25 0.5 1 rn J Miles I I 220th St S Q W c 0 125 1s5 1 111 _---_—_-----r — <D10 IGlameters � d Snohomish county o rn 221h St SW r-/rVn Pi S W Q January 2015 - W PNBLIC WORKS C1 3VRMCE WATER MANAGEMENT (425)A1B34e4 ` / i G ane rP4 e c� Mcrca •n en •r i / 0 V 1 QG •cweiacc m. pro. M mn.v waN nnim am ou I �,� � G WmW h... vi�•�m�hr,� daro. c®y ___ -_-` _ �244thStSW � thStSE - ---- __ NE 205th St c.4•zss acw Map 6-8. City of Edmonds Flood Hazard Areas • 11pwMwnApplEnarpervcyAlpnl WAZUa12J15NNP WepslFenlCXeslEdnwitls_F�W.mtl Packet Pg. 332 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex Fisher R CITY OF EDMONDS Landslide Hazard Areas a I, < u, N 1681hStSW DNR Landslide Hazard Areas i Landslide Potential Areas: C Slope greater than 33% and 176thStSW elevation change greater h than or equal to 10 feet, intersecting soft and stiff soils, lj � a m L t � N v SR 524 c 200th St SW ¢� 204thStSW Main St — tc I r Data sources: �. I- 208th St SW srwlnortrtsh County / = VS G-bgrcal Survey Washington Stale DCrIWMatural Resources ra 212th St S W D.= or Geology and F-UI Resources E q }i 0 0.25 0.5 1 rn Q Miles 0 025 0.5 1 220thSl5W L -p ¢ Il � I I ,rNj as'i � G c m IGlameiers Snohomish Count 2260) pl S W ¢' 4 J— ii 2015 Y _ O m 2 thStSW r / 7 � N ' PUBLIC WORKS 0 3E (425) JB&Ja6'6s I L � I O aa :owwmlce.nscw<Orovbiona.mereOGNwniMe�[nd �} � wmddeneu[reuafN [rtAl Cete c[Mewetl A[tin end y �G eetydiae eex inn1v30 Glh or � n w 144thStSW - - �1 thStSE NE205thSt m can s Map 6-9. City of Edmonds Landslide Hazard Areas 6-29 rtawuwirncrm e=maroa,xruanrwa zus Ixo r.�rruawarswamcx�es�aamanes_umrnaa.,mn i Q Packet Pg. 333 6.2.a City of Edmonds Annex 'Washington Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division. c 0 IL c 0 0 a� L 0 N M d t a+ 4- 0 C �L M d V IL 0 00 I- T- EL x c O 0 6 c Cn a� z 0 x d c c Q 0 L a 6-30 Packet Pg. 334 6.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS, Washington RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTING THE UPDATED AND REVISED SNOHOMISH COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, all of Snohomish County has exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to life, property, environment, and the County's economy; and WHEREAS, pro -active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long- term risk to life and property; and WHEREAS, The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established new requirements for pre- and post -disaster hazard mitigation programs; and WHEREAS, a coalition of Snohomish County, Tribes, Cities, and Special Purpose Districts with like planning objectives has been formed to pool resources and create consistent mitigation strategies within the county; and WHEREAS, the 2010 edition of the Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan has been updated, the coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses the risk and vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent with a set of uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating, and revising this strategy; and WHEREAS, the coalition has completed a planning process that reviewed and/or revised the risk assessment, goals and objectives, action plan, and reengaged the public; and WHEREAS, FEMA has completed pre -adoption review of the revised Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan pursuant to 44 CFR Part 201, and City Council adoption must occur for the City of Edmonds to have a FEMA approved Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, it has been found that the proposed Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other State, Federal, and local regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: A. The Edmonds City Council hereby; 1. Adopts Volume 1 in its entirety and adopts the following portions of Volume 2: Part 1; the City of Edmonds jurisdictional annex and all Volume 2 appendices of the Snohomish County Hazard Mitigation Plan (SC HMP). A copy of said documents shall be available for review and inspection at the Snohomish County DEM Office and online at: http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/2429/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan Resolution # Page 1 Packet Pg. 335 6.2.b 2. Will use the adopted portions of the SC HMP to guide pre- and post -disaster mitigation of the hazards identified. 3. Will coordinate the strategies identified in the SC HMP with other planning programs and mechanisms under its jurisdictional authority. 4. Will continue its support of the Planning Coalition and continue to participate in the Coalition Partnership as described by the SC HMP. 5. Will help to promote and support the mitigation successes of all SC HMP Planning Partners. B. It is the purpose of the Resolution to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this Resolution. No provision or term used in this Resolution is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees for whom the implementation of this Resolution shall be discretionary and not mandatory. C. Nothing contained in this Resolution is intended to be, nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for, any liability on the part of the City or its officers, agents, and employees for any inquiry or damage resulting from the failure to comply with the provisions of this Resolution or be a reason or a consequence of any inspections, notice, or order, in connection with the implementation or enforcement of the Resolution, or by reason of any action of the City related in any manner to enforcement of this Resolution by its officers, agents, or employees. ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this day of 2017. By Dave Earling, Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk Resolution # Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney Packet Pg. 336 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/17/2017 Discussion regarding Council Retreat Agenda (15 min.) Staff Lead: Tom Mesaros Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council will use this opportunity to discuss the upcoming Council Retreat, scheduled for January 20- 21, 2017 in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds Public Library. The Retreat will begin at 12:00 noon on Friday the 20th. Packet Pg. 337