The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-02-21 City Council - Full Agenda-18451. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 21, 2017, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2017 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2017 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Approval of Budget for Alliance for Housing Affordability 5. City of Edmonds Commute Trip Reduction Plan and Ordinance (ECC 17.95) 6. Award of construction contract for Highway 99 Pipe Rehabilitation Project to Shoreline Construction Company 7. Ordinance Adopting RCW 9A.44.132 - Failure to Register As Sex Offender or Kidnapping Offender 8. Police Department Surplus Property AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing on Highway 99 Subarea Plan (90 min.) 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. Ordinance Requiring the Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms (10 min.) 2. City Council Meeting Format and Potential Committee Structure (20 min.) 8. STUDY ITEMS 9. 10. 11. 1. Preliminary December 2016 Quarterly Financial Report (15 min.) 2. 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (10 min.) 3. Shoreline Master Program (30 min.) MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) Edmonds City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 1 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda February 21, 2017 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 14, 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: 02-14-2017 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Tom Mesaros, Council President none Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Councilmember Mayor Dave Earling Elected Officials Absent Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember 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 Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. 2. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to interview a candidate for appointment to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. This interview was held in the Jury Meeting Room and was open to the public. ADJOURN At 6:57 p.m. the interview concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 14, 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: 02-14-2017 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 14, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (participated by phone Michael Nelson, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling 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 Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Buckshnis. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS FROM THIS MEETING AND THE LAST MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2017 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS 4. CONFIRMATION OF LAURA BRAITHWAITE OTTO'S APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION 5. CITY PERSONNEL POLICY UPDATES 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. UPDATE ON ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) is an interjurisdictional organization to which Edmonds belongs. Councilmember Tibbott currently serves as Edmonds' representative on the AHA Board. Chris Collier, Program Manager, Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) reviewed: • Introduction to the AHA o Need studied by SCT in 2009, AHA formally created in August 2013 o AHA's core mission: Facilitate the availability of housing within Snohomish county, meeting the needs of all income levels o Past Work by the AHA ■ Jurisdiction profiles ■ Assisted with Comp Plan housing elements ■ Jurisdiction dashboards o Work in the future ■ Help jurisdictions address their housing needs - Particularly for the 50-110% Area Median Income (AMI) bracket ■ Legislation tracking and updates ■ Outreach and education to community and government ■ Assist with research projects, presentations, and enhancing communication in the county • AHA Work Plan and budget o Data analysis ■ Reviewing the Census Bureau surveys and data - primarily American Communities Survey ■ Reviewing HUD data and policy documents ■ Research projects for jurisdictions o Technical expertise ■ Mapping (ArcGIS) ■ Web presence, programming, database management ■ Managing data gathering and automation projects for jurisdictions o Education and outreach ■ Presentations to councils and committees, working with community members to assist in connecting with the right people o Grants and Financial ■ Work to find funding for projects and new funding opportunities ■ Collaborative funding model similar to A Regional Council for Housing (ARCH) • The Alliance's budget request for FY2018 is $120,586 o The City of Edmonds is asked to contribute $3,841 of that • In practice: Data Analysis: o Many examples of data analysis work ■ On request: Highway 99 analysis of housing stock, affordability, and homeless services - Contributed to Edmonds' larger Highway 99 Area Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 - Included a phone survey of apartments in a specific area, and calls to homeless shelters and service providers ■ General research: Analysis of HUD and Census data — gaining clarity - Affordability now defined by HUD's "Seattle -Bellevue -Everett Metropolitan Statistical Area" - Tabulation of Census American Communities Survey data (more on that in Technical Expertise) ■ Independent analysis: Building Permit Survey Units Permitted by Year 2012-2015 Snohomish County Jurisdiction Single Family Two Family 3-4 Family 5+ Family Arlington 114 10 0 16 Stanwood 135 0 0 47 Mill Creek 97 0 20 365 Lynnwood 72 0 0 338 Edmonds 162 10 0 43 Mukilteo 132 0 0 0 Marysville 566 6 3 846 Everett 469 26 4 671 Total 1 1747 52 27 2326 In Practice: Technical Expertise o A lot of data out there, but hard to put it into a complete picture o Snohomish County Assisted Rental Housing Inventory, last done in 2010 ■ Working with the County to bring that idea back ■ Develop this in a framework onto which more data can be placed ■ Similar to the profiles, develop data profiles for every jurisdiction ■ Develop a step-by-step guide to collect that data annually ■ Updated by (for example) an AHA intern in the summer months o ArcGIS Mapping — updating the housing profiles, other projects to increase visualization of county housing In Practice: Education and Outreach o Presentations like this one ■ Take updated profiles and other data/technical tools on the road to council and planning commission meetings ■ Small group meetings with city and county staff to inform, refine and update ■ Community meetings as well - Mandated by HUD's AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) rule - Snohomish County is leading the AFH (Assessment of Fair Housing), but needs help with community outreach ■ Dispelling misconceptions about affordable housing Income Levels in Context Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle <39%AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-110% AMI >110% AMI Teachers Social Workers Accountants Engineers Food Service Medical & Dental Real Estate Police Officers & Veterinarians Employees - Line Assistants, Home Agents & Brokers Firefighters Cooks, Servers, Health Aides Dishwashers, Baristas Manicurists Security Guards Graphic Architects Web Developers Designers Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a Hairdressers EMTs & Electricians Construction Paramedics Managers Childcare Receptionists Paralegals Registered Nurses Physical Workers Therapists Minimum Wage Construction Car Mechanics Loan Officers Financial Workers workers Advisors In Practice: Grants and Financials o AHA currently not applying for grants to apply towards housing development o But happy to help members apply for, or review, grant and other financial applications o The end goal however, is collaborative funding, similar to ARCH in King County ■ Jurisdictions have the option to pay into the AHA through general fund, entitlement, fee waiver, surplus land donations, etc. ■ Applied regionally via loans and grants to developers to help get projects off the ground, in tandem with tax credits and other funding options ■ Typically assists with 1-4 projects annually Summary o Many paths to addressing housing issues in every jurisdiction, and every jurisdiction is different ■ Striking the right balance between the urban core and the missing middle ■ Done through zoning, code revision, ordinances, etc. ■ All this takes a lot of work, though o The AHA is here to help with this work so cities can meet their housing needs Councilmember Tibbott expressed appreciation to Mr. Collier for coming to the Edmonds Housing Task Force meeting. He asked how many cities participate in AHA. Mr. Collier answered there are 13 members; 11 cities, Snohomish County and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Councilmember Tibbott asked Mr. Collier to summarize the findings of the Highway 99housing survey. Mr. Collier said Highway 99 provides a range of rental unit prices. Most the units are one bedroom and tend to be in the upper price range which would price out 80% and lower AMI individuals although there are some more affordable units. Councilmember Tibbott expressed interest in providing that information to the Edmonds Housing Task Force Councilmember Tibbott referred to plans for collaborative funding via AHA and asked what the total grant pool would be. Mr. Collier said there have been preliminary discussion about collecting $500,000 on an annual basis from across the county. The rationale for those funds is when a developer applies for a loan, there are many requirements such as how long the units are held at an affordable rate, etc. His understanding in talking with developers is approximately $500,000 is the level where developers become interested and below that is more trouble than it is worth. The goal would be $500,000; it could be lower because it is somewhat less expensive to build in Snohomish County compared to east King County. Councilmember Teitzel commented churches and faith communities have been doing some work in the area of housing such as churches in Lynnwood who have provided property and built housing. He asked to what extent AHA was involved in the faith community and their efforts with the faith community's efforts. Mr. Collier answered he has not had many opportunities to reach out to the faith community; he viewed that as a great opportunity as the faith community is very interested in providing for populations in need. Enhancing collaboration across the county includes being a resource for the faith community when they are interested in assisting. He has had the opportunity to do a some of that in the past couple months but would like to do more. Councilmember Teitzel referred to tiny homes, recalling when they first were introduced 4-5 years ago, he thought they were a fad but has since realized they are here to stay. An Edmonds resident who wants to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a site a tiny home in their backyard and rent it at an "affordable" rate has a very difficult time doing so today. He asked if AHA would be supportive of Edmonds considering a change to its zoning code to allow that type of building. Mr. Collier answered he would be supportive of considering the applicability of tiny housing in Edmonds and other jurisdictions, recognizing the importance of having housing for every step of the life process. He envisioned someone such as a recent college graduate may be interested in a tiny house. Councilmember Nelson asked about the timeline for collaborative funding. Mr. Collier answered in the most optimist timeline, it would be up and running by 2019 as 2018 budget and planning process officially begin in most jurisdictions in about April. He summarized 2019 at the earliest, perhaps 2020 would be more practical. Councilmember Nelson observed ARCH typically assists with 1-4 projects annually. He asked the typical housing sizes/units in those projects. Mr. Collier answered the projects ARCH assists with range from homeowner assistance to assisting with a multi -million dollar multi -family housing development. ARCH has been involved in 200 unit developments. He offered to research and provide that information. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of the recommended budget and work plan on next week's Consent Agenda. 2. PRESENTATION OF THE REVISED CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PLAN AND ORDINANCE (ECC 17.95) Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an instruction: • 1991: Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law to call on employers to encourage their workers to drive alone less often, reduce carbon emissions and keep the busiest commute routes flowing. • 2006: Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Efficiency Act, amending the CTR requirements for local governments in Counties experiencing the greatest pollution and traffic congestion. • 2008: latest Edmonds CTR ordinance / Plan was adopted & expired in 2016 • 2016: a new CTR Efficiency Act was adopted with new guidelines / reason for revised plan & ordinance Mr. Hauss reviewed affected employers/main changes: • Three affected employers with more than 100 employees o Swedish Hospital o Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic o City of Edmonds • Main changes from previous version o Combination of northern half and southern half of Snohomish County ■ Previously - System split - 15% drive alone trip reduction goal in southern half, vs. 5% in norther half ■ Proposed - Combined into one - Provide consistency throughout entire county - Revised drive alone trips goal through county 7% (between 2017 and 2019) o Removal of identifying reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)/greenhouse gas emissions requirements o More frequent updates (from annual reports to quarterly reports) o Consistent with goals identified in 2015 Transportation Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 He provided a Quarterly Summary regarding the number of Non -Drive Alone Trips: 2015 2016 Network Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Total Reduction % City of Edmonds 764 1304 1089 1473 4630 1603 1386 1386 1846 6534 29% (Employees) Edmonds Family 641 774 462 772 2749 1009 745 536 570 2860 4% Medicine Clinic - Edmonds Swedish 1802 2253 2346 2633 9034 2472 2660 2509 1889 9530 13% Medical Cntr - Edmonds Mr. Hauss described the ongoing incentives program at City level: • On -going since 2015 • Advertised through monthly emails / posters • Participants log in trips on monthly basis on Community Transit website • 2016: $4,000 allocated to program o $1,000 from local fund o $3,000 from Community Transit (grant secured) o Monthly raffle for range of prizes • 2017: $2,000 allocated to program o $2,000 from local fund o (16) employees (— 10% workforce) participated in program in January 2017 o Participation has increased since program started in 2015. Mayor Earling commented Mr. Hauss is unrelenting in his efforts to encourage staff to drive alone less often. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the increase in bike lanes in the City such as on 76th and in other areas and asked what role bike lanes play in reducing commuter traffic. Mr. Hauss answered bike lanes improve the safety of a cyclist. The long-range goal is to add as many bike lanes as possible, the 76th/212th project will add bike lanes on 76th from 220th to Olympic View Drive and on 212th from 72 d to Five Corners, approximately 3 miles of bike lanes on major arterials. The bike lanes also serve to decrease the speed of vehicles which increases the comfort level of bicyclists. He anticipated the bike lanes would result in additional biking and fewer drive alone trips. Council President Mesaros said he and Councilmember Teitzel often walk to Council meetings and asked if those could be counted;. Mr. Hauss answered he did not think so but he would check. Council President Mesaros said many people are seeking alternative modes of travel and is an important component in developing housing in a way that people can afford to live in Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Hauss for his efforts. He referred to the statement in the City's CTR Plan, "In Snohomish County 62% of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to transportation. By working to reduce vehicle miles traveled, CTR supports both the Governor's and County Executive's executive orders on climate change and reduction of GHG," noting the update removes the requirement to track GHG emissions. He asked whether GHG emissions are tracked in any other way to demonstrate a positive impact in GHG emissions. Alex Mehn, Community Transit, explained Community Transit is the implementer of CTR programs throughout Snohomish County. The requirement to track GHG emissions was eliminated from the plans was because, 1) the State is now looking more toward increases such as in non -drive alone rate versus decreases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and 2) VMT and GHG Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 4.2.a are affected by the mode of transportation as well as where people chose to live and work. The CTR as a goal does not have the power to implement land use changes to encourage people to move. By focusing on increasing alternate trips, it still captures worksites that make a difference in the community, people driving less and taking the bus, walking or biking more. Community Transit still tracks GHG and VMT via the log program; every CRT participant tracks their trips via a trip tracking system which still provides GHG and VMT numbers, but there are no requirements to meet those goals based on those numbers. That information is provided to the cities and employers for consideration in meeting individual climate change goals. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of this item on next week's Consent Agenda. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dean Olson referred to the two resolutions on the Council's agenda, expressing support for the one related to informing the police when a person prohibited from owning a gun tries to buy one. He anticipated this would prevent a bad ex -boyfriend creating another victim. He recalled when growing up in unincorporated King County, being robbed of his bike at gunpoint when he was 10-12 years old. He expressed support for the second resolution regarding responsible storage of firearms so that kids do not play games with them. Janet Smith expressed support for the resolutions related to common sense gun safety. In particular, the resolution to encourage gun owners to safely store their guns and prevent children having access to them is something Edmonds should do to support the measure before the State legislature as well as sending a message to other cities that Edmonds believes in common sense gun safety. She referred to an email she received from Gabby Giffords that contained the shocking statistic that toddlers with access to guns have been responsible for killing one person/week for the last two years in the United States. There are many other shocking statistics about unintentional deaths that result from someone getting ahold of gun. Toddlers tend to point guns at themselves, young children play with guns, teens having a bad day may use a gun to commit suicide. It is a small thing ask people who own guns to store their guns safety to prevent these unintentional deaths. Leah Bernstein, Edmonds, recalled spending much of her early childhood bouncing around the backseat of her parent's station wagon with her siblings, seatbelt free. Her parents weren't negligent or wish them harm, they were simply uninformed and there were no seatbelt laws. When mandatory seatbelts became effect, her parents implemented the use of seatbelts, not finding the law an affront to their freedom and understanding the law was enacted after studies proved that seatbelts could prevent serious injury and death. Much like what was discovered about seatbelts, data/statistics prove the effectiveness of secure firearm storage laws. The rates of unintentional shootings and child suicides are lower in states with access prevention laws. A study by Everytown for Gun Safety revealed that 70% of unintentional child shootings would have been prevented had there been secure storage. She cited several examples such as a 3-year-old in Lake Stevens who shot himself with his father's gun, a child in Bremerton who suffered irreparable and lifelong injury when a boy brought a gun to school in his backpack, the tragedy in Maryville and a teenager in Tacoma who grabbed his father's gun and took his own life because of an unexpected bad grade. In her experience as an advocate for gun safety, she has never heard of a parent who lost a child through an unintentional shooting say I wondered if my child would find my gun and shoot himself but I was willing to take that chance. They always say they never thought it would happen, that their child would never find the gun. She was encouraged the Council was considering the resolution to support safe storage laws. She relayed her teenage daughter saying she had heard a student at her school was arrested for bringing a gun to school, of hearing kids boast that they know the combination to their parent's gun safe and of a rumor that a kid brought a gun to a party last weekend. The City taking a stand this way can make a difference; the resolution can be used to spread the word about the importance of access prevention as well as to influence lawmakers. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 4.2.a Lynn Carpenter, Edmonds, representing the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County, said the League has had a position on gun safety since 1994 and advocating for HB 1122. She was thrilled the City Council was considering the resolution, commenting the more people hear about firearm safety and how it makes sense, the better off the public will be. She read from the League of Women Voters' gun control position, measures should be taken to limit young people's access to firearms. These should include the following: gun free zones in school areas, an age limit and requirements for safe gun storage. Gary Gibson, Edmonds, explained he is the founder and executive director of Steel Magic Northwest, a new Edmonds -based 5013c non-profit providing after school steel band classes to children in the Edmonds School District regardless of their ability to pay as well as a local community band. His non- profit organization applied for a special event permit that required a short term street closure and was denied. After going through the process, he learned the City has a de facto policy against allowing non - city groups to close a street for an event, immediately evident when he asked the City Clerk's Office whether the City allowed street closures by non -city groups. He received neither a yes or no answer from the Clerk's Office, just "well the city really doesn't like to close streets for these types of events but you should apply anyway." In a follow-up conversation with Assistant Police Chief Lawless, he said closing street to vehicle traffic creates a pedestrian hazard and street closures are a hassle for the Police Department. In email thread about the application, some expressed the wish that the City could charge a fee for street closures to recoup the cost of staff time and other costs; he was surprised the City did not charge a fee and expressed willingness to pay for the additional required services. If non -City entities are not permitted to close the street, the form should state that, the City Clerk's office should state that and the option should be removed from the form. If the City wants to retain the option to offer street closures to non -City groups, there should be clear, written criteria accessible to the applicant so that all are judged equally. He referred to written information he provided that included Bellingham and Montpelier, Vermont's applications that encourages community celebrations and block party permit applications from Kirkland and Seattle, community events that Police and Fire often participate in. Emily Padnick, Edmonds, an employee of Edmonds School District but speaking about gun safety as a concerned parent of three children, said the safety of her children was determined by a few factors, most importantly what she has taught them, how they react to new situations and what situations they find themselves in. If the proposed ordinances are place, her children have a greater likelihood of surviving an encounter with a gun. Although she can tell them what to do in that scenario, they may not remember or be too scared to remember. If a firearm is secured with a lock or if the ammunition is also secured separately, the survival rate improves. She thanked the Council for considering the ordinance and encouraged the Council to take further steps if these ordinances are approved. Megan Wolf, Edmonds, the mother of two young children, expressed strong support for the gun safety measures. She is a parent who asks whether families have guns and whether they are stored safely before her children are allowed to go to the house and if not, they are not allowed at that house. Her family has nerf guns but no other guns. She wants her kids and all kids to be safe when they go to friends' houses. Safe gun storage is a simple ask of anyone who owns a gun. When telling 6 year -old where she was going tonight, he captured her feeling on the issue well, saying, why wouldn't anyone want to do that? She urged the Council to support the gun safety measures and support the community from gun violence. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, expressed support for both gun safety measures. It seemed to be common sense if a person chooses to exercise their Second Amendment right, they should also be required to do everything in their power to ensure their right to own a gun does not unintentionally result in someone else losing their right to life. Unfortunately, this does not always happen and tragedies occur on nearly a daily basis. She urged the Council to support both measures in an effort to reduce tragedies. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 4.2.a Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with the fencing outside the building that required him to walk around to reach the building entrance and suggested providing a pathway to the parking area. He referred to a comment in the minutes by Councilmember Teitzel that the restroom on the waterfront will be removed when the flyover is constructed, pointing out there was no evidence that will be necessary. He referred to safe cities and sanctuary cities, commenting Edmonds was getting quite liberal and he hoped the City would not become a sanctuary city because of the resulting loss of funding. He described a business in Edmonds that stays open late and serves alcohol that has a limited number of employees. Recently three officers questioned an employee early in the evening and returned after midnight, telling customers pay and leave and the employee was taken away. The employee was denied the use of their cell phone, violating their rights. The employee was questioned until 5 a.m. and questioning concluded, required to walk back to their car unescorted. He suggested the City should be concerned about lawsuits and police behavior as a lot of rights were violated that evening. 7. STUDY ITEMS REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 PIPE REHABILITATION PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the cured -in -place pipe (CAPP) rehabilitation program that the Council approved in April 2016 included the sewer line under the west sidewalk on Highway 99 between 216th and 220th. The condition of the pipe was poor and lining it was believed to be the most cost effective approach to avoid removing the sidewalk. Upon closer examination, a portion of the pipe, approximately from the north side of the Starbuck's driveway to past the driveway of Dick's Drive In, was found to be worse than expected with the bottom of the pipe missing. With the missing piece, inserting a liner would not be a good long term solution. That section of pipe was removed from the CIPP and a decision was made to pipe -burst it, pulling a bursting head through the pipe with a cable to break what remains of the pipe, pushing it out of the way and dragging a new sewer line which should be a very effective technique. The specifications have been developed, the project went out to bid, three bids were received. The engineer's estimate was $167,000; the low bid was $108,740 with Shoreline Construction. He sought Council award of the contract award for the work. Additional cost include managing the project $16,000, management reserve, 15% of the project cost for a total of $147,000. He requested Council schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of this item on next week's Consent Agenda. 2. POLICE DEPARTMENT SURPLUS PROPERTY Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained the Police Department routinely collects property that is no longer serviceable, has been damaged and is no longer of use. The extensive list of property in the agenda packet includes bulletproof vests that have an expiration date which will be returned to the manufacturer for recycling. An outside vendor is used to surplus and auction the items. He requested authorization to surplus the items be scheduled for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. Councilmember Teitzel asked how the proceeds from auctioned surplused items are accounted for. ACOP Lawless answered a distribution of funds is deposited into the General Fund. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of this item on next week's Consent Agenda. 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING RCW 9A.44.132 - FAILURE TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER OR KIDNAPPING OFFENDER Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 4.2.a Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained an RCW provides for a gross misdemeanor charge for certain situations involving sex offenses and failure to report. As this RCW has not been adopted and codified into the ECC, when those situations arise, the charge must be filed in South District Court. Adopting the RCW in the ECC would allow crimes to be filed in the Municipal Court. Council President Mesaros asked if the ordinance was primarily the same as the RCW. ACOP Lawless answered it is exactly the same, the ordinance adopts it by reference so that whenever the RCW changes, any changes are automatically adopted. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 4. RESOLUTION TO PROTECT CHILDREN THROUGH THE RESPONSIBLE STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE REPORTING OF LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS Councilmember Nelson thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her help and counsel in drafting these measures to prevent gun violence. He agreed with the comment by Megan Wolf s child, why wouldn't anyone want to do that? This agenda item includes a resolution and an ordinance which have different impacts. The State legislature has the primary authority related to the regulation of firearms. The resolution supporting the responsible storage of firearms to protect children supports HB 1122 which establishes criminal liability for a gun owner that does secure their firearm and a child gets ahold of it and hurts or kills someone. He shared facts to support this action: • The rate of school shootings in Washington State is 2.2 times higher than the national average during the past 20 years. • In Washington State, a child or teen is killed by a gun every 8 days • 90% of fatal firearm incidences involving children occur in the home • 1 of every 3 handguns is kept loaded and unlocked • Almost 3/4 of children under the age of 10 know exactly where the guns are in their homes o In Washington State that equates to 987,000 unlocked guns • Parents with teenage children are less likely to store firearms safely than parents with younger children even though older children are at greater risk of firearm death • Particularly in Snohomish County, a person is 7 times more likely to die by suicide from a gun than by homicide • Impulsivity plays a significant role in suicide attempts 0 1/4 of suicide attempts are decided within 5 minutes, 70% decided within an hour and easy access to firearms increases that risk • A King County study found the risk of firearm suicide by children is nine times higher when the firearm is stored in an unsafe manner • The practice of keeping firearms locked, unloaded and storing ammunition in a locked, separate location serve as a protective measure that reduces the unintentional injury and suicide in homes where guns are stored • 28 states have child access prevention laws for the responsible storage of firearms, yet Washington currently has no such law. Councilmember Nelson summarized his hope was that Edmonds would lead in promoting gun safety and preventing gun violence and encourage other cities in Snohomish County to pass similar resolutions to send a message so that this legislation is passed this year. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the language in the resolution compared to HB 1122. Councilmember Nelson said Section 1 of the resolution contains some of the language from HB 1122. Councilmember Tibbott asked about providing the resolution to neighboring cities as a model. Mayor Earling suggested sending copies to the other cities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the resolution. His family has direct experience with gun violence; 30 years ago, his younger brother who was going through a rough emotional period, killed himself with his father's 22 hunting rifle. The rifle did not have a trigger lock and was not in a gun safe. He liked to think if it had been secured properly, his brother would be here today. For that reason, he supports the resolution. He also supports the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms but in a responsible manner. If that can be encouraged via this resolution, he was supportive of that. Council President Mesaros added his support for the resolution. He agreed with the earlier statements, why would anyone not want to promote gun safety. It is an important issue for people to consider for their own families as well as when children visit friends' homes in their elementary and teenage years. He concluded responsible ownership of firearms was a crucial element of the Second Amendment. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1383, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORTING THE RESPONSIBLE STORAGE OF FIREARMS TO PROTECT CHILDREN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nelson explained the proposed ordinance requires the reporting of lost and stolen firearms. If a person's firearm is discovered to be lost or stolen, the person is required to notify Edmonds Police Department within 24 hours and to provide a description of the firearm including the serial number. Failure to do so will result in a civil infraction of a $500 fine. He provided facts supporting the ordinance: • In one year, 553 guns were reported stolen or lost in Washington, many went unreported • Lost or stolen firearms are frequently involved in the commission of crimes • 96% of stolen or lost guns in Washington were from private individuals not businesses • Individuals are often unable to report the serial number to law enforcement because they are not required to maintain records of the firearms they own for identification purposes, resulting in many lost and stolen firearms entering the secondary market undetected by those prohibited by law from possessing a gun • Laws that require the reporting of lost and stolen firearms to police promote public safety by enabling law enforcement to better track illegal guns and firearms used in the commission of crimes. • Every time a gun is stolen, an armed criminal is created Council President Mesaros asked whether there was a limit on the amount of the fine. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he hoped this item would go to the Consent Agenda so he would have time do additional research. He wanted to ensure this is not preempted by State law and in the course of researching that, he could also check into the fine. Council President Mesaros suggested there could be a series of fines, $500 for a first offense, $1500 for a second offense, etc. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the ordinance, finding it a common-sense way to address gun safety. He asked how existing gun owners would be notified, anticipating some gun owners may not have the serial numbers. He acknowledged information could be provided to new gun owners at the time of purchase. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as a general rule, there is no notice requirement to inform citizens of general laws. Ordinances are published in the official newspaper. Councilmember Tibbott asked if he had any suggestions regarding how to inform citizens. Mr. Taraday answered the City has many ways of doing outreach such as its website, press releases, etc. Mayor Earling assured if the ordinance is passed, there would be a press release, information provided on the City's website, etc. Councilmember Nelson read a letter from Snohomish Health District Executive Director Gary Goldbaum in support of the Council's efforts to reduce gun violence, notably consideration of the resolution and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 4.2.a ordinance. In 2013 Snohomish County Board of Health passed a resolution that calls on federal and state lawmakers to take meaningful action to address gun violence. The City's resolution aligns with the Health Board's decision. The resolution would urge the Legislature to pass HB 1122. Many statistics about gun violence highlight the marked increase of risk of youth suicide and accidental death in households where firearms are present. There's ample evidence that laws requiring secure storage of firearms reduce injuries and death of children while not preventing appropriate adult access to firearms. Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials supports HB 1122 and he urged the Council to join his colleagues and him in passing the resolution. The ordinance requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms to law enforcement would prevent diversion of firearms for illegal use. He believed any efforts to reduce the number of firearms available on the street would reduce youth access and thereby reduce youth suicides. Suicide among youth is especially impulsive so ready access to a firearm dramatically increases the likelihood that depressed youth will succeed in killing himself or others. This contrasts to other means such as hanging or overdose which require more effort and could be more easily interrupted. He urged the City Council to pass the ordinance and applauded the City for recognizing gun violence as a public health issue that demands multiple prevention strategies. The resolution and ordinance are important steps to reducing gun violence. Council President Mesaros suggested scheduling the ordinance on next week's agenda as an action item to facilitate a discussion with the City Attorney. Mr. Taraday advised Beth Ford will be at next week's Council meeting and will be prepared to answer questions. Councilmember Nelson advised the ordinance regarding reporting of stolen and lost firearm was based on the City of Seattle's ordinance that has been in effort for several years and contains the same fine amount. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling said he will be in Olympia the next 1 %2 days at the AWC Legislative conference where he will have an opportunity to talk to several legislators regarding the City's legislative agenda. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Mesaros hoped Mayor Earling would express the City's support for HB 1122 during meetings in Olympia and encourage legislators to pass the bill. Mayor Earling agreed it will be a topic of conversation. Councilmember Tibbott announced the Highway 99 Plan draft plan is posted on the City's website and citizens have a final opportunity to provide comment. The Highway 99 plan will be very important to decisions related to housing as well as commercial development in the corridor. Councilmember Teitzel wish everyone Happy Valentine's day and remarked on how much he had enjoyed celebrating with his fellow Councilmembers. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of wire payment on February 10, 2017 for $6,046.38. Approval of claim checks #224129 through #224225 dated February 16, 2017 for $400,069.06. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62595 through #62602 for $529,246.39, benefit checks #62603 through #62608 and wire payments of $592,127.65 for the pay period February 1, 2017 through February 15, 2017. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Fiscal Impact Claim checks and wire payment $406,115.44 Payroll checks and direct deposit $529,246.39 Benefit checks and wire payments $592.127.65 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 02-16-17 wire payment 02-10-17 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 02-16-17 payroll summary 02-15-17 payroll benefit 02-15-17 Packet Pg. 19 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224129 2/16/2017 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 380705 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTR MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Tota 224130 2/16/2017 075470 ACCELA INC INV-ACC27766 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AG LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AG 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Tota 224131 2/16/2017 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1865520 SHRED SHRED 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 Tota 224132 2/16/2017 069803 AIRVAC 13577 FS 20 - FILTERS FS 20 - Filters 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota 224133 2/16/2017 060205 ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP 15547030-00 FAC MAINT MATERIAL Fac Maint Material 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota 224134 2/16/2017 065568 ALLWATER INC 012417061 WWTP: 1/30/17 DRINKING WATE 4.3.a Page: 1 c ca .r .y O a� r Amoun 2 L_ OI � OI � 82.3: I : 82.3. u 4- E W c E 1,350.0( -a I: 1,350.0( M R M 1,692.0( c a 312.0( Q I: 2,004.0( .. LO 0 0 108.3( r co r 10.6' N 1 : 118.9, o N Y E W 17.8: 6 c 56.3E E Page: 1 Packet Pg. 20 R M 1,692.0( c a 312.0( Q I: 2,004.0( .. LO 0 0 108.3( r co r 10.6' N 1 : 118.9, o N Y E W 17.8: 6 c 56.3E E Page: 1 Packet Pg. 20 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224134 2/16/2017 065568 065568 ALLWATER INC 224135 2/16/2017 070976 AMERESCO INC 224136 2/16/2017 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 4.3.a Page: 2 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m (Continued) Total : 74Z ,L RETAINAGE WWTP: C457 PH 4 ENERGY PROJE ui Retainage released for payment by D 423.100.223.400 40,912.5( u Total : 40,912.5( 4- a� 22473 SM PLASTIC PLATES FOR LARGE E m SM PLASTIC PLATES FOR LARGE E 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 101.8( c 224137 2/16/2017 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-1711 224138 2/16/2017 073573 ANIXTER 224139 2/16/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES APA'17 DUES- CLUGSTON APA'17 DUES- CLUGSTON 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Total: 101.8E c� Tota 23K-142883 YOST PARK - SUPPLIES Yost Park - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota 1990018552 WWTP: 2/8/17 UNIFORMS, TOWEI wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1990018553 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1990018554 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 0 L a 514.0( E 514.0( 2 U 4- 0 70.1( o a Q. 6.8E Q 77.01 LO W 00 ti 5.6E r 115.9E c N Y 0.5E E 11.31 c m 55.0( E R .r r Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 21 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224139 2/16/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1990022482 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT 4.3.a Page: 3 � T: � � T: c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 27.4( m 2.6� U +. c 1.6' � 6.1' c�a o 6.1' L>% T� a 6.1' 6.1' U 0 6.0£ 0 L 0.1f a Q AT 0.6( Ln w 00 0.6( ti r 0.6( co r N 0.6( N 0.5£ •� 5.9: m 18.4( t R .r r Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 22 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224139 2/16/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 Total: 224140 2/16/2017 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1037741-IN WWTP: 2/10/17 DIESEL FUEL 2/10/17 DIESEL FUEL--ULSD #2 DYI 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 Total: 224141 2/16/2017 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S 086217 ALERTON SYSTE, - PW - PM CONTI Alerton Syste, - PW - PM Contract 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total: 224142 2/16/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 92404 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.3.a Page: 4 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L_ 0.5E m 1.8' U 280.6E w c m 2,475.8( cm 0 242.6z ">% 2,718.5: a E U 2,866.5( o 0 280.9, c 3,147.4, a 0. Q W 150.8( CO 150.8� r co 155.41 C� 0 N 537.6' E 537.6' 'ca 14.4� c m E 14.4� R .r r Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 23 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a W Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224142 2/16/2017 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) L_ 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.9, 92587 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing U 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 119.5' UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing c 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 119.5' UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 123.1, c�a UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage o 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 428.2' UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage a 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 428.2( 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.4E u 9.6% Sales Tax 4- C 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.4E 9.6% Sales Tax o 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 11.8' a Total: 2,829.6� Q 224143 2/16/2017 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2017-EDM-01 PLAN REVIEW- MADRONA K-8 LO w Plan Review- Madrona K-8 v 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 22,971.3E ti Total: 22,971.31 224144 2/16/2017 075928 BELFOR USA GROUP INC 24737.F CITY PARK FIRE DEMO r c CITY PARK FIRE DEMO w 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 12,246.1' 0 Total: 12,246.1' E 224145 2/16/2017 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 12927 E6FB.SERVICES THRU JANUARY 2 E6FB.Services thru January 2017 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 3,130.7E Page: 5 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224145 2/16/2017 073760 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 224146 2/16/2017 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 224147 2/16/2017 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # (Continued) 5378 YOGA 5381 YOGA 5384 YOGA 5387 YOGA 5390 YOGA 5393 YOGA 5409 PILATES 93132876 93132877 93142672 93142673 Description/Account 5378 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5378 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5381 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5381 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5384 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5384 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5387 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5387 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5390 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5390 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5393 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5393 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5409 PILATES INSTRUCTION 5409 PILATES INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 BLN JETTY QUARRY SPALLS BLN JETTY QUARRY SPALLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 BLN JETTY QUARRY SPALLS BLN JETTY QUARRY SPALLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 BLN JETTY QUARRY ROCK BLN JETTY QUARRY ROCK 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 BLN JETTY QUARRY ROCK BLN JETTY QUARRY ROCK Tota Tota 4.3.a Page: 6 c ca .y 0 a W Amoun 3,130.7E ,L N m 475.6E W c 288.4E c c� 649.3E o a 313.6E 342.0( c 0 527.4( a Q. Q 460.2"1 to I: 3,056.71, °r° ti r r 467.7E N 0 N 510.6E E 1,501.7: m E t U R .r r a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224147 2/16/2017 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 224148 2/16/2017 075857 CERIUM NETWORKS INC 224149 2/16/2017 066468 COAST PRODUCTS INC 224150 2/16/2017 075936 COIT SERVICES INC 224151 2/16/2017 075934 COLIBRI FACILITATION 224152 2/16/2017 061529 COMPTON, DOUGLAS 224153 2/16/2017 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 059960 NETWORK PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS Network problem diagnosis for fiber 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 Tota 117-0206 FAC - WINDOW FANS FAC - Window Fans 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota Bus Lic Refund LI Refund Cst #00218006 LI Refund Cst #00218006 001.000.257.310 Tota 8002 SCRIBE SERVICES FOR 2017 ST 4.3.a Page: 7 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 514.5< 2,994.71 Y m t U 180.0( c m 17.6z 197.6, 0 L c� 1,002.0( E 22.9: TU w 0 100.4E @ 1,125.4( o L Q Q. Q 50.0( coo 50.0( CO AT f ti r � 800.0( N 1 : 800.0( c N Y E 9.6E 1 : 9.6E c m E t R .r r Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224153 2/16/2017 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC (Continued) 224154 2/16/2017 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3321450 224155 2/16/2017 006375 DAY & NITE PLUMBING 009145-2 224156 2/16/2017 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 207081 224157 2/16/2017 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 207155 17-3738 17-3739 224158 2/16/2017 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 17-2647.1 4.3.a Page: 8 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 393.2: Total : 393.2E Y m RFQ FOR PLAN REVIEW & CONSTF RFQ for Plan Review & Construction Lr- 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 432.0( c Total : 432.0( SR CENTER - REPAIRS c Sr Center - Repairs f° 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 760.0( o 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 74.4E Total : 834.41 . SR CENTER ELEVATOR CERT RENI w Sr Center Elevator Cert Renewal 0 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.0( > PS ELEVATOR 2017 CERT RENEW/ o PS Elevator 2017 Cert Renewal a 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 129.0( Q Total : 258.0( � 00 INV#17-3738 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-31355 ti 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 r 258.4( TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-28648 r 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 N 149.6( G CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Y 02/07/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETIN( 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 214.2( Total: 622.2( 6 E7CA.TO 17-01.SERVICES THRU 1/ r m E7CA.TO 17-01.Services thru 1/29/1 i E 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 t 3,498.6, .r r Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 224158 224159 224160 224161 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice 2/16/2017 070244 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES II (Continued) 2/16/2017 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4446580 4446990 2/16/2017 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2017-02-01 2/16/2017 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR59602 PO # 4.3.a Page: 9 Description/Account Total : 3,498.6, .L PM: CITY PARK SEWER COUPLING ui PM: CITY PARK SEWER COUPLING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.1 PM: CITY PARK SEWER SEALANT, PM: CITY PARK SEWER SEALANT, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 207.9, m Total : 234.1' c 02/17 RECREATION SERVICES COP f° 02/17 Recreation Services Contract F 0 L 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 6,250.0( M PW COPY USE PW Copy Use 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 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 Tota 6,250.0( E 4- 12.2E c c� 6.9( o a Q. 6.9( Q 0 4.9' o 4.9' r 4.9, N 0 N 1.2( E 0.6E 'ca 0.6E m E 0.4E R .r r Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224161 2/16/2017 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) AR59604 224162 2/16/2017 065789 ESTES, KEN 21 224163 2/16/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH740601 EDH742153 EDH742595 224164 2/16/2017 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 33095 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 10 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 0.4£ m 0.4� U 4- aD c 8.1� 8.1( c�a 0 0.8' L>% c0 a 0.8( 0 Total : 62.91 '@ U LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI 0 PRESCRIPTION CO PAY 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 745.9z o MEDICARE PREMIUM L a 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.8( Q Total : 2,004.71 Un W RFQ FOR PLAN REVIEW & CONSTF 00 RFQ for Plan Review & Construction 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 182.3, r LEGAL AD PLN2016-0060 & 61 LEGAL AD PLN2016-0060 & 61 c 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 113.5, w CITY NOTICES- HWY 99 SUBAREA U CITY NOTICES- HWY 99 SUBAREA E 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.8z 10 PS - HVAC REPAIRS 9.8% Sales Tax Tota 1 : 333.61 r c m E t R .r r Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224164 2/16/2017 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C (Continued) 224165 2/16/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU42851 224166 2/16/2017 075807 FORREST GARDENS LLC #6 224167 2/16/2017 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 253-011-1177 425-712-0423 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 PS - HVAC Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 PM: SHOP TOOLS PM: SHOP TOOLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 11 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 90.9, ui 928.0( 4) Total: 1,018.91 U Tota CITY DOWNTOWN RESTROOM C City Downtown Restroom Construct 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Tota TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LIN PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LIN 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LIN 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LIN 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 WWTP: 2/7-3/6/17 AFTER HOUR WWTP: 2/7-3/6/17 AFTER HOUR 4- a� c m 24.2 1 1 : 24.2 , O o io M 29,419.7z - 1 : 29,419.71 E A w U A, 0 261.0E > A, o a 261.0E o E Ln 0 6.3E 00 E E E B 24.Z r r 24.Z N • o N 24.Z E 24.Z BLi t U R .r r Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 30 E E E B 24.Z r r 24.Z N • o N 24.Z E 24.Z BLi t U R .r r Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224167 2/16/2017 011900 FRONTIER 224168 2/16/2017 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 224169 2/16/2017 073629 GCR TIRES & SERVICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PH 4.3.a Page: 12 o o I c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L_ 71.1' M N Of\ y 131.1E U r 4- r a 121.6, 10.9E o I �, 113.5E a E cu 64.9z Z 4- 0 66.3 1 o L Cf Q- C Q' Q 26.2E Total: 1,255.9� W 17553 CR16971 BRIONES, JAIME SPANISI CR16971 BRIONES, JAIME SPANISI r 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.2 1 T- 801-34942 FLEET TIRE INVENTORY (2) Fleet Tire Inventory (2) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Tota 105.21 c N E 455.5, 'M 2.0( c m E 44.6z R .r r Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224169 2/16/2017 073629 073629 GCR TIRES & SERVICE 224170 2/16/2017 012199 GRAINGER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9343662590 224171 2/16/2017 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 712181 224172 2/16/2017 013007 HASNER, EZRA J 224173 2/16/2017 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 17 18 5296 UKUKLELE 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1014280 14330 PO # Description/Account Tota PM: BLN KIOSK PM: BLN KIOSK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota OLD PW SECURITY Old PW Security 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Tota LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMI LONG TERM CARE 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMI PRESCRIPTION CO PAYS 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 MEDICARE PREMIUM 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Tota 5296 UKULELE I INSTRUCTION 5296 UKULELE I INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 13 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun 502.1( (D N m 76.0£ u 76.0E 4- a) c m 55.0( c 55.0( 0 L ns a 3,289.1E E w 189.6z ca 1,258.8( a 4,737.5� 0 0 00 564.8E 1 : 564.8E ti r N 0 24.1( Y 2.3( . ca r 142.8E a0i E t 13.5, .r r a Page: 13 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2023530 PS - PARTS PS - Parts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2023554 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 233086 CITY HALL RETURNS City Hall Returns 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25055 FAC MAINT AND TRUCK SUPPLIE Fac Maint and Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25089 FAC MAINT AND TRUCK SUPPLIE Fac Maint and Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3024739 PARKS BRACKETT N - SUPPLIES Parks Brackett N - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3024745 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 14 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L N 17.7E y t U 1.6E 4- a� c m 218.2E c� 20.7: o L a -22.9 , E -2.1 S o c� 11.8z o a Q. S ;n 0 0 64.3E ti r 6.1, r N 0 52.4( Y 4.9E .E c� r 42.5, E t R .r r Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3031319 OLD PW - SUPPLIES Old PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3040611 OLD PW RETURNS g Old PW Returns 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3581375 SEWER LS PARTS Sewer LS Parts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4022116 FAC MAINT SHOP AND TRUCK S Fac Maint Shop and Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4023188 PS - SUPPLIES PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4024617 SR CENTER - SUPPLIES Sr Center - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4574623 SEWER PARTS Sewer Parts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 15 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 4.0, ui m 46.1 � U 4.3� c m -26.7( 0( j -2.5, ca a E 50.2z 4.7 0 UP 0 36.8' a Q 3.5( 0 0 14.5z ti r co 1.3£ r N 0 N Y 8.2 , E 0.7� c m 17.9£ E R .r r Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 5021973 6013010 6014692 6024343 7010444 7013811 PO # Description/Account 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 FAC MAINT SUPPLIES Fac Maint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 City Hall Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 CITY HALL 2ND FLR SUPPLIES City Hall 2nd Fir Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT UNIT 42 SUPPLIES Fac Maint Unit 42 Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.3.a Page: 16 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 1.7' m t U 176.9, aD c 34.1t 20.0( c�a i LO 34.1E 00 3.2E ti r co 140.8E o N 13.3E E 75.8( m 7.2( E R .r r a Page: 16 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 7022833 7063548 7081907 7253078 7576933 8022643 8031281 PO # Description/Account FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 LS 6 - PARTS LS 6 - Parts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 17 N 41.6E t U 3.9( a� c m 121.0 c ca 11.5( o L a 54.8, E 5.2' 4- 0 17.9E o a Q. 1.7' Q LO 0 0 49.1 , ti r 4.60 N 0 31.8E Y 3.0: E r 9.4( E t R .r r Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224174 2/16/2017 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 8031524 8595656 9022517 9025151 9025208 9091967 224175 2/16/2017 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 27192 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 PW SUPPLIES PW Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15TH AVE WALKWAY SUPPLIES 15th Ave Walkway Supplies 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 9.5% Sales Tax 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES Fishing Pier - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 STREET - ICE MELT BLEND BAG E7FA.TO 16-02.SERVICES THRU 1 E7FA.TO 16-02.Services thru 1/28/1 4.3.a Page: 18 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 0.9( N m 14.1 £ U 1.3E m 64.0( 0 j 6.0E , a E 71.5' 6.7� o 0 17.9E a Q 1.7' LO 0 S r Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224175 2/16/2017 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC (Continued) 27207 224176 2/16/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 27212 PO # Description/Account 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 1/28/17 E4MB.Services thru 1/28/17 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 E6MB.SERVICES THRU 1/31/17 E6MB.Services thru 1/31/17 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Tota 2916210 WWTP: SHARP IES+BALLPOINT P SHARPIES+BALLPOINT PENS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2916707 SUPPLIES Supplies 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 2916750 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 2917989 CLIPBOARDS OIC Hardwood Clipboards - Qty 6 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2918543 WWTP: WITE-OUT CORRECTION WITE-OUT CORRECTION TAPE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2918665 RUBBER BANDS, POP UP POST I 117B Rubber bands, Post it pop up 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.3.a Page: 19 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L 170.0( N m 190.0( U 4- W c 1,761.8z 1 : 2,121.81 c c� E o 27.2: a 2.61 •E 4- 0 148.4( 0 L a 40.3z Q LO to 12.8z 00 ti 1.2( r T, r N O 10.3E Y 1.0, E T nc r 25.7: E 2.5, R .r r Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224176 2/16/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 2918695 WWTP: BIC GEL PENS --BLUE & B Supplies: 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota 224177 2/16/2017 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201206963 01-17 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE Jan-2017 Off site data storage servi 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 Tota 224178 2/16/2017 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 2/9 EBB TIDE 2/9/17 EBB TIDE PROMENADE DE 2/9/17 EBB TIDE PROMENADE DE 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Tota 224179 2/16/2017 075854 JOSEPH W TOVAR 1603-2 CODE PROVISIONS FOR MULTIF 4.3.a Page: 20 Ah 639.2 0 T 639.21 6 X) r Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224182 2/16/2017 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC (Continued) 224183 2/16/2017 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 224184 2/16/2017 072320 MACK, LINDA 224185 2/16/2017 075891 MAQS SEATTLE 224186 2/16/2017 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO I I[1.911- 8181 AQ33567 INV1041549 11954610 12688819 224187 2/16/2017 075913 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES 56090001 PO # Description/Account 02-17 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 Tota E4MB.FILAMENT CONTAINER E4MB.Filament Container 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Tota SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND OT REFUND FOR 1/18/16-1/31/16 001.000.41.521.71.11.00 Tota WWTP: FINAL 20% CHG FOR 11/2 FINAL 20% CHG FOR 11/28-12/2/1 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota WWTP: ROPE CLEATS ROPE CLEATS 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: RUBBER CENTER,SHIM, RUBBER CENTER,SHIM,PLUG 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Tota E4MB.SERVICES THRU 1/27/17 E4MB.Services thru 1/27/17 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 4.3.a Page: 21 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 44,345.6( 44,345.6( t U a� c 156.8 1 156.81 -0 c M 0 L 20.1 E ca 20.1E E 8. T 6 ,- 10,999.0( to I: 10,999.0( 0 Q 0. i 36.1E Ln 0 0 6.1E PL ti r co 381.11 N 0 9.5. 1 : 432.9t r 1,527.5( Total: 1,527.5( R .r r a Page: 21 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224188 2/16/2017 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 5376 FELDENKRAIS 5376 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIO 5376 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Tota 224189 2/16/2017 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 252173 PM: GLOVES SHOP SUPPLIES PM: GLOVES SHOP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 224190 2/16/2017 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY 20 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEME PRESCRIPTION CO PAYS 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 MEDICARE PREMIUM 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Tota 224191 2/16/2017 075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC 32244 AC BANDSHELL AC BANDSHELL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 224192 2/16/2017 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST 12251158 7900044080303286 POSTAGE 01/ POSTAGE ADDED TO MACHINE 0 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 Tota 224193 2/16/2017 075140 NORTHWEST PERMIT BLD20170166 REFUND DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND DUPLICATE PERMIT 001.000.257.620 Tota 224194 2/16/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 743240 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.3.a Page: 22 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun N L_ N 352.0( I : 352.0( 4) t U 4- aD c 117.2' 1 : 117.2' c c� 0 142.2� ca a 1,258.8( . 1,401.01 w 0 12 LO 1/ 00 6,020.0( 1 : 6,020.0( r co N 0 112.0( Y 1 : 112.0( E r 2.1( E 0.2' R .r r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224194 2/16/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 224195 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 748749 765226 852966 927216 2/16/2017 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER January, 2017 PO # Description/Account STORM INK Storm Ink 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 STREET - SHEET PROTECTORS Street - Sheet Protectors 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 P&R ADMIN: LAM POUCHES P&RADMIN: LAM POUCHES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.3.a Page: 23 c ca .y 0 0- W Amoun m L N 141.9, t U 13.9' V a� c m 4.2: c� 0.4, o 0 a 164.0z 16.0E 4- 0 110.31 0 a Q. 10.8' Q LO 0 0 17.7, Total: 481.& ti r COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSIN r Emergency Medical Services & Traun N 0 001.000.237.120 1,111.0E Y PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 22,123.7E E Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 162.0( State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 54.2, E Judicial Information Systems Account .r r Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224195 2/16/2017 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 224196 2/16/2017 074793 PETDATA INC 224197 2/16/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.237.180 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 Total 5603 INV#5603 - EDMONDS PD - JAN 201 471- 1 YR LICENSES @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1 REPLACEMENT TAG @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3 LATE FEES @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Total L332086 WWTP: PLUG, FLUSH RV RECEPT( PLUG, FLUSH RV RECEPTC, SURF, 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total: 4.3.a Page: 24 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 5,407.3 0 N 142.7E y t U 2,216.8( w c 434.6, 233.3' c�a 0 233.3' L>% ca a 86.0< 26.7( w 0 307.6. 32,539.7< o a Q. Q 1,836.9( 00 3.9( ti r co 7.5( r 1,848.3( o N Y E 32.8E 12 r 3.2, 36.01 E t R .r r a Page: 24 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224198 2/16/2017 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 224199 2/16/2017 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 224200 2/16/2017 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 224201 2/16/2017 065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 224202 2/16/2017 074086 SIGNON 224203 2/16/2017 036955 SKY NURSERY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 03870 15-3698 120768 19 5720 T-0848280 4.3.a Page: 25 c ca .y 0 a a� PO # Description/Account Amoun PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR L_ PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,770.7E Total: 2,770.7$ t U DECEMBER 2016 COURT SECURIT DECEMBER 2016 COURT SECURIT 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,368.7E Total : 3.368.7'. INV#120768 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1995 ACURA LEGEND #BCD 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Tota LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEME PRESCRIPTION CO -PAY 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 MEDICARE PREMIUM 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 EYE MEDICAL SERVICES (HARD 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 HEARING AID SERVICES (BATTE 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Tota 6Z510064 EDNEY, DOLAN ASL IN 6Z510064 EDNEY, DOLAN ASL IN 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Tota FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS & SL FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS & S 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 c c� 4! o 159.0( a 15.5E .9 1 : 174.51 TU w 0 1,192.7' 0 Q. 1,258.8( Q Wl LO to 150.0( 00 RII 16.9E r 1 : 2,618.5' N TE c TE 170.0( 1 : 170.0( El 289.1E E R .r r Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224203 2/16/2017 036955 036955 SKY NURSERY 224204 2/16/2017 075590 SMARSH Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Tota INV00209488 01-17 NETGUARD MONTHLY SER NetGuard Monthly Service Building 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service City Cler 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Commu 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Develop 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Engineer 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Human 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Informati 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Parks 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service Police 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Wat 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Wat 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Wat 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 4.3.a Page: 26 c ca .y 0 a W Amoun 289.1. _L VI Y m 30.0( mu k 41 6.0( c nit 6.0( c c� 6.0( o m, 6.0( a i r 90.0( 54.0( o 6.0( o L Re a 6.0( Q of 18.0( 00 O 6.0( ti r co 12.0( r N 0 252.0( Y er 36.0( . c� er 3.0( r c er m 3.0( E R .r r Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224204 2/16/2017 075590 SMARSH (Continued) NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total: 224205 2/16/2017 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000431937 Q4-16 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS &' Quarterly Liquor Board Profits 001.000.39.566.10.51.00 Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes 001.000.39.566.10.51.00 Total: 224206 2/16/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP: 1/6 - 2/3/17 FLOW METER 1/6 - 2/3/17 FLOW METER 2400 HIG 4.3.a Page: 27 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 30.0( m 6.0( U 4- 18.0( c m 6.0( c� 2.1( 0 CU 0.6( a E U 4- 0.6( 0 0.6( o a Q. 3.0( Q LO 3.0( 000 30.0( r 642.0( 6 r N 0 N 1,742.4' 918.3( 2,660.7' m E t R .r r Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 224206 2/16/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2003-2646-0 2006-5085-1 2017-9000-3 2019-2988-2 2022-5063-5 2044-6743-5 2051-8438-5 224207 2/16/2017 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 69878 224208 2/16/2017 075495 SOFTWARE ONE US-PSI-542878 Description/Account 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMO HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168T ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168T 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 WWTP: 1/6-2/3/17 FLOW METER 1/6 - 2/3/17 FLOW METER 8421 24 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 Tota PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 PW DUMP FEES 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 FM DUMP FEES 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Tota MICROSOFT WINDOWS OFFICE Microsoft Office Pro Plus Platform, 4.3.a Page: 28 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 16.2( N N N m 16.2� U 4- w c 43.2, H H c� 22.7< o 84 4 CU a 16.2� E M M 16.2� o 0 42.1 � 0- fV Q' Q N Ln 24.0( 00 197.3( ti r 6 r 407.0( c N 136.0( cYi E 304.0( c2 1 : 847.0( r c S( E t R .r r Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224208 2/16/2017 075495 SOFTWARE ONE (Continued) 224209 2/16/2017 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 224210 2/16/2017 075930 STEVEN & ELISA BUCKLIN 1-36400 224211 2/16/2017 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 96743 224212 2/16/2017 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY PO # Description/Account 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Tota PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Tota #1011843AL UTILITY REFUND #1011843AL Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Tota MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWI Jan-17 Maintenance on HP Pagewi 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 40834 PS KEYS PS Keys 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 City Park - Keys 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Unit E128PR Keys 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Tota Tota 4.3.a Page: 29 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L 55,302.0( N 5,419.6( y I: 60,721.6( U C a C 938.3E I : 938.3E cm 0 c� 251.9' Q" 1 : 251.9' . DE w U dE 0 175.0( > 0 L Q 17.1E o 1 : 192.1E .. 0 0 18.6( r co 27.9( N 0 14.9E 4.5E 1.41 1 : 67.41 t R .r r Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224213 2/16/2017 075933 TUCKER, ROB 224214 2/16/2017 074800 TURNSTYLE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 12/6 REFUND BID-4137 224215 2/16/2017 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0708129-WA 224216 2/16/2017 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 7010130 224217 2/16/2017 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 224218 2/16/2017 026510 WCIA 116-741 13906 224219 2/16/2017 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7231 PO # Description/Account 12/6 REFUND 12/6 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Tota DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENT Development and implementation o 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota STORM - DOT PHYSICAL EXAM STORM - DOT PHYSICAL EXAM 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 Tota UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCA UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCA 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCA 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCA 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Tota CEMETERY STUMP GRINDING T CEMETERY STUMP GRINDING T 130.000.64.536.20.41.00 Tota 2017 UNDERGROUND STORAGE 2017 PW Underground Storage Tan 511.000.77.548.68.46.00 Tota WATER QUALITY - WINDOW ENV Water Quality - Window Envelopes 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 30 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 26.0( 1 : 26.0( 4) t U A 41 f1 1,300.0( 1 : 1,300.0( c c� 0 L 99.0( ca 1 : 99.0( E TI � TI ,- 69.3� 0 TI > 69.3� a TI Q. 71.4� Q 1 : 210.21 LO 0 RE RE ti r 4,172.4( co 1 : 4,172.4( N 0 Ti w k 1,684.0( . I: 1,684.0( r El 2! E 238.0( R .r r Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224219 2/16/2017 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 224220 2/16/2017 074609 WEST COASTARMORY NORTH Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7253 INV#7253 - EDMONDS PD 10,000 POLICE BUS CARD MAST 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7256 ENVELOPES ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7263 CITY CLERK WINDOW ENVELOP CITY CLERK 5000 - #10 WINDOW 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 Tota DEC-16 INV#DEC-16 CUST ID-EDMONDS RANGE USAGE - ROBINSON 12/1 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 RANGE USAGE - MCINTYRE 12/2/ 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 RANGE USAGE - HONNEN 12/29/1 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 JAN-17 INV#JAN-17 CUST ID-EDMONDS RANGE USAGE - GAGNER 1/3/17 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 RANGE USAGE - POLAND 1/8/17 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 RANGE USAGE - POLAND 1/15/17 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 4.3.a Page: 31 c ca .y 0 a a� Amoun m L_ 23.3, m E U 370.0( aD c 36.2E c c� 147.1: o E: E CU a 332.2E E 32.5( u 4 1 : 1,179.5, 0 cu PI 0 /1 a 13.6( Q 1f 13.6( to 6 13.6( ti r 4.0, PE N 0 N Y 13.6( E 13.6( r 13.6E E 4.0. R .r r a Page: 31 Packet Pg. 50 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM City of Edmonds c ca Bank code : usbank a a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224220 2/16/2017 074609 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH (Continued) Total: 90.0( ,L 224221 2/16/2017 075161 WHISTLE WORKWEAR K12139 WWTP: DAN KORSTAD 2017 UNIFC ui DAN KORSTAD: 2017 UNIFORM ALL 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 243.7� 8.7% Sales Tax Lr- 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 21.2' Total: 265.0( 224222 2/16/2017 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE SHO2634 WWTP: FRED PANGELINAN-2017 U c FRED PANGELINAN-2017 UNIFORP f° 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 228.2, 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 21.6£ Total: 249.9, . 224223 2/16/2017 075929 XU, LUDING 2/6 REFUND 2/6 REFUND w 2/6 REFUND 001.000.239.200 10.0( > Total: 10.0( a Q. 224224 2/16/2017 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR JAN 2017 BILL JAN 2017 INMATE HOUSING - EDM( Q 39 DAYS INMATE HOUSING - JAN 21 ,n 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,230.8( 00 Total: 2,230.8( 224225 2/16/2017 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1100 97 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 97 Vouchers in this report JAN-17 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 Tota Bank tota Total voucher ti r co r 21,558.0( c 1 : 21,558.0( Y I: 400,069.0E E s : 400,069.0E r c m E t R .r r Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 51 4.3.a vchlist 02/16/2017 9:14:37AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Page: 33 Amoun Page: 33 Packet Pg. 52 4.3.b vchlist 02/10/2017 8:40:27AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 2102017 2/10/2017 062693 US BANK 2985 WWTP: 1/14-2/3/17 CHARGES 1/14-2/3/17 CHARGES- 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Metal Supermarkets: Hot Rolled Plate 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WEFTEC: Standard Methods for 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Magnatrol Valve Corp.:P MVC Item 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Jonathan Jones -Thomas: Wastewate 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 4697 SCC 2017 DUES SCC 2017 dues 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 Ferrebee retirement poster framing 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 map of Japan for Sister City Commis: 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 EASC annual Snohomish forecast 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 5179 NUC, MONITOR, WEBCAM, DOMAIP BulkRegister.com - Domain name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Newegg.com - Logitech M510 Wirele: 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC Barebone S 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 Page: 1 r N 0 a a� U aD 73 Amoun ui U w t U 101.9E w c 254.0( 237.7E M 0 608.2: 0 Q. 380.0( E U 39.9( o M 0 200.0( 0- Q 75.0( co 00 18.9E ti 35.0( c r 7.3: o c 1.8( E 0 a 45.31 �3 36.9E a� 688.9E ca Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 02/10/2017 8:40:27AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 2102017 2/10/2017 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) BulkRegister.com - Domain name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Newegg.com - Club3D CAC-11700 M 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 Newegg.com - Logitech C920 HD Prc 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 5639 WELLNESS HEALTHY DECISIONS F Costco - Snacks for Healthy Decision 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 7000 US BANK VISA- SHANE HOPE Parking- Shane Hope 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 7483 FEBRUARY MAYOR'S LUNCHEON February Mayor's luncheon meeting - 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 8083 US BANK VISA- MISC CHARGES Office supplies- Amazon, Dev Sery 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Chair- Jeanie, Eng Amazon 001.000.67.518.21.35.00 Desk- New examiner office 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 paper cutter- Amazon 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Hwy 99 mailer Click2mail 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Brads Adobe 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 8304 FEB 2017 HR VISA BILL CL: Storm Maintenance Worker 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Wellness Committee Event (Starbuck 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 Verdant Health Commission Conferer 4.3.b Page: 2 r N 0 a a� U a� Amoun •L U W 16.1E u .r 4 26.9E c am 145.9E c �a 26.4< 0 Q. 29.0( •� 0 32.4. 0 L a 631.9� Q 216.3' coo 00 474.6E ti 177.0( N 0 967.8E m 54.8� >, �a a a� L 45.0( 3 c 31.3: E ca Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 02/10/2017 8:40:27AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 2102017 2/10/2017 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code 1 Vouchers in this report usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9573 PO # Description/Account 4.3.b Page: 3 r N 0 a a� U a� Amoun •L 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 49.0( U APA: Planner/Associate Planner Post 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 195.0( CL Posting: Parks Maintenance Work c 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.0( WFOA2017 MEMBERSHIPS FOR D W FOA - 2017 Membership fees for D c� 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 100.0( _ WFOA2017 MEMBERSHIP FOR D T W FOA - 2017 Membership fee for D l M 0. 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 50.0( - Tota Bank tota Total voucher 1 : 6,046.31 .9 I : 6,046.31 o s : 6,046.31 > 0 L 0- Q Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 55 00 r 3 c a� E ca Q 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E51FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E61FE 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 E41FA 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 E51FA 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 E4JB 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 i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 56 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 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 E1 CA 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 E4MA 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 E5J13 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM 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 E5KA 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 SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 57 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number 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-1 05th/l 06th 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 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 58 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STR _ E1AA c342 Fi1&.QQrneL§.JRoundabgut (212th Street SW @ 84th AvPniu, WAMM STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements unset Walkway Improvements STM ElFM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update venue provement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) MELE2FA c318 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System E2FC d P Edmonds J J116kility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 04 Corrido sportation Stu STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Avg STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) DA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG _ c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th E3FH � �dmq j;105th/106th Av SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3, 224th Waterline Relocation (201 FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing E4FA STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 59 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street StormwatggWp STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines ' SWW E4GA IWO15 Sewerline Replacement Proje SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fichin- STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR 01 affic Calmi STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR L 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays 5DA Bikelink Projec General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis E5FA c466 015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects E5FC rovements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E51FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM r 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 16 Waterline Replaceme WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIElj�ft�pdates STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 60 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E6CB i009 2116 Waterline O SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays c485 7F38th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan I E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Norths� Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update 1 i SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWW E6GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project UTILITIES 013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR qF E6JC 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza PRK E6MB FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STR i021 STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR i018 2017 Overlay Progra WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades 2017 Minor Sidewalk Progra STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 61 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project N Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ° L PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor 3 STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements r o a STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives i STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement 73 STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements ui a z STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System U STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation m STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project ° ° SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project Q- E STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study o STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive > 0 PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park a WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) a FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project LO o STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) r STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) o STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S CD STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study z STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th o a STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements a� N STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements 21 STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin r m STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration L STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects U` STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program E WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program z U SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project r Q Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 62 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project N Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab ° L FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades 3 WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals r o a WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept i STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing 73 STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station ui U z SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I U STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update m SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project ° ° STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program Q- E STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects o WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects > 0 SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects a STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System a STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming LO 00 STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating r STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project o WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays CD FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers z PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement o a General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis a� N STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility 21 PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza r m WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications L WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) U_ STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements E STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) z U STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements r Q Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 63 4.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title 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 i010 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 STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E7DB i023 2017 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 s011 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 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 64 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.c Funding Protect Title FAC ambers FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC roj FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis PM Dayton Street Plaza Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PRK City Spray Park FAC Band Shell Replacement Project Engineerin Accounting Project E Number Number c476 E5LA m L c443 E4MB 3 c419 E3LB m c444 E4LA J� E5DB c276 E7MA 28 E8MA c417 E4MA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA rk Sp 9 C STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E51FE WTM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs E61FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA 4 Lake Ballinger Associated Project STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E51FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC 104 Storm STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM Edmonds Marsh F STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STRW Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) c380 E2FC E4FB c378 E2FA i01 FA c410 E3FE E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA TM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC W-;TM Seaview Park Infiltration Facilit E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG Stormwater Comp Plan Update s01 E6FD STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 65 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.c Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 05th/106th Ave W Storm�vement c430 STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Linel L c459 STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E41FC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB 2014 Overlay Program STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA 015 Traffic Calmin STIR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STIR 2016 Overlay Progra STIR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program 2 STIR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA raffic Calming STIR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 STIR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) S1M � St. Iralkwa STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR 9th Avenue Improvement Project TR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STIR ADA Transition Plan ikelink Project STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Five Corners Rosin about (212th_&Met SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) Minor Sidewalk Prog STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study � SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing _= STIR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th S711111�rSunset Walkway Improvements' - STIR Trackside Warning System Revised 2/15/2017 c425 E3DD c423 E3DQAW c485 E6DA c36 c392 E2AB s016 E6DB i015 E6AB _ c3 c405 E2AD c427 E3AB s014 E6AA E 1 DA' c470 E5AA Packet Pg. 66 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.c Funding Protect Title STR _.JM Trench - Conceptam STR Transportation Plan Update WR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WWR 2015 Sewerline Overlay SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Project Engineerin Accounting Project Number Number c453 AM c391 E2AA c390 c398 E3GA c441 E4GA i010 E6CC i01 E6GA i02o E7CC c456 E4GB 8MWlllllll soli E5GB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA tility Rate Upda sot JH WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC (VTR 2015 Waterline Overlay WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 2016 Water �== Update 19 WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTIV 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects NEL"E5,1A WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC MW TR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) E 0 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin c482 E5,113 WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WTP Outfall Pipe Modifications Revised 2/15/2017 Packet Pg. 67 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 818 (02/01/2017 to 02/15/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pay Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 124.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 718.00 25,038.50 122 VACATION VACATION 729.59 25,959.38 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 76.50 2,761.82 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 68.00 2,101.32 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 120.41 4,336.25 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 88.00 3,425.00 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 12.00 412.93 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 36.00 1,181.70 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 6.00 264.38 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 177.00 6,989.90 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 68.00 2,996.35 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 20.00 881.28 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 70.63 2,980.26 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 142.95 7,231.16 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 399.40 18,404.06 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 17.00 874.76 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,011.10 630,167.97 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 56.00 2,179.55 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 10.00 345.64 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 60.00 2,986.19 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,469.86 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 242.00 15,611.47 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 52.50 3,307.25 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 868.56 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,037.25 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 3,830.81 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 28.25 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 92.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 2.00 0.00 902 MISCELLANEOUS BOOT ALLOWANCE 0.00 2,244.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 24.95 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 145.56 02/16/2017 Packet Pg. 68 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 818 (02/01/2017 to 02/15/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 86.48 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstructionist 0.00 142.14 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 147.28 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 640.76 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 125.00 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 200.57 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 852.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 793.44 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 905.05 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,163.00 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 37.50 1,090.87 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 16.00 605.32 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 102.75 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 842.38 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 396.36 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 752.67 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 993.55 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 5,913.21 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 190.82 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 297.24 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 997.10 Iq9 LONGEVITY Longevity 3.5% 0.00 82.46 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 72.00 3,476.52 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 200.57 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 47.12 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,967.18 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER 0.00 157.56 sd2.5% MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 2.5% 0.00 156.95 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 157.56 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 104.00 0.00 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 418.92 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 323.67 02/16/2017 Packet Pg. 69 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 818 (02/01/2017 to 02/15/2017) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 20,672.33 Total Net Pay: Amount $798,129.17 $529,246.39 4.3.d 02/16/2017 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.e Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 818 - 02/01/2017 to 02/15/2017 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 62603 02/17/2017 chap1 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 940.00 62604 02/17/2017 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 3,042.00 62605 02/17/2017 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 388.00 62606 02/17/2017 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 994.36 62607 02/17/2017 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,763.00 62608 02/17/2017 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,758.27 12,885.63 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 2516 02/17/2017 awc AWC 338,914.15 2519 02/17/2017 us US BANK 109,949.67 2520 02/17/2017 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177131 99,374.63 2522 02/17/2017 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 25,428.47 2524 02/17/2017 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,276.10 2525 02/17/2017 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 299.00 579,242.02 Grand Totals: 592,127.65 0 a m 0 a) L Direct Deposit 0.00 vi Y U 0.00 0.00 U 0.00 0.00 c 0.00 c 0.00 0 0 L Q Direct Deposit E M 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 �a 0.00 0 0.00 L 0- 0.00 Q uO 0.00 W r 0.00 ti L6 N O a+ N C d O L Q d E t V Q 2/16/2017 Packet Pg. 71 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Approval of Budget for Alliance for Housing Affordability Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Approval of the budget for the Alliance for Housing Affordability has been placed on the Consent Calendar, per City Council direction at its February 14 meeting. Background/History The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) was created in 2013 through an interlocal agreement (ILA), which now includes Edmonds, twelve other cities, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. AHA's mission is to increase the supply of affordable housing in Snohomish County through interjurisdictional collaboration. Still in its early years, AHA provides its members technical expertise related to housing, for example, gathering and analyzing housing data and providing education and outreach to the public and to elected officials. The ILA created a Board, consisting of representatives from each member of the Alliance, to manage AHA. City Council Member Neil Tibbott is Edmonds' current Board representative. The Board establishes an annual work plan and recommends an annual budget for approval by the governing body of each of its members. The ILA plans under the federal fiscal year, which runs July 1 - June 30. To give members enough time to provide for its member contribution (based on population), the Board starts preparing a recommended budget about one year before it is to go into effect. AHA operates from an office at the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. It has a single staff member, Chris Collier, who is the AHA Program Manager. Staff Recommendation Approve the AHA Board's recommended budget Narrative Since its inception, the expertise provided to city staff by AHA has helped to ensure the City is meeting its housing requirements under the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. This was especially evident in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update, which included the Housing Element. For more information about AHA, see the organization's website: www.housingallies.org. AHA's FYI 2018 budget establishes Edmonds' contribution at $3,841 for the coming year. (See Attachment 1.) Contributions are calculated based on each jurisdiction's population. The adopted 2017 Budget for the City of Edmonds anticipated this contribution. The AHA budget reflects the organization's work program for the coming year. (See Attachment 2.) Packet Pg. 72 4.4 The attached information, along with a presentation from the AHA's program manager, was considered at the City Council's February 14 meeting. Attachments: ATT 2_AHA FY2018 Budget ATT 3_AHA FY2018 Work Plan Packet Pg. 73 4.4.a ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROPOSED FY2018 OPERATING BUDGET Jurisdictions HASCO Total Revenues FY18 Revenue $71,752 $53,505 $125,257 Total FY18 Revenue $71,752 $53,505 $125,257 Expenses 1.0 FTE Program Manager $37,301 $30,834 $68,135 Fringe Benefits @ 39% $26,572 $26,572 Local Travel / Mileage $1,407 $1,407 Audit $1,000 $1,000 Software, Data, and Consulting $5,472 $5,472 Total FY18 Expenses $71,752 $30,834 $102,586 HASCO Staff Time (In Kind) $12,000 $12,000 Overhead @ 10% (In Kind) $10,671 $10,671 Total FY18 Expenses and In Kind $71,752 $53,505 $125,257 PROPOSED FY2018 MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS Joint Board Members 2015 Population % of Subtotal FY2018 Contribution % Increase from FY2017 SMALL JURISDICTIONS Granite Falls 3,390 - $1,639 3% Snohomish 9,270 - $1,639 3% Stanwood 6,530 - $1,639 3% Woodway 1,310 $1,639 3% Small Jurisdictions Subtotal 20,500 - $6,556 LARGE JURISDICTIONS Arlington 18,490 2.69% $1,754 8% County (Unincorporated) 330,260 48.06% $31,330 11% Edmonds 40,490 5.89% $3,841 9% Everett 105,800 15.39% $10,037 9% Lake Stevens 29,900 4.35% $2,836 10% Lynnwood 36,420 5.30% $3,455 9% Marysville 64,140 9.33% $6,085 10% Mill Creek 19,760 2.88% $1,875 13% Mountlake Terrace 21,090 3.07% $2,001 11% Mukilteo 20,900 3.04% $1,983 10% Large Jurisdictions Subtotal 687,250 100.00% $65,196 HOUSING AUTHORITY HASCO $53,505 1. FY2018 is July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. The AHA Joint Board accepted this budget in May 2016 for councils' review and appropriation by 2/28/2017. The AHA Joint Board must adopt this final budget by 3/31/2017. Packet Pg. 74 4.4.b FY2O18 Draft Work Plan (July 2017 — June 2018) I. Synthesize/Analyze Data a. Continue to identify data gaps and develop strategies for resolving them, including updating the Affordable Housing Rental Inventory of Snohomish County b. Track market and demographic changes over time, including information on new and expiring affordable housing, funding sources, income restrictions, condition, and surrounding public infrastructure c. Prepare housing profiles for new members 2. Provide Technical Expertise a. Respond to research requests from Joint Board members, actively seek out new projects b. Support jurisdictions in the development and implementation of new housing strategies and performance evaluation of existing strategies a. Develop model dedicated housing strategy c. Develop and expand range of educational materials, including working definitions of housing concepts and programs, best practices, case studies, and visual aids 3. Education and Outreach a. Develop a strategy and tools to educate elected officials about affordable housing and the roles they can play in educating others about their jurisdictions' affordable housing needs and in obtaining funding for housing • Research legislative changes, legislative agendas, and funded projects • Design workshop for elected officials to better inform them of housing issues and funding opportunities/challenges/processes • Present regularly to participant city councils on affordable housing issues in the context of their city • Identify elected officials who could serve as primary contact points for federal/state elected officials and federal/state agencies that provide housing funding b. Facilitate collaboration on housing policies and priorities, including connecting Alliance members with relevant state and federal elected officials and agencies • Collaborate with Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County on housing advocacy c. Assure that the community and stakeholders are aware of the Alliance's mission, resources, and accomplishments 4. Grants and Financial a. Track upcoming funding opportunities and newly funded projects b. Research strategies for leveraging CDBG and other funds c. Explore common strategies to pursue funding to be used by cities individually or collectively d. Study potential new revenue generation tools that can be used to fund projects a. Identify specific locations for potential affordable housing development, including preservation of existing affordable housing Packet Pg. 75 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 City of Edmonds Commute Trip Reduction Plan and Ordinance (ECC 17.95) Staff Lead: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On December 16, 2008, Council adopted the City of Edmonds Commute Trip Reduction Plan and Ordinance Amending ECC Chapter 17.95. On February 14, 2017, forwarded this item to the consent agenda for approval at the February 21st. Staff Recommendation Approve CTR Plan and authorize Mayor to sign the Ordinance. Narrative In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Efficiency Act which amended the CTR requirements for local governments in counties experiencing the greatest automobile -related pollution and traffic congestion. The purpose for the amendments was to require the local governments to develop and implement plans to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions. A CTR Plan and CTR Ordinance were then adopted in 2008. Since the plan expired in 2016 and the CTR Efficiency Act was recently enacted with new guidelines, the adoption of new documents is needed. The major revisions are: Goal of reducing drive alone trips by 7% for all major employers (more than 100 full-time employees) between 2017 and 2019 (reduced from 15% in previous plan). Removal of identifying reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) / greenhouse gas emissions requirements. The CTR plan, Attachment #1, focuses on reducing drive alone trips among employees who work for major employers. CTR plans throughout the county were revised to be clear and consistent among jurisdictions. In Edmonds, there are three employers who are considered major employers (Swedish Hospital, City of Edmonds and Edmonds Family Medical Clinic). The proposed ordinance is included in Attachment #2. Both documents are consistent with the goals identified in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance has been approved as to form by the City Attorney Attachments: Attachment #1: 2017-2019 CTR Plan Attachment #2 - CTR Ordinance Packet Pg. 76 4.5.a a� c c L O 06 r_ Cu L w r U co 00 r C Cu d w F- U r O N ti r O N r C E L V R r r Q r-i C d L V R a Packet Pg. 77 4.5.a Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 Program History Past Program Performance Benefits of the CTR Program I. LOCAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5 Affected Major Employers Land Use and Transportation Conditions at Major Employment Sites 0 II. TRIP REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR EMPLOYERS 5 06 r— Employer Goals and Targets Requirements for Major Employers Barriers to Achieving Goals 00 r III. IMPLEMENTATION 9 r— Roles and Responsibilities Program Administration and Support Supportive Plans, Policies, and Programs City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Community Transit: Transit Development Plan Curb the Congestion IV. FINANCIAL PLAN 12 CTR Program Costs and Resources Supportive TDM Program Costs and Resources V. CONSULTATION AND REVIEW 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: Current Program Participants A-1 Appendix B: Comprehensive Plan Policies that Support CTR A-2 Appendix C: Employer Workshop Summary A-3 City of Edmonds 2 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 78 4.5.a INTRODUCTION The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan for Edmonds outlines policies and strategies to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion through employer -based transportation programs that encourage the use of alternatives to single -occupant vehicle trips for commute purposes. This plan as well as previous CTR plans and ordinances has been developed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Act (RCW 70.94) initially adopted in 1991. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature updated the program to allow greater flexibility at the jurisdiction level to apply transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that better address local conditions. This plan has been prepared in accordance with those revisions. This plan applies to "affected major employers" in Edmonds who employ 100 or more full-time a) employees at a single worksite and who are scheduled to begin their work day on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The plan also applies to "voluntary employers" who choose to c participate in the program even though they do not meet the criteria to be affected. The plan sets a o goal for these worksites of increasing non -drive alone trips by 7% between 2017 and 2019. 0a c Building upon the accomplishments of the existing commute trip reduction program, as well as other successful TDM strategies, the plan outlines strategies the City of Edmonds, along with other W agencies, will implement to assist employers in meeting the goals of the plan. Revisions are also L) being made to the Edmonds' Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (ECC 17.95) to coincide with this update. 00 PROGRAM HISTORY For over 25 years, jurisdictions in Snohomish County have partnered with state, regional and local agencies to implement the Commute Trip Reduction program with the goal of improving air quality and reducing traffic congestion. The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Act (RCW 70.94) was adopted in 1991. In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act which focused the CTR program on urban growth areas that were experiencing the greatest automobile -related air pollution and traffic congestion. In 2013, the Washington State CTR Board approved a four-year pilot rulemaking experiment to evaluate new trip reduction strategies, improve performance measurement and identify administrative efficiencies. The City of Edmonds, along with 7 other jurisdictions in Snohomish County and the city of Bothell, were selected to participate in an alternate CTR program during the pilot period. The alternate plan focused program resources in the areas with the greatest trip reduction potential. It streamlined worksite reporting and moved data collection from a biennial survey to a daily online trip calendar using the state's online ride -matching and calendaring system, RideshareOnline. com. This plan uses the flexibility provided within the 2015 CTR law revisions to continue the successful strategies of the pilot alternate plan program. PAST PROGRAM PERFORMANCE The CTR program performance analysis below shows the effect of commute habits of approximately 26,000 employees from CTR affected major employers in eight Snohomish County jurisdictions and the city of Bothell in 2015. The table below compares employee commute information from the 4th quarter of 2014 with associated information from 2015. The comparison shows that commuters at these worksites City of Edmonds 3 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 79 4.5.a chose to take almost 15,000 more non -drive alone commute trips during that period, more than a 15% improvement. Period Non -drive alone trips 2014 — 4th Quarter 63,040 2015 — 4th Quarter 72,617 Difference 9,577 Percent Change +13.9% BENEFITS OF THE CTR PROGRAM The impacts and benefits to the Edmonds' Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program reach beyond the employments sites. CTR has continued to grow as the county grows and the program can be used to address a variety of transportation and environmental issues, especially as our ability to add capacity to roadways becomes a challenge: Meeting State and County Climate Change Goals — In Snohomish County 62% of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to transportation. By working to reduce vehicle miles traveled, CTR supports both the Governor's and County Executive's executive orders on climate change and reduction of GHG. In the last year alone, the CTR program in Snohomish County and the city of Bothell reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 8 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Avoiding the costs of Roadway Expansion —The cost of expanding roadways is increasing. In many cases it is more cost effective to manage demand than to continue expanding supply. Meeting the needs of increased urbanization —By 2035, the Snohomish County population is expected to grow by over 230,000 and employment is estimated to increase by almost 150,000 jobs. Most of this growth will go to the areas that are already urbanized. These are also areas where traffic problems are significant and alternative modes can be effective. Energy costs — Rising and unpredictable fuel costs have put strains on the personal budgets of the residents of Snohomish County. The CTR program, through subsidies and assistance with lower cost commuting options, can help commuters meet their household needs. Consumer preferences and market trends — CTR is addressing current consumer preferences in which more consumers want to live in multi -modal communities where it is possible to walk and bicycle safely, use neighborhood services, and have access to quality public transportation. Other environmental concerns — CTR helps to address concerns over air pollution, depletion of natural areas, and other environmental impacts by reducing the demand for automobiles. For each car that is taken off the road, there is a significant benefit to the environment. City of Edmonds 4 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 80 4.5.a I. LOCAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AFFECTED MAJOR EMPLOYERS The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act (RCW 70.94.521-555) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 468-63) require that major employers in the most congested urban growth areas (UGA) in the state develop and implement a program to encourage their employees to increase their use of non -drive alone transportation options. The act defines a major CTR employer as one that employs 100 or more full-time employees at a single worksite who begin their regular workday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on at least two weekdays for at least twelve months. In Snohomish County the affected UGAs includes the Southwest, Marysville, Arlington, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, and Monroe. The number of major employers in Edmonds fluctuates and will vary during the life of this plan. A table listing the current major employers is in Appendix A. In addition to the major work sites there are other employer sites in the program that are defined as ,'voluntary". These sites are involved for a variety of voluntary reasons including the desire to mitigate traffic and environmental impacts at their worksite and decrease the cost of commuting for their employees. II. TRIP REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR EMPLOYERS Local jurisdictions with affected major employers are required to develop programs and strategies for successful CTR programs that comply with the guidance and minimum requirements of the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act (RCW 70.94.521) and the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Board. Eight Snohomish County jurisdictions (Arlington, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville, Monroe, Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County) and the city of Bothell have worked together with Community Transit to develop common goals, requirements, and strategies that will provide for a successful and coordinated CTR program. EMPLOYER GOALS AND TARGETS This plan sets a goal for affected major employment worksites of increasing non -drive alone trips by 7% between 2017 and 2019. This goal is a target, and failure to achieve the goal is not a violation of state law or local ordinance. Progress towards the trip goal will be based on non -drive alone trip counts recorded in the RideshareOnline. com calendaring system. Targets for newly affected CTR worksites will be determined from their time of entry into the program based on the two-year goals. For these sites, a baseline assessment of employee commute habits will be completed within 90 days of approval of CTR program and a target set for the worksite for the remaining period of the CTR plan period. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR EMPLOYERS To achieve the goals and targets, major employers that are voluntary or affected by the CTR Law are required to implement the following program elements: Required Element I Description Designate Employee The employer will designate an Employee Transportation City of Edmonds 5 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 81 4.5.a Transportation Coordinator Regular Distribution of Information to Employees Coordinator (ETC). The ETC is the point of contact on -site between the employer and its workforce to implement, promote and administer the organization's CTR program. He/she is also the point of contact between the employer and the local jurisdiction to track the employer's progress in meeting CTR requirements. Employers will be responsible for providing ETCs with adequate time to attend training, network meetings and to administer the program. The employer will distribute information to employees about commute alternatives at least twice a year. At least one of the items distributed will be a description of the employer's worksite program. Examples of other information that will be distributed may include: • Transit system maps and schedules • Vanpool rider alerts • Weekly traffic alerts • Regional or state ridesharing campaign promotional materials CTR Reporting Quarterly The employer will complete a quarterly employer report and submit to the local jurisdiction. The CTR law requires that the employer conduct a program evaluation to determine worksite progress toward meeting the CTR goals. Rides hareOnIine.com The employer will promote and encourage employees to log trips Data Collection into RideshareOnline.com. This data will be used for goal measurement purposes. Implementation of a Set of Measures The employer will implement a set of measures that are designed to increase the percentage of employees using some or all of the following modes: • Transit • Vanpool • Carpool • Bicycle or walking • Telework, compressed work week, or flexible work schedule • Other non -single occupant vehicle modes Measures to reduce drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to: • Provision of preferential parking or reduced parking charges for high occupancy vehicles • Instituting or increasing parking charges for single - occupant vehicles City of Edmonds DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan February 2017 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 82 4.5.a • Provision of commuter ridematching services • Provision of subsidies for transit fares • Provision of vans for vanpools • Provision of subsidies for carpooling or vanpooling • Permitting the use of employer's vehicles for carpooling or vanpooling • Permitting flexible work schedules • Cooperation with transportation providers to provide additional regular or express service to the work site • Provision of bicycle parking facilities, lockers, changing areas and showers • Provision of a program for parking incentives such as a rebate for employees who do not use the parking facility • Establishment of a program to permit employees to work part or full time at home or at an alternative work site closer to their homes • Establishment of a program of alternative work schedules such as compressed work week schedules (such as 4/40 or 9/80) • Implementation of measures designed to facilitate the use of high -occupancy vehicles such as on -site day care facilities and emergency taxi service • Employers or owners of worksites may form or utilize an existing Transportation Management Association (TMA) or other transportation -related associations to assist members in developing and implementing commute trip reduction programs ETC Training The employer ETC will attend an ETC basic training session within six months of appointment. Employer Notification The employer will notify the jurisdiction or designee when there are proposed changes to their CTR program, changes in ETC or contact information, and/or significant changes in number of employees at the worksite. ETC Networking/ The employer ETC will attend at least six hours of networking or Advanced Training advanced training per year. Training and networking sessions may include marketing CTR programs to employees, trip planning, ridesharing, joint promotions and networking meetings. Annual Worksite Employers will be required to hold at least one annual Promotion of Employer "transportation fair" or equivalent promotion which is available to CTR Program all employees at each CTR-affected worksite. City of Edmonds 7 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 83 4.5.a Compliance, Violations, and Penalties for Noncompliance - There are no violations for failure to achieve CTR goals, only for failure to make a CTR good faith effort. BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING GOALS The following barriers to the achievement of the program goals have been identified: Transit Service — While about half of the affected employment sites in Edmonds are located near good transit service, some of the employment sites have little or no transit service. Pedestrian Pathways — Some of the sites near transit have barriers caused by poor pedestrian pathways between the business and transit or the business and other needed services which make the use of an auto necessary. Abundant Free Parking — Consistent with the business and industrial park location is the abundance of free parking. Most of the CTR-affected worksites in Edmonds offer free parking to their employees and in most cases there is no constraint on parking capacity. Parking management is difficult in most of these cases because of large amounts of available off -site parking with the potential for spill -over impacts on neighboring properties. Ability to Implement Telework and Flexible Schedules — As an effective technique to reduce a greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), telework and the flexible scheduling of employees can be a strong strategy among CTR worksites. The barriers to these techniques are often tradition and the culture of business. There is a perception among the management at some CTR employers that 00 alternative work schedules can result in decreased employee productivity. There are also often technological problems with connecting a remote employee with the businesses systems. Lack of Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Support — The ETC is the backbone of any CTR program but at many sites the ETC is not given the opportunity to succeed because of training or lack of time and resources. ETC success is often dependent on the support that the ETC is getting from the management of the company. An employer program where the ETC is not getting the training and support necessary from within the company will not succeed. City of Edmonds 8 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 84 4.5.a III. IMPLEMENTATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Edmonds plans to work in partnership with Community Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), WSDOT, other affected Snohomish County jurisdictions, and its affected worksites to implement the CTR plan. Implementation of the plan will be carried out predominantly by the following parties: Major Employers — The most important partners in the success of this plan are the participating employers. These employers are responsible for designing and implementing CTR programs consistent with the program goals and requirements as outlined in Section II of this plan. This includes developing a program, designating an ETC, delegating adequate time for ETCs to perform duties, distributing information on the program to employees, submitting program reports, and other necessary or desired elements. Community Transit — The role of Community Transit is also critical to the success of this plan. For more than twenty-five years, Community Transit has worked with employers to develop and implement successful CTR programs. Through agreements with each CTR-affected jurisdiction and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Community Transit will be responsible for employer outreach, education and training, program review, and administering the employer data collection process. Community Transit also manages and implements the Curb the Congestion program, another tool in the employer trip reduction toolkit. Transit Service Providers — Quality transit service is important for the success of this plan, Community Transit is the provider of vanpool and transit services to the CTR worksites in Edmonds. In addition to Community Transit, Everett Transit and Sound Transit also provide bus service to many employment areas in Snohomish County. Edmonds — Edmonds is responsible for developing and implementing the local CTR plan and ordinance and ensuring that CTR plan is consistent with the Edmonds comprehensive plan. Edmonds is also responsible for ensuring that CTR worksites are in compliance with the Edmonds CTR ordinance. Edmonds will work with Community Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), WSDOT, and the other Snohomish County jurisdictions to develop and fund the programs necessary to meet the CTR plan goals. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT Community Transit will provide technical assistance and marketing incentives to help affected major employers meet the requirements and achieve their goals. Employer Notification and Enforcement — Community Transit acts as the liaison between Edmonds and major affected employers and assists with preparation of notification documentation and enforcement recommendations. Employer Assistance — Through a long-term agreement with each CTR-affected jurisdiction and WSDOT, Community Transit works with affected and voluntary employers to develop and successfully implement CTR programs. This assistance includes: • ETC Development and Support - The ETC is an integral part of the trip reduction program. Their job duties should include coordination of annual fairs, conducting promotions, distributing information, notifying the Edmonds about program changes, and the collection and reporting of data. Community Transit provides training courses, networking meetings, and City of Edmonds 9 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 85 4.5.a other assistance to the ETC designed to help meet the requirements of the program and increase the success of this key person. • Program and Strategy Development — Community Transit provides consultation with employers to help worksites design and develop appropriate trip reduction strategies. Strategies may include carpool and vanpool programs, parking management, incentives programs, bicycling and walking programs, alternative work schedules, and telework programs. • Promotions — Community Transit works with employers to design and conduct promotions, on -site transportation fairs, and other special events to increase awareness and use of commute alternatives. Assistance includes design and provision of materials, promotional items, staffing information booths and on -site ridematching. • Incentives — Community Transit provides incentives to employees at affected worksite, such as the quarterly Smart Commuter Rewards program, to encourage the use of non -drive alone commute modes. • Guaranteed Ride Home — Through an agreement with the employer, Community Transit offers emergency transportation to employees who choose an alternative to driving alone. • Transit Pass Programs — Community Transit can work with employers to help identify appropriate ORCA Business Account programs for worksites. Transportation Services — Transportation service providers provide alternative transportation options to single occupancy vehicle commuting. • Vanpool Services — Community Transit operates one of the largest vanpool programs in the nation. Vans are provided to groups of 5-15 commuters who pay a monthly fare based on travel distance and number of passengers. • Transit Services — Community Transit, Everett Transit and Sound Transit provide bus and commuter rail service within Snohomish County. Community Transit staff assists ETCs with identifying potential riders, planning individual trips and marketing specific routes. Transit schedules and on -site transit pass programs are also available. SUPPORTIVE PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Snohomish County and other local partner agencies have developed and implemented a variety of plans, policies and programs that support and increase the impact of commute trip reduction in Edmonds. Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan The Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan lays out a 20-year strategy to address this growth. A central tenant of the plan is support for multimodal transportation to address the increased traffic that is expected to come with growth. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan was updated in July 2015 and includes many policies that support CTR and Transportation Demand Management strategies. Edmonds is continuing to implement these policies which promote non-SOV travel through transit supportive land uses with higher densities and mixed use development, providing pedestrian access to transit facilities, and incorporating transit stops into roadway improvement projects. F c c 0 a U 00 City of Edmonds 10 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 86 4.5.a The Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan discusses numerous roadway improvement projects on roads to address congestion and safety problems. As part of every urban roadway project, a detail evaluation is completed to see how bicycle and pedestrian facilities could be incorporated into the project limits. The TIP which is the county's six -year transportation investment plan includes $18,000,000 for non -motorized facilities and $30,000,000 for Transportation Demand Management. Appendix B includes an analysis of the comprehensive plan goals and policies that support CTR. The comprehensive plan policies have been reviewed for consistency with this plan and with state law. Community Transit: Transit Development Plan 2016-2021 Community Transit's Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Long Range Plan look ahead to a� forecast sales tax revenue, and to match proposed future service expansions with the labor and S fleet needed to provide that service. By 2021, Community Transit will need 167 new buses to 0 replace aging vehicles and expand its fleet by more than 60 buses. The agency operated 235 Ga buses in 2015. In addition, the agency will need to hire approximately 200 new employees over the next six years, a primarily bus drivers and mechanics. There are currently 627 people who work for the agency. U Community Transit plans a service expansion that will add about 138,000 hours of service, or a 40 percent increase over 2015 service levels. That expansion added two new routes in September 00 2016 and will add more bus trips throughout the system in both September and March 2017. In fall 2017, the TDP outlines the desire to add more new trips on existing routes with a focus on W commuter routes to Seattle. Many of those buses are standing room only, but more buses need to be purchased and delivered in order to expand peak -time operations. M In 2019, a major service expansion would include the launch of Swift Green Line, Community 0 ti Transit's second bus rapid transit (BRT) line, between Canyon Park and Boeing/Paine Field. The N service proposals beyond this year are concepts and will need to be vetted by Community Transit's r Board of Directors each year. �* Within the six -year timeframe, a third Swift route will be studied with the intent to launch as part of E a south county service restructure to meet up with Sound Transit's Link light rail when it reaches U Lynnwood in 2023. Eventually, a network of Swift lines will crisscross the county to provide fast, a frequent transit connections throughout Snohomish County. Curb the Congestion This origin -based transportation demand management (TDM) program targets strategies to where commuters begin their travel. Community Transit, in partnership with Snohomish County, developed Curb the Congestion, a progressive, community -based TDM program proven to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips on congested corridors in Snohomish County through a focus on both commute and non -commute trips. Program corridors include (as of January 2017): 128th Street, 164th Street, 196th Street, Bothell -Everett Highway, Highway 99, 1-405 and Highway 522. Each of the current affected major employers in Edmonds is served by one of these corridors, and their employees are eligible to participate in the Curb the Congestion program. Snohomish County funds Curb the Congestion on 128th Street, 164th Street, 196th Street, Highway 99 and Bothell -Everett Highway in partnership with Community Transit using a regional Congestion City of Edmonds 11 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 87 4.5.a Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. The 1-405 Regional Mobility Grant funds Curb the Congestion on 1-405 (from Lynnwood to Highway 522) and Highway 522 (from Monroe to Bothell). Both funding partners utilize Curb the Congestion as part of a strategy to alleviate traffic in congested corridors during peak commute hours. This program has produced measurable results, fostering long-term behavior change. In 2015, Curb the Congestion eliminated 398,381 drive alone trips on the 6 target corridors and reduced vehicle miles driven by 7 million miles. The program also demonstrated valuable environmental benefits, by preventing 3.7 million pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted. IV. FINANCIAL PLAN Edmonds and the other eight jurisdictions working together on this CTR plan have developed a joint financial plan outlining the estimated costs and the resources needed for program success. CTR PROGRAM COSTS & RESOURCES Costs Table 1 is a summary of the estimated costs necessary to maintain the CTR program through 2019. Community Transit will administer and implement the CTR program. Edmonds will provide the development, adoption, and implementation of the CTR plan and ordinance including code revisions, additions to the comprehensive plan, and any necessary enforcement. Table 1: CTR Program Costs 2017-2019 Activity Responsible Agency Estimated Cost 2017 Estimated Cost 2018 Estimated Cost 2019 CTR Administration* Community Transit $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 CTR Services** Community Transit $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Ordinance and Plan Maintenance/Compliance Edmonds $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 TOTAL $326,000 $326,000 $326,000 * Includes program administration, promotions, marketing, guaranteed ride home, outreach and education. "Includes program staff time, outreach and education. Identified Resources The resources for the programs administered for the CTR worksites come from a number of sources as shown in Table 2. WSDOT provides funds to cover some of the costs of administering the CTR program. Community Transit provides the resources to cover the remainder of the administration costs and for the outreach and marketing. Edmonds will provide the resources necessary to for maintenance and compliance with the CTR ordinance. Table 2: Identified Resources for CTR Program 2017-2019 Description Source of Revenue Identified Identified Identified Revenue Revenue Revenue 2017 2018 2019 Ordinance and Plan Edmonds $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Maintenance/Compliance CTR Administration WSDOT $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 City of Edmonds 12 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 88 4.5.a Description Source of Revenue Identified Identified Identified Revenue Revenue Revenue 2017 2018 2019 CTR Services Community Transit $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 TOTAL $ 326,000 $ 326,000 $ 326,000 Employer funding — Missing from the tables above are the considerable resources that employers put into this program. Based on data from CTR worksite reporting, for every $1 invested by state CTR funding, businesses invest $18 toward meeting CTR program goals. SUPPORTIVE TDM PROGRAM COSTS & RESOURCES Costs Table 3 is a summary of the estimated costs for other transportation demand management (TDM) programs, strategies and measures that will support commute trip reduction in Edmonds through 2019. These supportive strategies target residents and small employers through the county's corridor TDM program, Curb the Congestion. The availability of these additional resources and incentives can increase the impact of trip reduction for CTR affected employees along targeted corridors. Table 3: Supporting TDM Program Costs 2017-2019 Activity Responsible Agency Estimated Cost 2017 Estimated Cost 2018 Estimated Cost 2019 Curb the Congestion* Community Transit $739,000 $504,000 $384,000 CTR Incentives Program City of Edmonds $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 TOTAL $741,000 $506,000 $386,000 *Includes program costs for management and implementation of the Snohomish County program on 1281h/1 641h/1 961h/SR 527/SR 99 and the WSDOT/King County program on I-405 and SR 522. Identified Resources Curb the Congestion is funded through a variety of sources as shown in Table 4. Snohomish County has sponsored Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants through PSRC to fund the 128th/164th/198th/SR-527/SR-99 program. Snohomish County and Community Transit are providing matching funds for these grants. The Snohomish County matching funds will come from developer TDM mitigation fees. The SR-522 and 1-405 programs are also receiving funding through the state Regional Mobility grant program. Table 4: Supporting TDM Program Resources 2017-2019 Description Source of Identified Identified Identified Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 2017 2018 2019 Curb the Congestion WSDOT $160,000 2012 CMAQ Grant Curb the Congestion Snohomish $100,000 2012 CMAQ Grant County Curb the Congestion WSDOT $120,000 $120,000 City of Edmonds 13 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 89 4.5.a Description Source of Identified Identified Identified Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue 2017 2018 2019 2014 CMAQ Grant Curb the Congestion Snohomish $225,000 $325,000 $317,000 2016 CMAQ Grant County Curb the Congestion King County $75,000 1-405 Regional Mobility Curb the Congestion Snohomish $34,000 $34,000 $42,000 Grant Match/TDM Mitigation Count Curb the Congestion Community $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Grant Match Transit TOTAL $ 739,000 $504,000 $384,000 co 00 c d H U M V- 0 N ti r O N r a+ C N E t V R a+ a+ Q C N E L V fC a+ a+ Q City of Edmonds 14 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 90 4.5.a V. CONSULTATION AND REVIEW Agencies: The CTR Plan for Edmonds was developed in consultation with the following agencies: • City of Arlington • City of Bothell • City of Edmonds • City of Lynnwood • City of Monroe • City of Mountlake Terrace • City of Mukilteo • Community Transit • Snohomish County • Puget Sound Regional Council • Washington State Department of Transportation These consultations were done so as to present common plans and requirements across all of the CTR-affected jurisdictions in Snohomish County and the city of Bothell. The following issues were discussed at these coordination meetings: the goals of the CTR Plan, CTR strategies, a financing plan, an implementation plan, and coordination of CTR services. These meetings resulted in substantially similar plans among the jurisdictions in Snohomish County and the city of Bothell providing for continuity for the affected employers. Employers: Consultation with affected CTR employers was held on: September 29t", 2016 These workshops were held for all affected employers in Snohomish County and the city of Bothell, and were also attended by all of the cities and transit agencies involved with CTR. During these workshops, employers were informed about the changes to state CTR law and were consulted as to what strategies should be used to meet the new requirements. A summary of these meetings is contained in Appendix C. City of Edmonds 15 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 91 4.5.a APPENDICES a Packet Pg. 92 4.5.a APPENDIX A: CURRENT PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Work Site Address Status 1. City of 121 5th Ave. N Affected Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 2. Edmonds 7315 212th St. SW (#101) Affected Family Edmonds, WA 98026 Medicine Clinic 3. Swedish 21601 76th Ave. W Affected Hospital Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds A-1 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 93 4.5.a APPENDIX B: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT SUPPORT CTR Supportive comprehensive plan goals and policies in the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan. Sustainability _ Develop transportation policies, programs, and regulations designed to Goal B support and promote sustainability and resiliency. Take actions to reduce the use of fuel and energy in transportation, and encourage various modes of transportation that reduce reliance on automobiles and are supported by transportation facilities and accessibility throughout the community. Actively work with transit providers to maximize and promote transit Goal B.2 opportunities within the Edmonds community while providing links to other communities both within and outside the region. Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation Goal B.3 operations that reduce GHG emissions. Promote seamless transportation linkages between the Edmonds Goal C community and the rest of the Puget Sound region. Climate Change Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting Goal B sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and sustainability. City government should take the lead in developing and promoting GHG Goal B.1 emissions reduction for the Edmonds community Establish and evaluate targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions Goal B.2 for both Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. Targets should be set for both short- and long-range evaluation. City of Edmonds A- 2 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 94 4.5.a APPENDIX C: EMPLOYER WORKSHOP SUMMARY Employer Networking Meetings Tuesday, September 27, 2017, 2:00 — 3:30 p.m., Everett Clinic Smokey Point Thursday, September 29, 2016, 2:00 — 3:30p.m., Community Transit Meeting Summary Two employer networking meetings were held to review the proposed changes to the jurisdiction CTR plans. ETCs and their management were invited to the meetings via email. Community Transit presented a basic overview of the proposed changes to the CTR Plans for the Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs) affected by the CTR law. The CTR Plan review for the nine jurisdictions in Snohomish County and the City of Bothell (Edmonds, Bothell, Lynnwood, Marysville, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Unincorporated Snohomish County) included the following: • Review of the current CTR program under the pilot • Pilot program successes • Proposed 2017 — 2019 CTR program • Next steps The overview discussed that there would be no changes to employer requirements for the worksites located in the Southwest Urban Growth Area of Snohomish County. Worksites located in Arlington, Marysville and Monroe would follow the same requirements as the worksites located in the SWUGA beginning in July 2017. The requirements unique to these CTR Plans include completion of quarterly reports and online trip data collection using RideshareOnline.com instead of annual reports and biennial surveys as well as a target of a 7% increase in non -drive alone trips over the established baseline. All other state and local requirements will still apply. Each jurisdiction then discussed their specific plans with the ETCs that have worksites in their jurisdictions. A summary of those discussions is below. CITY OF BOTHELL In attendance: Sabrina Combs, City of Bothell Karen Sprague, FUJIFilm Sonosite Pamela Michie, Randstad Phyllis Gillman, Vertafore Tanya Julson, T-Mobile City of Edmonds A- 3 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 95 4.5.a Tina Bailey, Seattle Genetics Alex Mehn, Community Transit Group discussion: • Quarterly reporting is simple. • Networks in RSO have confused some employees but ETC assistance can help ensure correct network association. • Worksite with contracted outside employees creating a strain on the worksite programs. • Infrastructure improvements on local corridors would improve the motivation for carpooling. CITY OF MUKILTEO In attendance: Brian Belin, Boeing Camron Fichtner, Synrad Marko Liias, City of Mukilteo Megan Ranes, Travis Pamela Tyler, Boeing Stacey Gunnerson, Community Transit Group discussion: • Tracking trips in RSO is helpful, one worksite is doing the survey and annual reporting for their worksites outside CT jurisdiction and they strongly prefer using RSO. • More training on how to use communication tools in RSO would be helpful. • Employees are often confused by the Wheel Options campaign as it looks different than the other RSO pieces and the link is different so people are often confused if they have to log trips in both places to be eligible for both Choice Connections and Wheel Options. • Getting information for Wheel Options more in advance would be helpful for worksite promotion. • Worksites would like more support and resources to encourage a bicycle commute. Including onsite training for their employees on bicycle basics as well as trip planning. • Financial resources for worksite bike investments would help to increase bicycle trips. • Several employers would like to see support from Community Transit for safe routes to schools within Snohomish County and specifically the City of Mukilteo. • Major challenge for the majority of these worksites continues to be the limited bus service on Beverly Park Road. City of Edmonds A- 4 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 96 4.5.a NORTH COUNTY — ARLINGTON, MARYSVILLE AND MONROE In attendance: Angela Gemmer — City of Marysville Jeanne Killgore — The Everett Clinic Smokey Point Amy Rusko — The City of Arlington Gail Ogden — Senior Aerospace AMT Kathy Gaeta — Natural Factor Shannon Flaugh — Cascade Valley Hospital Alex Mehn — Community Transit Caryn Walline — Community Transit Debbie Anderson — Community Transit Jennifer Hass — Community Transit Stacey Gunnerson — Community Transit Group discussion: • It is a challenge to get CTR participation and to figure out which of their employees are actually using an alternative to driving to work alone. • Some concern about the 7% trip reduction goal over the next two years, and whether it will be achievable. • Employers that offer an incentive program see a benefit to tying their incentive directly to tracking trips in RSO. • ETCs will need onsite support to transition to RSO as well as continued training on RSO since they aren't really using the system at this time. UNINCORPORATED SNOHOMISH COUNTY In Attendance: Cheryl Carder — Aviation Technical Services Melissa Angelo — Aviation Technical Services Jessie Gentle — BE Aerospace Alan Douglas — Cypress Semiconductor Tonya Denny — Eldec Sylvia Peacock — Trade Products Caryn Walline — Community Transit Group Discussion: Worksites stated that they liked the new reporting and data collection method through RSO, and appreciated being able to get information on employees on a more regular basis. One worksite mentioned that employees are confused by the different incentive programs in RSO and suggested that we create a piece of collateral that showed how they all relate and who qualifies for which program. City of Edmonds A- 5 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 97 4.5.a • There was some concern that the 7% goal would be unachievable for the two year period, but the ETCs had no problem with that being the stated goal for the plan. • Comments on advanced training: o Interested in having recorded trainings for ETCs who can't commit to a full training. They would prefer to be able to watch it in sections when time allows in their work day. o Have more in person training options available. o Allow for different times for trainings. Mountlake Terrace In Attendance: Kevin Kullberg — Premera Blue Cross Edith Duttlinger — City of Mountlake Terrace Debbie Anderson — Community Transit Group Discussion: • Worksites stated that they liked the new reporting and data collection method through RSO, and appreciated being able to get information on employees on a more regular basis. • One worksite mentioned that in person transportation events are no longer feasible at the worksite and consideration should be given to alternative to meet the requirement such as virtual events. • The ETC had no problem with a 7% increase in non -drive alone trips as the stated goal for the plan. Edmonds and Lynnwood In Attendance: Bertrand Hauss — City of Edmonds Karen Westling — Swedish Edmonds Mark Melnyk — Swedish Edmonds Sarah Daoust — Edmonds Family Medicine Janet David — DSHS Lynnwood Kelvin Nesvog — Edmonds Community College Paul Coffett — City of Lynnwood Megan Tudor — City of Lynnwood Jennifer Hass — Community Transit Group Discussion: ETCs shared that they have no concerns with the current program. ETCs had no specific comments regarding the proposed CTR City of Edmonds A- 6 February 2017 DRAFT Commute Trip Reduction Plan 2017-2019 CTR Plan Template Packet Pg. 98 4.5.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES AS REQUIRED BY RCW 70.94.527 BY AMENDING CHAPTER 17.95 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. T WHEREAS, increases in the amount and rate of urban growth within the City of Edmonds c has directly contributed to higher levels of traffic congestion and delay; and 0 c WHEREAS, the public's health, safety, and welfare are threatened by increases in a vehicular travel and petroleum consumption that negatively impact traffic safety, air Q quality, and neighborhood noise levels; and T WHEREAS, traffic congestion and delay harm the City's economy by impeding the delivery of goods and services and causing working hours to be lost; and WHEREAS, the legislature has enacted the Commute Trip Reduction Law (RCW 70.94.521-555), which requires the City to establish commute trip reduction plans that require affected employers to prepare commute trip reduction programs for their employees; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the previous Commute Trip Reduction Plan expired and the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act was enacted with new guidelines, requiring the adoption of a new Commute Trip Reduction Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -1- Packet Pg. 99 4.5.b Section 1: Chapter 17.95 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (text below to replace current text): Sections: 17.95.010 17.95.020 17.95.030 17.95.040 Chapter 17.95 COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION Title. Jurisdiction. Purpose. Administration. 17.95.050 Definitions. 17.95.060 City's CTR plan. 17.95.070 Responsible city agency. 17.95.080 Applicability —Timeline for compliance. 17.95.090 Requirements for employers. 17.95.100 Record keeping. 17.95.110 Schedule and process for CTR reports. 17.95.120 Enforcement. 17.95.130 Exemptions and goal modifications. 17.95.140 Appeals. 17.95.010 Title. The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known as the "commute trip reduction ordinance of Edmonds." 17.95.020 Jurisdiction. The requirements set forth in this chapter shall apply to all major employers at any single worksite within the incorporated area. 17.95.030 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to comply with statewide Commute Trip Reduction Law of 1991 (RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.555; Chapter 202, Laws of 1991) as amended in 2006 by the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act. The commute trip reduction ordinance shall not be used as a substitute for reviews of projects under other city requirements for compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 17.95.040 Administration. The Employee Transportation Coordinator or designee shall have the duty and responsibility to administer the provisions of this chapter with the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement and administer this chapter. -2- Packet Pg. 100 4.5.b 17.95.050 Definitions. A. "Affected employee" means a full-time employee who begins their regular work day at a major employer worksite between six a.m. and nine a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least twelve continuous months. For the purpose of defining affected employees the following apply: 1. A full-time employee is a person other than an independent contractor, scheduled to be employed on a continuous basis for fifty-two weeks for an average of at least thirty-five hours per week. 2. The employee will only be counted at his or her primary worksite. 3. Seasonal agricultural employees, including seasonal employees of processors of agricultural products, are excluded from the count of affected employees. B. "Affected urban growth area" means: 1. An urban growth area, designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, whose boundaries contain a state highway segment exceeding the one hundred person hours of delay threshold calculated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and any contiguous urban growth areas; and 2. An urban growth area, designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, containing a jurisdiction with a population over seventy thousand that adopted a commute trip reduction ordinance before the year 2000, and any contiguous urban growth areas; or 3. An urban growth area identified by the Washington State Department of Transportation as listed in WAC 468-63-020(2)(b). C. "Alternative mode" means any means of commute transportation other than that in which the drive -alone motor vehicle is the dominant mode, including teleworking and compressed work weeks if they result in reducing commute trips. D. "Alternative work schedules" means work schedules which allow employees to work their required hours outside of the traditional Monday through Friday eight a.m. to five p.m. schedule. Programs such as compressed work weeks that eliminate work days for affected employees are an example. E. "Baseline data collection" means the collection of employee trip data at a major worksite to determine the non -drive alone trips per employee at the worksite. The jurisdiction uses these measurements to develop commute trip reduction targets for the major employer. The baseline measurements must be implemented in a manner that meets the requirements and timeframe specified by the city. -3- Packet Pg. 101 4.5.b F. "Carpool" means a motor vehicle occupied by at least two people traveling together for their commute trip that results in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle commute trip. G. "City" means the city of Edmonds. H. "Commute trip" means trips made from a worker's home to a worksite during the peak time of six a.m. to nine a.m. (inclusive) on weekdays. I. "Commuter matching service" means a system that assists in matching commuters for the purpose of commuting together, such as RideshareOnline.com. "Compressed work week" means an alternative work schedule, in accordance with employer policy, that regularly allows a full-time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two weeks by working longer hours during the remaining days, resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee. This definition is primarily intended to include weekly and bi-weekly arrangements, the most typical being four ten-hour days or eighty hours in nine days, but may also include other arrangements. K. "CTR law" means a law passed in 1991 (Chapter 202, Laws of 1991), amended in 2006 and codified in RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.555 requiring each county containing an urban growth area, designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, and each city within an urban growth area with a state highway segment exceeding the one hundred person hours of delay threshold calculated by the department of transportation, as well as those counties and cities located in any contiguous urban growth areas, to adopt a commute trip reduction plan and ordinance for major employers in the affected urban growth area. L. "CTR plan" means the city of Edmonds plan and ordinance to regulate and administer the CTR programs of major employers within its jurisdiction. M. "CTR program" means an employer's strategies to increase affected employees' non -drive alone trips. N. "Employer" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, cooperative, joint venture, agency, department, district, or other individual or entity, whether public, nonprofit, or private, that employs workers. O. "ETC" means employer transportation coordinator as required pursuant to RCW 70.94.531(3). P. "Flex -time" means an employer policy allowing individual employees some flexibility in choosing the time, but not the number, of their working hours to facilitate the use of alternative modes. Packet Pg. 102 4.5.b Q. "Full-time employee" means a person, other than an independent contractor, scheduled to be employed on a continuous basis for fifty-two weeks for an average of at least thirty-five hours per week on two or more weekdays per week. R. "Goals" means the established criteria for measuring effectiveness of employer programs as outlined in the Edmonds CTR plan. S. "Good faith effort" means that an employer has met the minimum requirements identified in RCW 70.94.531 and this chapter, and is working collaboratively with the city to continue its existing CTR program or is developing and implementing program modifications likely to result in improvements to its CTR program over an agreed -upon length of time. T. "Implementation" means active pursuit by an employer of the CTR goals of RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.555, this chapter and the CTR plan as evidenced by appointment of a transportation coordinator, distribution of information to employees regarding alternatives for non -drive alone commuting, and commencement of other measures according to its approved CTR program and schedule. U. "Major employer" means a private or public employer, including state agencies, that employs one hundred or more full-time affected employees at a single worksite who begin their regular workday between six a.m. and nine a.m. on at least two weekdays each week for at least twelve continuous months. V. "Major worksite" or "worksite" means a building or group of buildings that are on physically contiguous parcels of land or on parcels of land separated solely by private or public roadways or rights -of -way, and at which there are one hundred or more full-time affected employees. W. "Mode" means the means of transportation used by employees, such as drive -alone motor vehicle, rideshare vehicle (carpool, vanpool), transit, ferry, bicycle, walking, compressed work schedule and teleworking. X. "Notice" means written communication delivered via the United States Postal Service with receipt deemed accepted three days following the day on which the notice was deposited with the postal service unless the third day falls on a weekend or legal holiday in which case the notice is deemed accepted the day after the weekend or legal holiday. Y. "Single -occupant vehicle (SOV)" means a motor vehicle occupied by one employee for commute purposes, including a motorcycle. If there are other passengers occupying the motor vehicles, but the ages of these passengers are under sixteen, the motor vehicle is still considered a single -occupant vehicle for measurement purposes. -5- Packet Pg. 103 4.5.b Z. "Target" means a quantifiable or measurable value that is expressed as a desired level of performance, against which actual achievement can be compared in order to assess progress, such as increase in non -drive alone trips. AA. "Teleworking" means the use of telephones, computers, or other similar technology to permit an employee to work anywhere at any time, eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work place closer to home, reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip by at least half. BB. "Transit" means a multiple -occupant vehicle operated on a for -hire, shared -ride basis, including bus, ferry, rail, shared -ride taxi, shuttle bus, or vanpool. CC. "Vanpool" means a vehicle occupied by from five to fifteen people traveling together for their commute trip that results in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle trip. DD. "Voluntary worksite" means the physical location occupied by an employer that is voluntarily implementing a CTR program. EE. "Week" means a seven-day calendar period starting on Monday and continuing through Sunday. FF. "Weekday" means any day of the week except Saturday or Sunday. GG. "Writing," "written," or in "writing" means original written signed and dated documents delivered via the United States Postal Service or email. 17.95.060 City's CTR plan. The city's CTR plan, as approved and adopted in 2008, set forth in the ordinance codified in this chapter as Exhibit B, is adopted wholly and incorporated herein by reference. 17.95.070 Responsible city agency. The city is responsible for implementing this chapter. The CTR plan and the city CTR program should be identified together with any authority necessary to carry out such responsibilities such as rule making or certain administrative decisions. 17.95.080 Applicability —Timeline for compliance. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any major employer or voluntary worksite within the corporate limits of the city. A. In addition to city's established public notification for adoption of an ordinance, a notice of availability of a summary of the ordinance codified in this chapter, a notice of the requirements and criteria for major employers to comply with said ordinance, and subsequent revisions shall be published at least once in the city's official newspaper not more than thirty days after passage of said ordinance or revisions. 9Me Packet Pg. 104 4.5.b B. Major employers located in the city are to receive written notification that they are subject to this chapter. Such notice shall be addressed to the company's chief executive officer, senior official, or CTR manager at the worksite. The major employer shall perform baseline data collection within ninety days of notification. After the results of the baseline data are provided to the major employer, the major employer shall submit a CTR program to the city within ninety days. C. Major employers that, for whatever reason, do not receive notice within thirty days of passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter and are either notified or identify themselves to the city within ninety days of the passage of said ordinance shall perform baseline data collection within ninety days of notification and the major employer shall submit a CTR program within ninety days of receipt of the baseline data results. D. New Major Employers. Employers that meet the definition of "major employer" in this chapter must identify themselves to the city within ninety days of either moving into the boundaries of the city or growing in employment at a worksite to one hundred or more affected employees. Such employers shall complete baseline data collection within ninety days of identification as a major employer and shall submit a CTR program within ninety days of the baseline data results. The CTR program will be developed in consultation with the city and implemented not more than ninety days after the program's approval. Employers who do not implement an approved CTR program according to this section are in violation of this chapter. E. Change in Status as a Major Employer. Any of the following changes in an employer's status will change the employer's CTR program requirements: 1. If an employer initially designated as a major employer no longer employs one hundred or more affected employees and expects not to employ one hundred or more affected employees for the next twelve months, that employer is no longer a major employer. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify the city that it is no longer a major employer. 2. If the same employer returns to the level of one hundred or more affected employees within the same twelve months, that employer will be considered a major employer for the entire twelve months and will be subject to the same program requirements as other major employers. 3. If the same employer returns to the level of one hundred or more affected employees twelve or more months after its change in status to a "voluntary" employer, that employer shall be treated as a new major employer and will be subject to the same program requirements as other new major employers. -7- Packet Pg. 105 4.5.b 17.95.090 Requirements for employers. A major employer is required to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, to develop and implement a CTR program that will encourage its employees to increase non -drive alone commute trips. The employer shall submit a description of its program to the city and provide quarterly progress reports to the city on employee commuting and progress toward meeting the goals and targets. The CTR program must include the mandatory elements as described below. A. CTR Program Description Requirements. The CTR program description presents the strategies to be undertaken by an employer to achieve the program goals and targets stated in the city's CTR plan. Employers are encouraged to consider innovative strategies and combine program elements in a manner that will best suit their location, site characteristics, business type, and employees' commuting needs. Employers are further encouraged to cooperate with each other and to form or use transportation management organizations in developing and implementing CTR programs. At a minimum, the employer's description must include: (1) general description of the employment site location, transportation characteristics, and surrounding services, including unique conditions experienced by the employer or its employees; (2) number of employees affected by the CTR program; (3) documentation of compliance with the mandatory CTR program elements (as described in subsection B of this section); (4) description of the additional elements included in the CTR program (as described in subsection B of this section); and (5) schedule of implementation, assignment of responsibilities, and commitment to provide appropriate resources. B. Mandatory Program Elements. Each employer's CTR program shall include the following mandatory elements: 1. Transportation Coordinator. The employer shall designate an employee transportation coordinator (ETC) to administer the CTR program. The coordinator and/or designee's name, location, and contact information must be displayed prominently at each major worksite. The coordinator shall oversee all elements of the employer's CTR program and act as liaison between the employer and city. The objective is to have an effective transportation coordinator presence at each worksite; a major employer with multiple sites may have one transportation coordinator for all sites. 2. Information Distribution. Information about alternatives to drive -alone commuting shall be provided to employees at least twice a year. One of the items distributed must be a description of the employer's worksite program. The employer's program description and quarterly report must identify the information to be distributed and the method of distribution. Packet Pg. 106 4.5.b 3. Quarterly Progress Report. The CTR program must include a quarterly review of employee commuting and progress and good faith efforts toward meeting the goals and targets as outlined in the CTR plan. Major employers shall file a quarterly progress report with the city in accordance with the format established by this chapter and consistent with the CTR board guidelines*. The report shall describe each of the CTR measures that were in effect for the previous quarter, and the number of employees participating in the CTR program. Within the report, the employer should evaluate the effectiveness of the CTR program and, if necessary, propose modifications to achieve the worksite's CTR targets. The format of the report shall be provided by the city. The employer should contact the city for the format of the report. *CTR Guidelines can be found at www.wsdot.wa.gov/transit/CTR/law.htm 4. Trip Data Measurement. Employers shall conduct a quarterly program data evaluation as a means of determining worksite progress toward meeting CTR targets. 5. Annual Worksite Promotion of Employer CTR Program. Major employers will hold at least one annual transportation fair or equivalent promotion which is available to all employees at each major worksite. 6. ETC Training. ETCs will be required to attend an ETC basic training session within six months of appointment. 7. Employer Notification. Employers will be required to notify the city or designee when there are proposed changes to their CTR program, changes in ETC or contact information, and/or changes in number of employees at the worksite. 8. ETC Networking/Advanced Training. ETCs will be required to attend at least six hours of networking or advanced training per year. Training and networking sessions may include marketing CTR programs to employees, trip planning, ridesharing, joint promotions and networking meetings. 9. Additional Program Elements. In addition to the specific program elements described above, the employer's CTR program shall include additional elements as needed to meet CTR goals and targets. Elements may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: a. Provision of preferential parking or reduced parking charges, or both, for high -occupancy vehicles; b. Instituting or increasing parking charges for single occupant vehicles; -9- Packet Pg. 107 4.5.b c. Provision of commuter ride matching services to facilitate employee ride -sharing for commute trips; d. Provision of subsidies for transit fares; e. Provision of vans for vanpools; f. Provision of subsidies for carpools or vanpools; g. Permitting the use of the employer's vehicles for carpooling or vanpooling; h. Permitting flexible work schedules to facilitate employees' use of transit, carpools, or vanpools; i. Cooperation with transportation providers to provide additional regular or express service to the worksite; j. Provision of bicycle parking facilities, lockers, changing areas, and showers for employees who bicycle or walk to work; k. Provision of a program of parking incentives such as a rebate for employees who do not use the parking facilities; 1. Establishment of a program to permit employees to work part- or fiill- time at home or at an alternative worksite closer to their homes; m. Establishment of a program of alternative work schedules, such as a compressed work week which reduces commuting; and n. Implementation of other measures designed to facilitate the use of high -occupancy vehicles, such as on -site daycare facilities and emergency taxi services. 17.95.100 Record keeping. Major employers shall include a list of the records they will keep as part of the CTR program they submit to the city for approval. Employers will maintain all records listed in their CTR program for a minimum of forty-eight months. The city and the employer shall agree on the record keeping requirements as part of the accepted CTR program. 17.95.110 Schedule and process for CTR reports. A. CTR Program. Not more than ninety days after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or within ninety days after an employer qualifies under the provisions of this chapter, the employer will be given ninety days to complete baseline data collection, -10- Packet Pg. 108 4.5.b and an additional ninety days to submit a CTR program once the baseline data results are given to the employer. The CTR program will be developed in consultation with the city and implemented not more than ninety days after the program's approval by the city. Employers who do not implement an approved CTR program according to this section are in violation of this chapter. B. Document Review. The city shall provide the employer with written notification if a CTR program is deemed unacceptable. The notification must give cause for any rejection. The employer shall have thirty days to resubmit a modified program. If the employer receives no written notification of extension of the review period of its CTR program or comments on the CTR program or quarterly report within ninety days of submission, the employer's program or quarterly report is deemed accepted. The city may extend the review period up to ninety days. The implementation date for the employer's CTR program will be extended an equivalent number of days. C. CTR Quarterly Progress Reports. Upon approval of an employer's initial CTR program, the employer shall submit quarterly reports on the dates requested from the city, no less than ninety days after program approval. D. Modification of CTR Program Elements. Any major employer may submit a request to the city to modify a CTR program element, other than the mandatory elements specified in this chapter, including record keeping requirements. Such requests may be granted if one of the following conditions exist: The employer can demonstrate it would be unable to comply with the CTR program elements for reasons beyond the control of the employer; or 2. The employer can demonstrate that compliance with the program elements would constitute an undue hardship. E. Extensions. An employer may request additional time to submit a CTR program or CTR report, or to implement or modify a program. Such requests shall be via written notice at least ten working days before the due date for which the extension is being requested. Extensions not to exceed ninety days shall be considered for reasonable causes The city shall grant or deny the employer's extension request by written notice within ten working days of its receipt of the extension request. If there is no response issued to the employer, an extension is automatically granted for thirty days. Extensions shall not exempt an employer from any responsibility in meeting program goals and targets. Extensions granted due to delays or difficulties with any program element(s) shall not be cause for discontinuing or failing to implement other program elements. An employer's reporting date shall not be adjusted permanently as a result of these extensions. An employer's reporting date may be extended at the discretion of the city. -11- Packet Pg. 109 4.5.b F. Implementation of Employer's CTR Program. The employer shall implement its approved CTR program not more than ninety days after the program was first submitted to the city. Implementation of the approved program modifications shall begin within thirty days of the final decision or ninety days from submission of the CTR program or CTR quarterly report, whichever is greater. 17.95.120 Enforcement. A. Compliance. For purposes of this section, compliance shall mean fully implementing in good faith all provisions in an approved CTR program. B. Program Modification Criteria. The following criteria for achieving targets for non - drive alone trips per employee shall be applied to determine requirements for employer CTR program modifications: 1. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, and meets either or both targets, the employer has satisfied the objectives of the CTR plan and will not be required to modify its CTR program. 2. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, but has not met or is not likely to meet the applicable targets, the city shall work collaboratively with the employer to make modifications to its CTR program. After agreeing on modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR program description to the city for approval within thirty days of reaching agreement. 3. If an employer fails to make a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this chapter, and fails to meet the applicable targets, the city shall work collaboratively with the employer to identify modifications to the CTR program and shall direct the employer to revise its program within thirty days to incorporate the modifications. In response to the recommended modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR program description, including the requested modifications or equivalent measures, within thirty days of receiving written notice to revise its program. The city shall review the revisions and notify the employer of acceptance or rejection of the revised program. If a revised program is not accepted, the city will send written notice to that effect to the employer within thirty days and, if necessary, require the employer to attend a conference with program review staff for the purpose of reaching a consensus on the required program. A final decision on the required program will be issued in writing by the city within ten working days of the conference. C. Violations. The following constitute violations if the deadlines established in this chapter are not met: -12- Packet Pg. 110 4.5.b Failure to self -identify as a major employer within the timeframes indicated in the Applicability —Timeline for compliance section above; 2. Failure to perform a baseline data collection including: a. Employers notified or that have identified themselves to the city within ninety days of the ordinance codified in this chapter being adopted and that do not perform baseline data collection consistent with the requirements specified by the city within ninety days from the notification or self - identification; b. Employers not identified or self -identified within ninety days of the ordinance codified in this chapter being adopted and that do not perform baseline data collection consistent with the requirements specified by the city within ninety days from the adoption of the ordinance codified by this chapter; c. A new major employer that does not perform baseline data collection consistent with the requirements specified by the city within ninety days of identification as a major employer; 3. Failure to implement an approved CTR program, unless the program elements that are carried out can be shown through quantifiable evidence to meet or exceed the goals and targets as specified in this chapter; 4. Submission of false or fraudulent data in response to data collection requirements; 5. Failure to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2); or 6. Failure to revise a CTR program as defined in RCW 70.94.534(4). D. Penalties. 1. No major employer with an approved CTR program which has made a good faith effort may be held liable for failure to reach the applicable goals and targets; 2. Each day of failure to implement the program shall constitute a separate violation, subject to penalties as described in Chapter 7.80 RCW. The maximum penalty shall be equal to the state of Washington Class I civil infraction of two hundred fifty dollars per day per violation, as described in RCW 7.80.120(1)(a). 3. A major employer shall not be liable for civil penalties if failure to implement an element of a CTR program was the result of an inability to reach agreement -13- Packet Pg. 111 with a certified collective bargaining agent under applicable laws where the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in good faith. Unionized employers shall be presumed to act in good faith compliance if they: a. Propose to a recognized union any provision of the employer's CTR program that is subject to bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and b. Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the mandates of the CTR program approved by city and advise the union that the proposal being made is necessary for compliance with state law (RCW 70.94.531). 17.95.130 Exemptions and target modifications. A. Worksite Exemptions. A major employer may request the city to grant an exemption from all CTR program requirements or penalties for a particular worksite. The employer must demonstrate that it would experience undue hardship in complying with the requirements of this chapter as a result of the characteristics of its business, its work force, or its locations. An exemption may be granted if and only if the major employer demonstrates that it faces extraordinary circumstances, such as bankruptcy, and is unable to implement any measures of the approved CTR plan. Exemptions may be granted by the city at any time based on written notice provided by the major employer. The notice should clearly explain the conditions for which the major employer is seeking an exemption from the requirements of the CTR program. The city shall review annually all employers receiving exemptions, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. B. Employee Exemptions. Specific employees or groups of employees who are required to drive alone to work as a condition of employment may be exempted from a worksite's CTR program. Exemptions may also be granted for employees who work variable shifts throughout the year and who do not rotate as a group to identical shifts. The city will use the criteria identified in the CTR board guidelines* to assess the validity of employee exemption requests. The city shall review annually all employee exemption requests, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. *CTR Guidelines can be found at www.wsdot.wa.gov/transit/CTR/law.htm C. Modification of CTR Program Targets. A major employer may request that the city modify its CTR program targets. Such requests shall be filed in writing prior to the date the worksite is required to submit its program description or quarterly report. The target modification request must clearly explain why the worksite is unable to achieve the applicable target. The worksite must also demonstrate that it has implemented all of the elements contained in its approved CTR program. -14- Packet Pg. 112 4.5.b The city will review and grant or deny requests for target modifications in accordance with procedures and criteria identified in the CTR board guidelines. An employer may not request a modification of the applicable targets until one year after the city approval of its initial program description or report. 17.95.140 Appeals. Any major employer may appeal the administrative decisions regarding exemptions, modification of targets, modification of CTR program elements, and determinations concerning failure to implement a CTR program. The appeal must be filed with the city clerk not later than the tenth day following the date of the administrative decision, accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee. The appeal must be in writing and state in a clear and concise manner the specific exceptions and c objections to the administrative decision. The decision on the appeal shall constitute a final c decision appealable to the city council. 0 0 c Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance a should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such 00 invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING -15- Packet Pg. 113 4.5.b M. JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. -16- Packet Pg. 114 4.5.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES AS REQUIRED BY RCW 70.94.527 BY AMENDING CHAPTER 17.95 OF THE EDMONDS CITY 0 CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. a The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. c~i DATED this day of , 2017. o T CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY -17- Packet Pg. 115 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Award of construction contract for Highway 99 Pipe Rehabilitation Project to Shoreline Construction Company Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History Council awarded the construction of the Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Insituform Industries in the amount of $1,029,916 plus a $175,000 management reserve. On February 14, 2017, staff presented this item to full Council and it was forwarded to the February 21st consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Award contract to Shoreline Construction Company in the amount of $108,740.43. Narrative This Hwy 99 project is a separate phase of the above larger Cured -in -Place -Pipe (CIPP) Sewer Rehabilitation project. During the installation of the CIPP on Hwy 99 between 2161h and 2201h Streets SW, staff discovered that a section of the existing 8" concrete sewer main was in such a degraded condition that it was no longer amenable to the CIPP process. This section runs under the west sidewalk under SR99 from approximately the entrance of Starbucks Coffee to just north of Dick's Drive -In. City staff deleted this CIPP work from construction, electing to repair this section under a separate contract at a later date. Staff commissioned a design utilizing pipe -bursting technology for the repair, a technique that draws an expander head through the existing pipe, shattering it and moving the pieces aside, while immediately pulling into the newly -emptied space the replacement pipe. All construction and management reserve funds are coming from the larger CIPP project previously approved on April 5, 2016. No additional funds are anticipated to be needed to complete this construction phase. The project was advertised via the Small Works Process outlined in the City's existing Purchasing Policy. Three bids were received, ranging from $108,740.43 to $190,667.70. The engineer's estimate was $167,400. The proposed construction budget, with a 10% management reserve, are shown in the attached bid summary. The project costs will be funded by the 423 Sewer Fund. Attachments: Bid Summary Vicinity Map Packet Pg. 116 4.6.a City of Edmonds Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation, Highway 99 Rehab Bid Summary 31-Jan-17 Engineer's Estimate Shoreline Construction Interwest Construction Budget Sewer Construction Estimate & Bids $ 167,390.10 $ 108,740.43 $ 1675165.01 $ 190,667.70 Funds Required Engineering/Construction Mgmt $16,700 Contract Award $108,700 Management Reserve (20%) $21,700 $147,100 Funds Available Approved CIPP Construction Budget 1,204,900 Less Amount Expended to Date 661,100 Less Pending Expenditures (estimated) 75,000 Packet Pg. 117 City of Edmonds Vicinity Map Ins. i g9a Citywide CI PP Sewer Rehabilitation Project SR99 Rehab Phase Hwy 99 from 220t" St northwards under sidewalk approximately 500' . . 79", L F 4 `' _ f W 2 r r� �i �f t 5 Nk .0 H4wEkq) I OttTH 51 S►.+ � tt � T C i 196TH 5-F sw qa -nf Sr-.W r'041 t t %r •tw r►iniiI-:lr: d J Z44TI+ ST 4.6.b rn r x � � y x it Sib Packet Pg. 1 Q 18 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Ordinance Adopting RCW 9A.44.132 - Failure to Register As Sex Offender or Kidnapping Offender Staff Lead: Jim Lawless Department: Police Services Preparer: James Lawless Background/History Certain Provisions of RCW 9A.44.132 provide for the offense of Failure to Register as Sex Offender or Kidnapping Offender to be charged as a gross misdemeanor. This RCW has not been adopted into the Edmonds City Code, therefore, when charging the case must be referred to South District Court as opposed to Edmonds Municipal Court. Staff Recommendation This item was presented to Council during the February 14, 2017, with Council moving the item to the February 21, 2017 Council Work Meeting to be approved by full Council via Consent Agenda. Narrative RCW 9A.44.132 has several level of offenses that range from Class C Felony to Gross Misdemeanor, depending upon the level of the original offense. Certain Provisions of RCW 9A.44.132 provide for the offense of Failure to Register as Sex Offender or Kidnapping Offender to be charged as a gross misdemeanor. This RCW has not been adopted into the Edmonds City Code, therefore, when charging the case must be referred to South District Court as opposed to Edmonds Municipal Court. The adoption of this RCW would allow for cases to be filed through Edmonds Municipal Court should the situation present itself. Attachments: DRAFT Ordinance Adopting Failure to Register as Sex Offender or Kidnapping Offender Statute by Reference 1.19.16 9A.44.132 Packet Pg. 119 4.7.a ORDINANCE NO. c W 00 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING ADOPTION OF THE FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER OR KIDNAPPING OFFENDER CRIMINAL STATUTE BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND c as FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds ("City") has jurisdiction to prosecute gross misdemeanors within the City; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Court of the City ("Municipal Court") has jurisdiction to adjudicate only citations for criminal violation that violate City ordinance or Edmonds City Code ("ECC"); and WHEREAS, the City may, by reference, adopt non -felony criminal codes in the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") into the ECC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amended. Section 5.38.140 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Registration of sex offenders — Procedures — Sex offense defined — Penalties" is hereby amended to read as follows (new language underlined): 5.38.140 Registration of sex offenders — Procedures — Sex offense defined — Penalties. The following sections in the Revised Code of Washington, and all other statutes adopted by reference therein, including all future amendments, are adopted by reference as if set forth in full herein: A. RCW 9A.44.130, Registration of sex offenders — Procedures — Sex offense defined — Penalties. Packet Pg. 120 4.7.a B. RCW 9A.44.132, Failure to register as sex offender or kidnapping offender — Refusal c to provide DNA. o C_RCW 9A.44.140, Registration of sex offenders — Termination of duty to register. [Ord. 3071 § 1, 19961. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 121 4.7.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING ADOPTION OF THE FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER OR KIDNAPPING OFFENDER CRIMINAL STATUTE BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 0 co 00 3 Packet Pg. 122 RCW 9A.44.132: Failure to register as sex offender or kidnapping offender —Refusal to p... Page 1 of 1 4.7.b RCW 9A.44.132 Failure to register as sex offender or kidnapping offender —Refusal to provide DNA. (1) A person commits the crime of failure to register as a sex offender if the person has a duty to register under RCW 9A.44.130 for a felony sex offense and knowingly fails to comply with any of the requirements of RCW 9A.44.130. (a) The failure to register as a sex offender pursuant to this subsection is a class C felony if: (i) It is the person's first conviction for a felony failure to register; or (ii) The person has previously been convicted of a felony failure to register as a sex offender in this state or pursuant to the laws of another state, or pursuant to federal law. (b) If a person has been convicted of a felony failure to register as a sex offender in this state or pursuant to the laws of another state, or pursuant to federal law, on two or more prior occasions, the failure to register under this subsection is a class B felony. (2) A person is guilty of failure to register as a sex offender if the person has a duty to register under RCW 9A.44.130 for a sex offense other than a felony and knowingly fails to comply with any of the requirements of RCW 9A.44.130. The failure to register as a sex offender under this subsection is a gross misdemeanor. (3) A person commits the crime of failure to register as a kidnapping offender if the person has a duty to register under RCW 9A.44.130 for a kidnapping offense and knowingly fails to comply with any of the requirements of RCW 9A.44.130. (a) If the person has a duty to register for a felony kidnapping offense, the failure to register as a kidnapping offender is a class C felony. (b) If the person has a duty to register for a kidnapping offense other than a felony, the failure to register as a kidnapping offender is a gross misdemeanor. (4) A person commits the crime of refusal to provide DNA if the person has a duty to register under RCW 9A.44.130 and the person willfully refuses to comply with a legal request for a DNA sample as required under RCW 43.43.754(1)(b). The refusal to provide DNA is a gross misdemeanor. (5) Unless relieved of the duty to register pursuant to RCW 9A.44.141 and 9A.44.142, a violation of this section is an ongoing offense for purposes of the statute of limitations under RCW 9A.04.080. [ 2015 c 261 § 5; 2011 c 337 § 5; 2010 c 267 § 3.] NOTES: Application-2010 c 267: See note following RCW 9A.44.128. N M Q C N E M V f� r Q http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.132 Packet Pg. 123 1 /24/2017 4.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Police Department Surplus Property Staff Lead: Don Anderson Department: Police Services Preparer: Don Anderson Background/History This item was discussed and approved for consent at the February 14, 2017 Council Meeting. Staff Recommendation Approval via consent agenda at February 21, 2017 Business Meeting. Staff recommends that all property other than ballistic vests be sent for outside auction, or be disposed of as noted in the attached document. Staff recommends and requests that this agenda item be forwarded to the next Council Business Meeting for approval via the Consent Agenda. From time to time the Police Department has surplus property that must be disposed of. The items listed on the attached document are no longer used by the department because they are either outdated or no longer serviceable. The property listed will be auctioned, destroyed, or in the case of the ballistic vests, returned to the manufacturer for recycling. The recycling manufacturer is no longer prepaying the shipping so estimated cost to return the ballistic vests is $180.00. Attachments: Surplus list beginning 8-2015 through 2016 Packet Pg. 124 4.8.a Est. FMV Minimum Purchase Purchase (net disposal Price (if Date Asset/Tag 3 Property Description Brand Model # Serial # Condition Price Date costs) applicable) Intended Disposal Method 4009 Handheld Printer Brother Pocket Jet 3 Broken $226 1/25/2010 01 Destroy Scanner Honeywell Handheld 08326AO077 Broken Unknown Unknown $01 Destroy Headset Peltor MT1 H7A-01 346088 Broken Unknown Unknown $01 Destroy 1/14/2016 Camera Canon PoweShot 6822102468 Broken Unknown Unknown $01 Destroy -Broken 11/4/2015 Flashlight Streamlight StingerXTHP 26325 Broken Unknown Unknown $01 Destroy -Broken 9/1/2015 3907 Radar Gun Decatur GHD GHD12654 Broken $538 8/1/2009 $01 Destroy -Broken Rifle Mossberg 22LR n/a Broken Unknown Unknown $01 Destroy -Broken 4414 Camera Canon PowerShot 6.92061 E+11 Broken $62 4/0/2014 $01 Destroy -Broken 4520 Camera Nikon Cool Pix L32 30111662 Broken $91 8/15/2012 $01 Destroy -Broken 4220 Camera Canon PowerShot A1300 4.52063E+11 Broken $95 12/31/2015 $01 Destroy -Broken 2262 Flashlight Streamlight StingerXTHP 46848 Broken Unknown Uinknown $01 Destroy -Broken Apr-16 2824 Handcuffs Peerless Stainless 660687 Broken Unknown 4/21/1998 $01 Destroy -Broken May-16 4487 Camera Nikon Coolpix L32 30019869 Broken $107 Apr-15 $0 Destroy -Broken 3419 Radar Gun Genesis GHS GHS08722 Broken $918 Mar-03 $0 Destroy -Broken Headset Plantronics M10 LY4531 Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy -Broken Dec-16 3655 Taser X26 X00-107030 Broken $896 1/24/2005 $0 Destroy -Broken Bag Premier Torn/ripped Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy -Not usable 11/3/2015 4155 Scope Light Streamlight TLR-1s 61377 Faulty Switch $100 7/1/2011 $0 Destroy -Not usable Scope Light Streamlight TLR-1s 94378 Bad Door Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy -Not usable Feb-16 3703 Radar Gun Decatur GVP Directional GVPD05654 Broken $1,413 11/27/2006 $0 Destroy -Retain for parts 4314 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0901718 Unknown $400 10/1/2013 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 4158 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0423721 Unknown $418 Aug-11 $ 405.66 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0901725 Unknown $400 Oct-13 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 4313 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0901734 Unknown $400 Oct-13 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 4312 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0901567 Unknown $400 Oct-13 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 4311 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0901607 Unknown $400 Oct-13 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 4159 NightScope EOTech 516.A65 A0423706 Unknown $418 Aug-11 $ 405.67 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 NightScope EOTech 512.A65 304843 Unknown Unknown Jan-07 $ 405.66 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 Holosight Bushnell 46674 Unknown Unknown Jun-98 $ 405.66 To EOTech for refund-Rec'd 6/16 TV cart Good Unknown Unknown $10 To outside acution Computer bag Sharp Used Unknown Unknown $5 To outside auction Feb-16 2,000 Manila Folders End Tab n/a New $358 Sep-09 $300 To outside auction 5726 Total Station Sokkisha 2559 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown To outside auction 3009 Alarm System Agent Portable A120 Obsolete $3,798 9/30/1995 Unknown To outside auction June TV/VCR Panasonic PV-2058 20" A8AA23076 Working Unknown Unknown $25 To outside auction July Three (3) under desk keyboard/mouse trays Good Unknown Unknown $15 To outside auction 3 Halogen Spotlights IGordon 12 Volt Obsolete Unknown Unknown $20 To outside auction Transparency Film jApollo Black Image on clear No longer neede Unknown Unknown $1 To outside auction Cardboard Mounting 13M 10-3/4 x 11 13/16 No longer neede Unknown Unknown $1 To outside auction Ink Jet Transparenciesl Avery 5277 No longer neede Unknown Unknown $2 To outside auction I- LO 0 r 0 0 N t a� 3 0 L t uO 0 N 00 c B m An N 0 Q. L 0 Cn c a� E t v c0 r Q Packet Pg. 125 4.8.a Est. FMV Minimum Purchase Purchase (net disposal Price (if Date Asset/Tag i Property Description Brand Model # Serial # Condition Price Date costs) applicable) Intended Disposal Method 2 Trans Film/Copies 3M PP2200 No longer neede Unknown Unknown $5 To outside auction Nov-16 2769 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO407 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2770 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO397 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2771 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO394 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2773 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO398 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2774 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO390 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2776 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO396 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2777 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO406 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2778 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO395 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2779 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO401 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2780 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO404 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2781 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO402 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2782 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO391 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2783 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO388 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2784 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO405 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2785 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO400 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2786 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO403 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 2787 Modem Motorola VRM600 508SXWO399 Obsolete $716 12/1/1997 $25 To outside auction 3200 Modem Motorola VRM6500 508SAL0269 Obsolete $2,446 6/8/2000 $25 To outside auction 3201 Modem Motorola VRM6500 508SAL0268 Obsolete $2,446 6/1/2002 251 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0155 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0112 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0152 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0175 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0138 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Modem Motorola VRM8500 508SKS0161 Obsolete Donated Unknown $25 To outside auction Nov Trackless Lift Off Tape Universal 86TL 5 in box of 6 Not needed Unknown Unknown $5 To outside auction Trackless Lift Off Tape Olivetti 69TL 6 in box of 6 New/not needed Unknown Unknown $10 To outside auction TacFre Lift Off Tape GRC 6 in package New/not needed Unknown Unknown $2 To outside auction Typewriter Ribbon O/GRC T381-COB New/not needed Unknown Unknown $8 To outside auction 100 Refill Cards Rolodex 5 pks/100 per New/not needed Unknown Unknown $5 To outside auction Copier Labels Universal 90107 Partial package Not needed Unknown Unknown $2 To outside auction Transparency Film Universal 65118 3 boxes Not needed Unknown Unknown $4 To outside auction Transparency Film Universal 65120 1 box Not needed Unknown Unknown $1 To outside auction White shipping Labels Avery 5164 1 box Not needed Unknown Unknown $10 To outside auction Address Labels/Typew Avery 5381 3 packages Not needed Unknown Unknown $15 To outside auction Laser Labels Simon 81210 1 box Not needed Unknown Unknown $10 To outside auction Laser Printer Labels Universal 80101 1 box Not needed Unknown Unknown $3 To outside auction CD Labels Avery 8692 1 package Not needed Unknownj Unknown $10 To outside auction Video Tape Labels Avery 5997 4 boxes Not needed Unknownj Unknown $20 To outside auction Packet Pg. 126 4.8.a Est. FMV Minimum Purchase Purchase (net disposal Price (if Date Asset/Tag 3 Property Description Brand Model # Serial # Condition Price Date costs) applicable) Intended Disposal Method Toner cartridge Canon 3e Black BCI-3eBK Unused Unknown Unknown $5 To outside auction 3 Toner cartridges Canon 6 Black BCI-6BK Unused Unknown Unknown $15 To outside auction Mar-16 4110 TV ILC ILC-26HD BJC70810143-3T9 Broken Absorbed 2007 $0 To recycle Ballistic Vest Protech Armored 1315 9508CV453/453 Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer 1/5/2016 3676 Ballistic Vest ABA 3A-XT-FS-NS 06024106/24107 Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer Feb-16 3938 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-3AOOS-SM01 10110363/10110364 Expired $931 7/14/2010 $0 To recycle manufacturer 3939 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-3AOOS-SM01 10066640/10066641 Expired $931 8/12/2010 $0 To recycle manufacturer 3966 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-3AOOS-SM01 10221582/10221583 Expired $931 12/25/2010 $0 To recycle manufacturer Ballistic Vest ABA II-1000-FS-R N9625217A/214A Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle Manufacturer 3289 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 01013406-A/3407-A Expired Unknown 6/14/2001 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4101 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-2000S-SM01 11102484/11102485 Expired $794 4/20/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4116 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-2000S-SM01 11113589/11113590 Expired $794 5/5/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 3251 Ballistic Vest ABA Xtreme 01003461-A/462-A Expired Unknown 3/3/02001 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4103 1 Ballistic Vest 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 11102482/2483 Expuired $794 4/20/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4112 Ballistic Vest 2nd Chance BA-2000S-SM01 11102472/2473 Expired $794 4/25/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 3660 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06023002/3004 Expired $707 4/1/2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer 3242 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3AF-1 00076368-A/76369A Expired $0 Unknown 01 To recycle manufacturer 3916 Ballistic Vest ABA XHP-111A.0 09110921/09110922 Expired $765 10/5/2009 $0 To recycle manufacturer Aug-16 4171 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-2000OS-SM01 11201919/11201918 Expired $794 8/29/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 182 Ballistic Insert Rigid Insert Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer 3690 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06136485/06136486 Expired $707 10/27.2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4188 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-3AOOS-SM01 11323258/11323259 Expired $793 12/29/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer 4179 Ballistic Vest Safariland BA-2000S-SM01 11305288/289 Expired $793 11/16/2011 $0 To recycle manufacturer Ballistic Vest Safariland LM-2-9606 675153/675154 Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer Ballistic Vest ABA 3A-2000-FS-C N-9786259A/240A Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer 3685 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06095837/95838 1 Expired $707 8/1/2006 $01 To recycle manufacturer 3695 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06136651/06136652 Expired $707 10/1/2006 $01 To recycle manufacturer Ballistic Vest ABA XT2-2 IK-10 07145763/07145764Expired I I Unknown Inknown $01 ITo recycler manufacturer E/215 Metal Reduction Plate I Expired I Unknown Unknown $01 ITo recycle manufacturer I- LO CO r to 0 N t 3 0 L t uO 0 N 00 c d r vJ N 0. L v/ E U 2 r Y Q Packet Pg. 127 4.8.a Notes I- LO co r to r O N t 7 O L ui r O N 00 C C N r N N 7 tl L d E t V 2 Q Packet Pg. 128 4.8.a Notes I- LO co r to r O N t 7 O L ui r O N 00 C C N r N N 7 tl L d E t V 2 Q Packet Pg. 129 4.8.a Notes I- LO co r to r O N t 7 O L ui r O N 00 C C N r N N 7 tl L d E t V 2 Q Packet Pg. 130 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Public Hearing on Highway 99 Subarea Plan (90 min.) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History Development of a vision and plan for the Highway 99 area has been a high priority for Edmonds. Work on this project began in late 2015 and ramped up significantly in 2106. A consultant team, led by Fregonese Associates, was hired to help develop the plan. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan did not start in a vacuum. Previous studies and plans were considered, including the 2004 Highway 99 Enhancement Project, the 2004 Highway 99 Market Assessment, the 2007 Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study, the 2014 Edmonds Transportation Plan, and the updated 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Coordination was sought with the Washington Sate Department of Transportation (WSDOT), which has jurisdiction over Highway 99, and with transit agencies and adjacent jurisdictions (Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County, and Lynnwood). Public outreach for the current project included: Briefings/discussions with Planning Board and City Council at numerous public meetings Meetings with key property owners Three public open houses Four mailings about the project and input opportunities, each to nearly 2200 addresses: o Flyer # 1 o Flyer # 2 o Two postcards Press releases News media articles (Beacon, My Edmonds News, City newsletter) At least three sets of email announcements to people signed up for emails Meetings with technical advisory committee (including transportation agencies and nearby local governments) Special City website information (updated on ongoing basis) Facebook posts Public hearing notices Miscellaneous communication with interested parties. After a public hearing on December 14, 2016, the Planning Board provided direction on minor revisions to increase flexibility for developing unique sites and recommended approval of the revised plan. (See minutes in first attachment.) Packet Pg. 131 6.1 Staff Recommendation Consider the proposed plan and public comments in preparation for future action Narrative The proposed plan (see second attachment) has evolved through the public process. It builds on values identified at community meetings, especially: Connectivity Walkability Safety Enhancement of destinations Healthy businesses Affordable housing Beautification The plan establishes a vision to address land uses, affordable housing, economic factors, and transportation/infrastructure for the mid -to -long term. It recognizes three key districts in the area: the Health District, the International District and the Gateway District. Each has particular features and opportunities. Improvements to the streets and the walking environment are fundamental to the plan. The approach to transportation improvements is similar to what was done in the neighboring city of Shoreline for the same corridor. The plan's list and map of priority projects emphasizes the transportation needs in Edmonds. This will be helpful in working to obtain the $10 million that has been reserved in the state capital budget for Edmonds Highway 99 and to obtain other state and federal transportation funding. Affordable housing is addressed in the plan, recognizing that housing supply in our region is not keeping up with demand. In fact, research in 2016 showed that the number of residential units in the Highway 99 vicinity that were affordable to households below 80% of the area median income was very limited. The plan proposes ways to increase housing opportunities as part of future development. The plan strongly encourages business uses, whether through the continuation of existing healthy businesses or redevelopment to add more commercial uses. Commercial facilities can be "stand alone" or as part of a mixed use project that includes residential. Also, the plan goes beyond just being a study or wish list. Based on both a vision and a realistic plan for the future, it identifies implementation strategies, policies, and action steps. Analysis and Implementation To analyze the impacts of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared. The draft EIS will be issued in March. Also, in March, the City Council may consider the plan further and decide interim steps while the EIS is being completed. The final EIS will document environmental/transportation issues associated with the plan and identify any mitigation measures. Meanwhile, code amendments for the Highway 99 area will be drafted to help implement the plan. Such amendments would go through the usual public process, including Planning Board review and recommendation this spring and, afterward, City Council review and action. If all goes well, the entire Packet Pg. 132 6.1 process can be wrapped up and put into effect by mid -June. Next Steps At the February 21 public hearing, a presentation highlighting key aspects of the proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan will be given. (See third attachment.) Time will then be available for public comments and for City Council discussion. Follow-up City Council meetings on the Plan are being scheduled for March. Attachments: PB161214f Highway 99 Subarea Plan Draft 020717 Hwy 99 Council Hearing - FA - 021516 Packet Pg. 133 6.1.a ELECTION OF OFFICERS BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD FOR 2017. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER MONROE TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD FOR 2017. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Ms. Hope advised that the Edmonds portion of Highway 99 has been an important focus of the community for a long time. A lot of work has been done in the past, and these previous efforts were studied as part of the current planning process. She reviewed that the subarea planning process started in 2015, and worked ramped up significantly in 2016 when the City hired a consultant team, led by Fregonese Associates, to assist staff in developing the plan. The goal was to create a more detailed visionary plan for the future. She emphasized that the current document is a draft, but staff believes it is very close to what the actual plan will be. The consultant and staff look forward to hearing from the public and the Planning Board so that the document can be adjusted and moved forward to the City Council for consideration and final adoption. Ms. Hope reviewed that public outreach for the project included briefings and discussions with the Planning Board and City Council, meetings with key property owners, three public open houses, three mailings about the project to nearly 2,200 addresses, press releases, news media articles, at least two sets of email announcements to people who signed up for emails, meetings with the technical advisory committee (including transportation agencies and nearby local governments), special information on the City's website, and various communications with interested parties. Ms. Hope introduced Alex Joyce, Fregonese Associates, who was present to review the highlights of the plan, listen to public comments and answer questions of the Board. At the conclusion of the public hearing, she recommended the Board forward the plan to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with any technical changes identified by the Board. Staff anticipates that adoption of the plan will be followed closely by implementation, which includes working with interested property owners who want to improve properties, working with housing agencies who want to help with affordable housing, working with neighboring jurisdictions on infrastructure and transportation improvements, and working with various government agencies to obtain grant funding. In addition, more detailed changes to the development codes and design standards will be needed to implement the plan. Alex Joyce, Principal, Fregonese Associates, advised that the public process was robust and allowed people to identify their vision for Highway 99 in term of land use and transportation/infrastructure improvements. They received great feedback during the public process, which identified the following community values: • Connectivity. Better connections and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders to destinations and amenities in the area. • Walkability. Create walkable neighborhoods and commercial centers where visitors can walk safely and comfortably at all hours of the day. • Safety. Safer connections for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders to destinations and amenities in the area. • Destinations. Enhance distinct districts in the area such as the Health District and the International District to create more vibrant destinations and an even better sense of place. • Healthy Businesses. Bring new businesses and jobs to the area, encourage existing businesses to thrive, and provide good quality retail and shopping amenities. • Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable housing options for a mix of income levels (low-income, workforce, and moderate -income). • Beautification. Create a more attractive place for residents and visitors through landscaping and urban design. Mr. Joyce explained that there have been multiple attempts at planning for the Highway 99 area, and these were considered throughout the process. The proposed plan is a vision and action plan to enhance the Highway 99 area, support prolonged Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 134 6.1.a economic prosperity in the corridor area, and build a more attractive place for the Edmonds community to live, work and play. The document provides guidance for how the corridor should grow and change in the future and sets forth the opportunities and actions needed to address the challenges on Highway 99. The plan describes three alternative scenarios representing different intensities of investment and redevelopment in the short- and long-term future. It also identifies implementation strategies for investments, policy changes and short-, medium- and long-term actions needed to transform the Highway 99 area into a vibrant, mixed -use, transit -oriented corridor. Mr. Joyce advised that the vision goals contained in the draft plan represent the themes that surfaced throughout the community discussions with residents and stakeholders. They describe the qualities residents want to see in the Highway 99 Corridor as: • Economic Development. Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new businesses, investment and redevelopment. • Safety and Walkability. Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to move along and get across Highway 99. • Housing and Development. Encourage and incentivize mixed -use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. • Identity. Establish a distinct identity along the corridor that supports existing cultural destinations and amenities and creates a welcoming and attractive environment for both visitors and residents. • Transportation. Create more efficient and accessible connections between districts, destinations and other transit centers/stations. Mr. Joyce described the corridor as an approximately 2-mile stretch of road that borders several jurisdictions in addition to Edmonds: Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). The plan identifies the following three subdistricts: International District (North). This area is a major cluster of Asian -owned businesses, with diverse restaurants, grocers and shops. It is already a regional destination, and there are opportunities to strengthen its identify and help it thrive in the long term. Gateway District (South). This area is the first introduction to Edmonds on Highway 99, and the community expressed a strong desire for a "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds. The intent is to place a recognizable marker at the entry point. Health District (Center). This area is home to a variety of health care facilities and offices, including Swedish Hospital Edmonds Campus. Mr. Joyce advised that the Implementation Strategies were organized into sections: zoning and development, affordable housing, signage and wayfinding, and transit. He explained that the strategies proposed in this section are intended to strengthen the design standards that currently exist. As the plan moves into the implementation phase, there are certain conditions on the corridor that may need special design consideration. The proposed design standards are intended to apply throughout the corridor, but other, more detailed standards will need to be created later to address unique circumstances. He reviewed the recommended strategies as follows: • Recommendation LL Replace the current Comprehensive Plan maps and text with updated materials that clearly identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses. The intent is to simplify the zoning and make it more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Maps. • Recommendation ZL Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 zones into a single CG zone with height limits at 75 feet. Most of the area is either zoned CG 1 or CG2, and the difference between them is a minor height difference of 15 feet. • Recommendation 3.1. Instead of having six or more zones, it is recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone be applied to most of the study area. Much of the current zoning was inherited when the area was annexed from Snohomish County. The patchwork of zones is outdated, and in some cases, inconsistent with parcel boundaries. • Recommendation 4.1. On a primary frontage, a minimum of 50% of the street frontage should have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line. In addition, 50% of all other street frontages will have buildings, walls or hedges at Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 135 least 4 feet in height, within 10 feet of the property line. The current standard requires that not more than 50% of a project's total parking spaces may be located between the building's front fagade and the primary street, and parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. This standard can allow too much parking on street fronts, which impacts pedestrian activity and hinders a vibrant urban street. The intent is to encourage more parking in the rear of buildings by regulating the location of a percentage of the parking, but the amount of parking in front could still be very large. The plan suggests that regulating the percentage of the frontage that needs to be occupied by building instead of parking area is a better approach. • Recommendation 4.Z Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage. This will push parking towards the side and rear of buildings and bring buildings up to the street, allowing more space for pedestrian activity on primary streets and more visibility for businesses. • Recommendation 4.3. 50% of primary frontage building fafade within 10 feet lot line shall be made of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontage require 30% transparency. • Recommendation 4.4. Replace the 4-foot landscaped buffer with a required 10 foot pedestrian activity zone setback on all primary frontages with ground floor retail. The current standard creates landscape barriers between pedestrian and buildings rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone. The proposed change would allow for a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art, street furniture, street trees, etc. • Recommendation 4.5. Establish stepback and setback standards for apartments and mixed -use buildings adjacent to single-family zones and include these standards in the zoning code. The current design standards do not ensure proper transition of higher -density buildings adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. As the City contemplates expanding the CG zone over a larger area, it is important that mixed -use development transitions nicely into the single-family neighborhoods. The proposed design standards would ensure predictability by strengthening the requirements for stepbacks and setbacks. The plan proposes the following setbacks/stepbacks: • Ground Floor Setback. Frontages on Highway 99 would require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a pedestrian activity zone. The setback for frontages not on Highway 99 would be reduced to 5 feet to encourage an enhanced pedestrian realm. The current 15-foot setback and 10-foot landscaping requirement for lot line adjacency with single-family zones would be retained. • Upper Floor Stepback. There would be zero stepback required for the portion of building up to 30 feet in height, as 30 feet is the maximum height allowed in the RM-1.5 zone, which is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99. A 10-foot stepback would be required for the portion of building beyond 30 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single-family zones. An 8-foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height would be required on all sides across the street from single-family zones. • Recommendation 5.1. Adopt transit -supportive parking standards. As proposed, the parking standard for the entire residential portion of a development would be 0.75 per unit. The commercial parking standard would be 2 per 1,000 square feet. The first 3,000 square feet of commercial within mixed -use buildings would be exempt if there is a shared parking plan. This exemption is intended to reduce the cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs. In addition, the plan proposes that the City allow developers to present project -specific studies that reflect special situations. Through interviews with people in the development community who do transit -supported development in the region, it was made clear that parking standards can be an impediment to mixed -use, transit -oriented projects. • Recommendation 6.1. Enact a Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program. The City should pass an ordinance to define Highway 99 as a "target area" to allow MFTE projects. This would incentivize the construction of additional housing and mixed -use projects by enabling qualifying projects to take advantage of a tax exemption on the residential portion of new buildings for 12 years in exchange for keeping 20% of the units affordable during that period. • Recommendation 7.1. Adopt a Fee Waiver Program for mixed -income projects. The City should adopt an ordinance that allows staff to waive permitting and impact fees for projects that include affordable units for 12 years. • Recommendation 8.1. Facilitate a mixed -use, mixed -income demonstration project. This could include identifying a site with a willing owner or purchasing or securing a transferrable option on a site, establishing a special fund targeted at affordability and/or redevelopment, actively recruiting developers of affordable housing, and cultivating a champion who can motivate the development community and advocate for more affordable housing projects. This project could be the pilot project for the newly adopted MFTE and fee waiver programs to ensure they function well and iron out any issues before broader adoption. The City could also consider adopting one or more special assessment districts and locating the pilot project within one of the districts. This will enable the City to make use of special funds to assist with development and infrastructure costs or other subsidies. The first project will likely require more assistance than other projects. Special staff could be assigned to the pilot project to ensure it remains a City priority and keeps moving forward. Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 136 6.1.a • Recommendation 9.L Expand the use of financing tools. The City should actively seek to make use of local state and federal funds and funding mechanisms to expand the opportunities for affordable housing, redevelopment and economic development in the Highway 99 area. • Recommendation 10.1. Provide gateway signage at Highway 99/Highway 104 interchange. The public process identified the need to clearly establish the identity of Edmonds at the south end of the study area through gateway features such as signage and landscaping. This could be done in tandem with realignment of the on and off ramps of Highway 104, which is included in the proposed project list. • Recommendation 11.1. Identify the transit gateway at the intersection of Highway 99 and 22e Street. The Mountlake Terrace transit center is scheduled for completion in 2023, and the link from Edmonds to the new station is 2281h Street. It is important to identify this transit gateway and strengthen east/west connections for transit riders, bicyclists and commuters. • Recommendation 12.1. Improve wayfinding signage along the corridor. Many amenities and community destinations exist near Highway 99, but they can be difficult to find, particularly for visitors. Wayfinding signage, with a uniquely Edmonds identity, should point out safe routes to the amenities. • Recommendation 13.1. Develop a unique district design identity. The City should invest in signage, lighting and art to improve the vitality of the existing nodes, such as the Health District and International District. • Recommendation 14.1. Prohibit new pole signs. As the area transitions from an auto -oriented highway to a more dynamic and mixed -use environment, new large pole signs designed to capture the attention of fast-moving traffic are no longer compatible. The City should prohibit new pole signs within the study area. • Recommendation 15.1. Improve Transit Transfers. The area is well served by both local and regional transit, but concern was raised that the transfers, schedules and stops could be better coordinated. The City should work with transit partners to ensure regional and local bus stops are close together and schedules are aligned to ensure convenient and efficient transfers. As 2281h Street is a future gateway to regional transit and light rail, the City should consider opportunities to connect the corridor area in a more explicit way to the future rail station. • Recommendation 16.1. Incentivize alternative transportation options. The transportation landscape is shifting rapidly, and people's willingness to engage in various ways to get around is expanding. The City should think proactively about incentives that invite people to engage in a variety of other transportation options. Incentives could include on -site car share and bicycle parking, electric charging stations, etc. Next, Mr. Joyce reviewed the transportation infrastructure recommendations that are outlined in the plan. He noted that many of the recommendations came from existing plans and other were identified as part of the planning process. The improvements are intended to: • Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from the Highway 99 Corridor. • Improve bicycle circulation across and parallel to the Highway 99 Corridor. • Improve the pedestrian environment along the Highway 99 Corridor • Provide safe pedestrian crossing of Highway 99 and access to transit. • Improve transit mobility and transit stop environment. • Improve traffic flow and general safety with access management. Mr. Joyce provided maps to illustrate the transportation improvements proposed for the south, north and middle portions of the study area. He noted that a new traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of 234th Street, near where a mid -block pedestrian crossing has been proposed. The maps also identify the location of new bike route designations and new bicycle lanes, access management improvements, intersection improvements, pedestrian improvements and street improvements. He explained that the main pedestrian improvements will focus on where there are safe crossings now, as well as near the new crossing that will be provided at 2341h Street. The plan proposes a cost-effective redesign of the Highway 104 on/off ramp to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. Mr. Joyce also provided pictures to illustrate the types of improvements that are proposed for enhancing the median and improving pedestrian access. He also provided pictures of what potential redevelopment might look like. Mr. Joyce advised that following the Planning Board's recommendation, the plan will be presented to the City Council for review and another public hearing. It is anticipated that the plan will be adopted in early 2017. Chair Lovell asked that the PowerPoint presentation be made available on the City's website, and Ms. Hope agreed to have it posted. Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 137 6.1.a Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He noted that the City received two written comments. The first was from John Owens of Makers, who recommended some tweaks to the plan regarding stepbacks and setbacks. The second was from Anne Wermus with respect to affordable housing, and her concerns are explicitly addressed in Section 6 of the proposed plan. Both comments will be entered into the record as part of the hearing. No other written comments were received. Jim Underhill, Edmonds, cautioned that it is important to come to a point of understanding as to where the projects should start. The projects will take a long time and consume a tremendous amount of energy, and this is an important decision to make early in the implementation process. Mr. Underhill also pointed out that several of the banners in the International District have been blown down and were never replaced. The same is true for some banners in the Health District. He suggested that these banners be replaced, and that the City have backup banners for future replacement. He said he heard that a developer is interested in constructing a hotel on the Value Village site, which would be fine as long as it isn't at skyscraper height. He noted that there are many busses running along the corridor and to and from the corridor throughout the day, and the transit agencies have a good handle on how to make the system work well for Edmonds. He said he likes the idea of having a "Welcome to Edmonds" sign at the south end of the corridor, and he would like the City to consider placing a similar sign at the north end of the corridor. Mr. Underhill referred to a parcel of land near 234th Street, which is currently developed with a small, white house. He said he would like to see this property redeveloped at some point. To the north of this lot is a run-down property where people come to play video games. This large section needs attention fairly soon and it might be a good place to start a pilot project. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for more information about the banners Mr. Underhill referred to. Mr. Underhill said there are large banners along the highway in the International District, and many of them are missing. There are also some missing banners in the Health District. The banners are intended to identify the two different districts, so it is important that they be maintained properly. Bill Sunderland, Edmonds, commented that he lives on Pine Street and is very much in favor of the plan. He has a strong interest in incubator businesses moving into the area, particularly in the Gateway and International Districts. These types of businesses would result in more employment opportunities for the newer generation. He suggested that this be emphasized in the plan. Mary Monroe, Edmonds, said she was present to represent the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), to make the Board aware that the CEDC is very interested in this topic and has formed a subcommittee to review the plan. The CEDC would like to provide input relative to the plan, particularly in regard to economic development. Robert Siew, Edmonds, said he owns a parcel of land on the south side of Highway 99, just north of the Highway 104 interchange. He said he has attended all of the public meetings pertaining to the plan, and he is very impressed with the work that has been done by the City staff and consulting team. The plan contains a number of good recommendations. However, he is concerned about the proposed design standard that would require 50% of all buildings to be within 10 feet of the street front. He has had discussions with City staff and the consultant about how difficult this requirement would be for some property owners. If Highway 99 were truly an urban environment, with traffic speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour and street parking on both sides, the requirement would be appropriate. However, Highway 99 is a high-speed corridor, with cars traveling in excess of 40 miles per hour. Requiring 50% of all buildings to be located within 10 feet of the corridor is a bit overstretching. He noted that there has been no redevelopment along this stretch of the corridor for a number of years, and it is currently developed with a mixture of uses. Applying a uniform standard would be difficult. Mr. Siew reminded the Board that the goal of the subarea plan is to encourage development, and he is definitely interested in redeveloping a portion of his 10.5-acre property. The site is developed with several buildings, including the Burlington Factory building. The restaurant space has been vacant for quite some time, and he is very interested in redeveloping that portion of the property as perhaps a pilot project for the new subarea plan, but the proposed development standard for setbacks would make redevelopment impossible for him. He explained that he currently has an agreement with Burlington Factory that any redevelopment on the site cannot be any further west than the main building. Burlington Factory does not want any development closer to the street because it would block their business. If the design standard is implemented, it Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 138 6.1.a would stop him from redeveloping the rest of the property, and he would have no option but to remodel and continue to use the existing development. Mr. Siew pointed out that there are only a handful of large parcels along the corridor. Aurora Market Place is a newer development, and he does not envision redevelopment in the near future. He does not foresee that the Ranch 99 property will be redeveloped in the near future, either. These two properties, in addition to his property, are the only large parcels available for retail development. His building is very old and obsolete, and he would like to redevelop the entire parcel at some point. There is three acres of available land behind the Burlington Factory building that he would also like to develop as mixed -use. While its location is not really suitable for retail uses, it would be a good location for incubator types of businesses on the ground floor and residential above. He encouraged the Board to carefully consider whether or not the proposed design standards would help or hurt property owners and developers and impede them from moving forward with redevelopment. He said he would continue to work with City staff and the consultant to address his concerns about the design standards. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said he is very excited to see the vision for Highway 99 that is laid out in the proposed plan. He recalled that he served on the Highway 99 Task Force for a number of years with Mr. Underhill. To finally see some of their ideas come to fruition is very exciting. He said he is impressed with the short-term transportation components, particularly the safe pedestrian crossings and access to transit. He said he is most familiar with the Gateway District on the south end of the corridor because he lives in the Aurora Market Place neighborhood. The single-family residential development in that area and other single-family residential neighborhoods in the area adjacent to the highway provide some of the most affordable housing in Edmonds. He encouraged the Board to pay attention to this fact as they consider redevelopment options, not only along the corridor, but those properties that are adjacent to the corridor. Mr. Witenberg said he likes the concept of transit -oriented development and access to bus rapid transit service is very important. However, it should not be more important that preserving the single-family residential neighborhoods. As the Board considers the plan, he urged them to reduce the parking requirement for the multi -family zones located adjacent to single-family residential zones even more than was has been proposed in the plan. The goal is to make sure that the multi- family residential developments are, in fact, occupied by people who are using public transportation. By the same token, they need to provide those new people that will live in the units with access to the public transportation by providing infrastructure, particularly sidewalks. There are few sidewalks in the areas around the Aurora Market Place, and he asked that the Board consider requiring developers to connect the sidewalks to the next available parcel that has a sidewalk rather than just putting a sidewalk in front of the redeveloped property. For residents behind the Safeway, there is no direct access from 84"h Street. People have to walk all the way around. He asked that some consideration be given to the large parcels on 84`h Street between 236th Street and 238`h Street of allowine some Dublic access through the development to the Safeway. As someone who drives down Highway 99 through the City of Shoreline at least four times a week, Mr. Witenberg encouraged the Board to require different landscaping in the medians. The materials used in Shoreline's medians requires intense maintenance and it appears that they have to close off some lanes of the roadway on a weekly basis to do routine landscape maintenance. Mr. Witenberg suggested the Planning Board consider meeting jointly with the CEDC to develop a plan for attracting businesses that provide economic development along the corridor. The CEDC is working on this effort, and they have formed a subcommittee to study the issue further. If the two groups put their heads together, they will be able to come up with a great plan. Chair Lovell closed the public portion of the meeting. Board Member Cloutier recalled that the Board has considered the design standard of requiring buildings to be located close to the street in other plans, such as Westgate. However, it might not be completely practical on Highway 99. Having taller buildings could end up creating a tunnel effect along the corridor. He asked if it would be reasonable to have an alternative that requires the bulk of buildings to be adjacent to the activity zone and a landscape buffer that provides a sense of continuity without moving all of the buildings up to the street. Mr. Joyce commented that feedback at the public meetings identified a strong desire for a range of active uses and improvements to the pedestrian environment, and they considered policy mechanisms that the plan could offer to implement what they heard during the public process. Highway 99 is a major regional facility and the sidewalk areas are limited. The intent of the requirement is to provide additional space for Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 139 6.1.a pedestrians and to address how a portion of the frontage could be immediately accessible to the pedestrians. Right now, the standard setback is just four feet, but the buildings can still be located 50 feet away from the pedestrian space. Often landscaping prevents pedestrian access to the buildings, as well. Whether a 50% requirement is the right number is up for debate, but the intent was to bring active uses up to where pedestrians will be. The design standard that requires a portion of the building at the street front would help expand the pedestrian realm. Board Member Cloutier said he understands the concern, as well as the proposed method. However, he is concerned about how the requirement would impact owners of large properties that are already developed with multiple buildings. It could limit the ability to redevelop just a portion of the site. He does not want to put a requirement in place that would hamstring property owners who want to replace one or more buildings on a large lot. He likes the idea of having 10-foot wide sidewalks that provide a sense of place, and having the buildings located along the sidewalk would be desirable, as well. However, he would like the plan to include alternatives that would work for both pedestrians and landowners. Ms. Hope said the big picture vision is definitely having more connection between pedestrians and buildings, and they do not want to promote a tunnel affect. However, she also recognizes the need to provide flexibility for large parcels that are developed with multiple buildings. She noted that, as proposed, not all of the buildings would be required to be located close to the street front, and staff believes there is some room to refine the language in the draft plan, as well as the codes and standards that follow, to provide sufficient flexibility. Board Member Cloutier suggested that an alternative might be to require a connection between the sidewalk and the buildings without requiring the buildings to be moved closer to the street. Board Member Cloutier recalled that, several years ago, the Board had a discussion about the City's fiber optic plan. He asked if this plan still exists, and Mr. Chave answered yes, but he could not provide any details. Board Member Cloutier noted that more band width will be needed in order to encourage high-tech businesses or start-ups along the corridor. He encouraged the staff and consultant to talk with the CEDC to figure out how to do a joint effort to provide higher band width connections along the corridor. Board Member Cloutier recalled public comments that indicated a desire for the plan to include certain elements it is not designed to include. He emphasized that the plan is intended to be a vision and should not call out how a specific lot should be redeveloped. The plan can encourage a mixture of uses and a certain type of development, but it cannot say there must be a particular type of business along the street. As someone who lives in an apartment along Highway 99, Board Member Crank commented that the proposed improvements at 236th Street speak to her personally. This is a high -traffic area and it is currently unsafe for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Based on the maps provided in the plan, one of the areas of study will be site distance, visibility, etc., and she appreciates projects that improve visibility. Board Member Crank asked if rezoning the properties at the corner of 236th Street and Highway 99 would negatively impact any of the residential development that is there now. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the CG zone allows for a range of uses, including residential. Therefore, there would be no negative impact to this property. Board Member Crank noted that part of the plan's vision called for improving lighting along the corridor, which is desperately needed. She asked if the medians would be lit, as well. She agreed with the public comments about how the landscaping in Shoreline's medians requires a lot of maintenance, and they have to block traffic while the work is performed. She hopes that lighting plans will impact the roads along Highway 99, as crossing the street is very difficult when it is dark. Board Member Crank voiced concern about reducing the parking requirement for residential development. While she thinks it is a good concept, there are still a lot of people moving into Edmonds from other places, and the current transit predictions for the next 10 years will not make the connectivity necessary for Highway 99 to be a truly transit -oriented community. Whatever decrease is approved should be slightly greater than what is recommended in the plan, but less than what it is now. Many people who live along the corridor cannot use public transportation in an efficient time to get to their place of work. This should be factored into the equation. Mr. Chave noted that the requirements are minimum and developers can definitely provide more parking. Staff s experience is that developers tend to put more parking along Highway 99 than what is needed. Board Member Crank asked if the City is allowed to require in -lieu -of fees as opposed to offering tax waivers for affordable housing. Ms. Hope said there are different options, and an in -lieu -of fee program would require separate authorization. Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 140 However, the two types of fees identified in the implementation strategies are fairly easy to apply while the City continues to explore other options. She reminded the Board of the two options that are recommended in the plan. The Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program would allow a developer to exempt the residential portion of a building that is identified as "affordable" from property taxes for up to 12 years. This is a huge incentive that allows development to be done at a lower cost, and the savings can be passed on to the users. The Fee Waiver Program would come into play at the time of development and could lower the cost to the developer. The City has been working on this program since the study began, and the City Council just approved a waiver of up to 80% for multi -family development that meets the characteristics of "affordable." They are also looking at housing strategies in the next year or two that will consider all the different housing opportunities. Board Member Crank noted that other communities have successfully implemented in -lieu -of fee programs that allow developers to contribute into a fund that is available for City housing projects in lieu of developing affordable housing as part of their projects. Mr. Chave noted that some of these programs have had mixed results. Board Member Crank concurred, but noted that other communities have done well. If the City wants to go that route, it must do its homework on the communities that have implemented successful programs. Board Member Crank referred to the picture that was provided in the plan of the white house that is located across the street from the new light that is proposed at the intersection of 234th Street. She pointed out that there is a bus stop on this side of the street, but most people who get off the bus in this location have to cross the street to access the Community Health Clinic. In order to safely cross, a person must walk six blocks in either direction. She suggested that this is an important location for a safe pedestrian crossing. Board Member Monroe complimented Mr. Joyce on his presentation. He asked him to point to what part of the plan encourages commercial development, such as big box stores and automobile sales. Mr. Joyce said feedback from the public meetings did not indicate a desire for big box stores, and the plan is intended to reflect the vision they heard at the workshops, which is to strengthen the pedestrian environment and encourage economic activity, but not in a specific way that involves big box retail. The comments were in the opposite direction. The public wants an environment along the corridor that respects and supports transit users and walkers. That being said, there are several large sites and none of the proposed design standards would preclude big box stores or automobile sales from developing along the corridor. Board Member Monroe observed that Highway 99 is the last remaining location in the City that can accommodate the type of development that brings in substantial tax revenue. Mr. Joyce said it came down to a design decision. While they did not want to discourage these activities, even if the uses are allowed, the desire is to improve the pedestrian experience. Board Member Monroe asked if there are barriers that would discourage automobile dealers from locating in Edmonds. Mr. Chave said it would probably be land assembly. Board Member Monroe asked if the plan promotes potential land assembly such as vacant streets. Mr. Chave cautioned that this would be difficult. He observed that automobile dealerships are looking at expanding upwards rather than out because land is difficult to acquire. The plan talks about accommodating these uses and not precluding them, but there are limits on what properties are available. The intent of the plan is to remove obstacles for redevelopment. When considering big box retail, he recalled the 2004 Economic Development Study that indicated that other big box stores were already located within close proximity to this stretch of Highway 99. It was felt that these existing stores have captured the market so it is highly unlikely that big box retail will be proposed within the subarea boundaries. In addition, the national trend for big box stores is downsizing and providing smaller stores in urban areas, which would definitely be a possibility in the subarea. The plan tries to take advantage of changes in the retail environment and urban development. Mr. Joyce added that the economic consultant made the observation that, from a retail perspective, the distinct advantage of this stretch of the corridor is not necessarily large retail, but it is cultivating and strengthening the unique international related businesses that have already collocated. These could become a very big regional draw. Board Member Monroe asked what could be added to the plan to promote this concept. Would the City hire a facilitator to cultivate the concept of incubator business or work with groups to lay out a specific plan to identify and provide a cohesive sense of place to the area? Mr. Chave said a key will be working on the public infrastructure that is needed to accommodate future development. The connections and physical improvements along the corridor and connections to the neighborhoods will result in more people Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 141 6.1.a using the services. They have solidified that the International District is still a goal for this stretch of Highway 99, and the specific recommendation is to look at unique and distinctive improvements that can be made within the right-of-way. Board Member Robles said he likes the idea of addressing the things that are wrong now before encouraging redevelopment. He agreed that the plan cannot define what is built on a piece of property, but it can facilitate different types of businesses. Lighting and broadband are current deficiencies that need to be addressed before the City gets into stylized adaptations. The plans should be contingent upon who moves in. Once they identify the anticipated mix of uses, they can put the crossing at the appropriate point to serve the development. He commented that there are models for incubator development, communal work spaces, etc., and the City should consider these models as implementation moves forward. Board Member Robles commented that providing access across large properties is an interesting idea that could mitigate some of the issues about putting buildings next to the street. If the buildings are set back more with access east/west, it would provide the same effect. He recalled that issues were raised as part of the Westgate Plan discussions about putting buildings too close to the roadway given the speed that vehicles travel. There will be pressure waves, etc. that will be felt from quite a distance. The plan should be flexible enough to address these concerns. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she is interested in hearing about the economic drivers of what Highway 99 can become. She would also like the consultant to comment regarding Mr. Siew's concern about the need for businesses to have visibility. One economic driver that is built into the plan is that buildings are proposed to be closer to the street with transparency to increase exposure for the businesses. It is likely that rent for buildings with good exposure will be much higher than those that sit back further from the street. The proposed document is a plan for future possibilities. It identifies things the City can encourage, guide and restrain. The nuts and bolts needed for implementation will come later. Mr. Joyce said the International District is a key economic driver. It is a distinct set of businesses that, if cultivated, can grow into an even bigger economic draw and destination for a variety of services. The Health District is another regional draw in terms of its associated office, research, accommodations, etc. A wide range of uses can orbit around the health -related drivers. The philosophy, in terms of design, is rooted in supporting many ways to get through the corridor to connect the economic engines, but allow residents to access these areas, as well. Development that has more transparency is supportive of the pedestrian environment and feels more safe and inviting. These tend to have a lot more economic vitality because they are so accessible to people who drive, walk, bike or ride the bus. He expressed his belief that the plan, and the policies that will come after, will support the economic vitality through design. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that there were no visual examples in the plan to illustrate what the Gateway District might become. However, when developing large parcels, locating buildings closer to the street would result in higher market rates in terms of rental value. She commented that Burlington Factory is a regional business, as there are no other similar businesses close by. If the site is redeveloped at some point in the future, it is likely that Burlington Factory would prefer to have its building closer to the street because it would give higher visibility. Mr. Joyce agreed that the plan needs to respect the fact that not all properties along the corridor are uniform and have the same conditions. The intent of the plan is to transfer the community's aspirations into high-level recommendations. As they transfer the plan into implementation, their role will be to help the City identify areas and consider how they reach the intent, but in a unique way that encourages economic development. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board discussed the concept of parking reductions at length as part of the Westgate Plan. They also talked about requirements for bicycle parking spaces, electric car charging stations, etc. With the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, they are talking about less parking space and more use of alternative forms of transportation. In conjunction with this, the plan should address such things as loading zones, bicycle parking, charging stations, car share parking, etc. Mr. Joyce agreed that these concepts need to be worked in as the plan is implemented. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Westgate Plan could be used as a model for Highway 99 development. Mr. Chave said they may consider the plan, but it is important to recognize that the two areas are very different. The City's research will include what other jurisdictions with similar development might have done. For example, the parking recommendation is based on experience from other jurisdictions. Mr. Joyce explained that, early in the process, they initiated a focus group and interviewed a range of developers that do transit -oriented, mixed -use development in the region. They generally landed Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 142 6.1.a around .75 parking spaces per unit for developments that are well served by transit. They also ran a series of proforma to test the assumption to figure out an economically -defensible standard for parking, and it ended up being around .75 spaces per unit, as well. Whether the City lands on .75 spaces or lower or higher, the standard tends to be in the range of .5 to 1, depending on the location of the development. Board Member Stewart said she looks forward to seeing the plan evolve. She asked the consultant to respond to the comment letter the City received from Makers. She felt the request sounded reasonable, but she found it difficult to compare and identify the differences between the requested language and the proposed language. Mr. Joyce agreed to do a detailed comparison of the two. He explained that the letter recommends a more complicated formula for determining setbacks. The City's general philosophy is to keep the plan as simple as possible for administrative purposes, but they may end up proposing additional language that will provide guidance to City staff. Board Member Stewart said she supports the idea of consolidating zoning and felt it would make it easier for developers. Mr. Chave advised that there are some parcels on the east side of Highway 99 that are zoned multi -family, and that is what the Makers letter may have been referring to. These properties are surrounded by single-family residential, and staff was reticent to recommend a zoning change to CG. Specific questions about zoning will come later as part of the implementation phase. He noted that Makers also voiced concern about some of the activity zone requirements, such as expanding sidewalks. While he is not sure that is something the City Council would be receptive to, it could be considered as a potential option. Board Member Stewart said she was recently at Crossroads Mall and noticed that Bed Bath and Beyond was not visible from the right-of-way, but she could see the sign from the street and was able to locate the store. She understands that the goal is to eventually have consistency with respect to buildings being located adjacent to the right-of-way, but they also must allow flexibility to address unique situations. She agreed that continuity is appealing, and perhaps it would be helpful if the plan provided pictures to illustrate what might be possible. Board Member Stewart said she knows how forward thinking Fregonese Associates is, and she was surprised that no mention was made in the plan about sustainability. One of the City's goals is to encourage green buildings, and she understands that more details will be provided during the implementation phase. However, she felt the plan should at least encourage sustainable design and/or green building to show that the community is forward thinking. Chair Lovell recalled that, several years ago, they went through a similar planning process for Firdale Village, which was a mixed -use commercial property under single ownership. A lot of ideas were put forward by the public and the Planning Board, but the end result of the plan was so restrictive that no one has developed the property. He voiced concern that the same might happen with Highway 99, which is one of the last large parcels available in Edmonds for significant redevelopment. Flexibility is needed in order to encourage redevelopment in the near future. Chair Lovell observed that Highway 99 is a state highway with high speed traffic. Although a lot of development has occurred on the Shoreline portion of the highway, their design guidelines do not seem to be effective since it still appears to be a hodgepodge. It is important to have a clear understanding of the right-of-way width along the highway when considering the appropriate setback for buildings. Even if they establish a 14-foot setback from the right-of-way as a guideline, he is not sure that he would feel safe walking along the sidewalk with high-speed traffic going by. He voiced concern about jumping ahead with predictions about what redevelopment will be before the infrastructure improvements have been nailed down. Chair Lovell voiced support for Ms. Monroe's earlier suggestion that the Planning Board and CEDC meet together to discuss the plan. They need more flexibly to work with individual property owners, and work needs to be done with the individual property owns in order to refine what can clearly be done on a given property. He questioned whether the City would have the ability to require a develop to connect a sidewalk to the next available sidewalk. Mr. Chave explained that the Firdale Village Master Plan was interesting because it was a privately -sponsored zoning/master plan change. It is not anything like the Highway 99 Subarea Plan process. The Firdale Master Plan was initially a planning level idea that morphed into something that was onerous. He also explained that there are significant differences between the Shoreline and Edmonds portions of Highway 99. Much of the right-of-way in Edmonds was developed years ago by WSDOT, and the rights -of -way are mapped out. He doubts the City would do what Shoreline did, which is to purchase large Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 143 6.1.a amounts of right-of-way. The intent is to work with the existing right-of-way and expand the pedestrian area to improve the overall right-of-way and how works. Chair Lovell asked if the proposed subarea plan provides enough guidelines and flexibility for the staff and consultant to work with property owners to plan specific redevelopment. Mr. Chave answered yes. Many of the elements of the plan are couched as recommendations that are not conditions. Perhaps they could emphasize the fact that transition properties are very important and flexibility is needed to address unique situations. For example, they could find a way to accommodate Mr. Siew's needs but still keep with the overall vision in the plan. He summarized his belief that the plan offers the flexibility necessary for the different unique properties. More detailed flexibility will be addressed in the next phase of implementation, as well. Mr. Chave pointed out that Shoreline's improvement plan is not very old, and they are finally starting to see things happen. It takes time for the plan to come to fruition, and it will be interesting to see how fast it does occur. He advised that there is a fair amount of interest in the development community and they are starting to see multi -story projects pop up along the corridor. Mr. Joyce said the consultant is committed to working with staff and concerned property owners to make sure they are not doing anything in the plan that would preclude development that is supportive of the overall plan goals. They need to have a plan in place, but also a flexible framework that allows them to move towards the vision. The plan sets the stage for the detailed work that will come in the next phase. Chair Lovell asked if staff intends to present the plan to the City Council in its present form. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, but added that if the City Council has concerns, there would still be an opportunity to work them out before final adoption. Chair Lovell said he supports the plan and is sensitive to specific comments made by the public. In order to make the plan fly, it will need a fairly substantial element of flexibility to work with individual property owners to end up with development that is consistent with the long-term vision in the plan. Chair Lovell inquired if the Board is ready to move the plan forward to the City Council with a recommendation, or if they want one more opportunity to review the plan after it has been updated to include their comments. Ms. Hope explained that the Board could recommend approval of the plan now with some clarification about flexibility, etc. They could also decide to come back at a January meeting with some minor changes to address the concerns that were raised before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. The Board felt that the consultant and staff had a clear understanding of their concerns and how to address them in the plan. CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS REVISED TO REFLECT THE DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY THE BOARD IS CONCERNED ABOUT WITH REGARD TO IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Monroe said he would like the plan to include a recommendation relative to economic development. Mr. Joyce pointed out that the plan does include language relative to the economic success of the Health District and International District. Board Member Monroe said he is more concerned about including language in the plan about the need to encourage the types of businesses that result in more tax revenue for the City. Also, if Highway 99 is intended to become a "tech" corridor, it should be identified as a recommendation or strategy. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Planning Board is interested in meeting with the CEDC prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Hope advised that one goal is to attract businesses, not just through the plan, but through the next phase of implementation. While the CEDC has requested an opportunity to be involved early on, they may be more interested in where the plan goes from here. It would definitely be worthwhile to include them in discussions related to implementation of the plan. Board Member Crank pointed out that the CEDC will also have an opportunity to review the plan and submit feedback to the Board. While she supports the concept of highlighting economic development as something of interest, it does not need to be specific at this point. More detailed strategies for economic development can come forward during the implementation phase, which can involve discussions with the CEDC. Ms. Hope agreed that the CEDC could provide comments directly to the City Council. The Board could forward their recommendation to the City Council, as well, recognizing that more about economic development would be incorporated into the plan during the next phase. The Board and the CEDC could then work together to develop codes and standards to implement the plan. Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 144 6.1.a THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the December 28th meeting was cancelled, and the Board's next meeting will be January 1 ltn PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell thanked Board Member Stewart for her excellent work on the Board. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart said it would please her if the Board would keep the concept of green building and sustainability alive in future discussions, where appropriate. The Board Members all thanked Board Member Stewart for her service. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Board Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 145 E MONDS is HIGHWAY 99 SUB4LREA PLAN DRAFT FEBRUARY 2017 'nC. 1 09" s; 1 go l� Packet Pg. 146 6.1.b ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ME �L x V CL LO 00 r r 0 N O r m L R R L U) a) a) R 3 t a� x r c a� E r a Packet Pg. 147 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..... 2 Document Overview The Planning Context The Planning Process Past Planning Efforts Planned Action EIS Overview VISION + COMMUNITY VALUES ..... 8 Vision Goals Community Values BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS ..... 12 The Study Area Unique Districts Existing Land Use Patterns Existing Transportation Existing Economic Conditions and Market Trends COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..... 26 Technical Advisory Committee Key Stakeholder Interviews Community Visioning Workshop Public Open House Online Survey and General Comments Web Outreach and Social Media Engagement Outcomes CONSTRAINTS + CHALLENGES ..... 34 Land Use Constraints + Challenges Economic Constraints + Challenges Transportation/Infrastructure Constraints & Challenges OPPORTUNITIES ..... 38 Land Use Opportunities Economic Opportunities Transportation/Infrastructure Opportunities ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ..... 44 Land Use and Transportation Scenarios Scenario Building Blocks Development Capacity Analysis IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS + ACTIONS ..... 50 Zoning and Development Affordable Housing Signage and Wayfinding Transit Transportation Infrastructure Packet Pg. 148 6.1.b No Packet Pg. 149 6.1.b INTRODUCTION The Subarea Plan is a vision and action plan to enhance the Highway 99 area, support prolonged economic prosperity in the corridor area, and build a more attractive place for the Edmonds community to live, work, and play. The City of Edmonds initiated the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan to address future land use and transportation needs on and around the Highway 99 corridor. The plan acts as a guide for future development of the corridor area, and includes specific actions and investments designed to bring positive changes to the community. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW This document provides guidance for how the corridor should grow and change in the future and sets forth the opportunities and actions needed to address the challenges on Highway 99. The Plan identifies the constraints and opportunities for land use, transportation, and economic development. It describes three alternative scenarios representing different intensities of investment and redevelopment in the short- and long-term future. The accompanying Implementation Strategy lays out the investments, policy changes, and short-, medium-, and long-term actions to transform the Highway 99 area into a vibrant, mixed -use, transit - oriented corridor. THE PLANNING CONTEXT As part of the ten-year state transportation budget adopted in 2015, $10 million was allocated for improvements to Highway 99 in Edmonds. However, the funds are not available in the early years of planning for the corridor. The Subarea Plan will help make the case for obtaining significant additional federal, state, and regional grant funds to implement the policies and strategies set forth in this plan. Successful implementation of the plan will depend on a secure source of funding and collaborative decision -making from state legislators and city officials. Neighboring directly south of Highway 99 in Edmonds, the City of Shoreline has embarked on significant improvements to Aurora Avenue within its boundaries, emphasizing improvements for transit and pedestrian use. Continuing this momentum in Edmonds will benefit the Edmonds community as well as the broader region creating a livable, vibrant community around high -capacity transit that visitors, businesses, and residents can take full advantage of. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 150 INTRODUCTION 6.1.b THE PLANNING PROCESS Lfx�ft EDMONDS99 HIGHWAY orn (07, � � Understanding Existing Conditions • Review previous studies of the Highway 99 corridor and input from the community. • Analyze and visualize current conditions of the highway area such as land uses, transportation, real estate trends, housing and business needs, and potential opportunities and barriers for development and place -making. Hands-on community visioning workshop and live polling exercise. Polling questions were also available in a survey format on the project website for those unable to attend the workshop. (07, � i Develop Land Use and Transportation Scenarios • Understand different land use and transportation impacts to the corridor area, and develop feasible alternative scenarios based on current market trends. • Evaluate and document land use and transportation alternative scenarios. Scenario results were revealed at a public open house in May. The scenario results were also available on the website to collect additional feedback from the public R 1 / SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment • Prepare a Planned Action EIS to ensure that environmental impacts are considered and mitigated holistically. • Document the evaluation process, findings and recommendations. The scope of the Planned Action EIS was also revealed at the May public open house and available on the website to collect additional feedback from the public. Au (70, 1 � Develop Sub- area Draft Plan • Create a preferred strategy based on evaluation and feedback of alternative scenarios. • Develop an action plan to implement the vision for the Highway 99 area and prioritize preferred improvements. • Identify major development code - related barriers to implementation and recommend alternatives. An overview of the draft plan, and recommendations were revealed at public open house in November. The public had the opportunity to provide feedback on the recommendations via the website. (07, � � Final Sub- area Plan • Present the sub -area plan to the Planning Board and City Council. • Finalize the draft sub- area plan and recommendations. The public was invited to attend a presentation to the Planning Board and City Council. The draft sub -area plan was also available on the website for the public to review and provide final comments. 3 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 151 6.1.b INTROD PAST PLANNING EFFORTS During a City Council retreat in 2002, the Highway 99 corridor was identified as one of the areas of greatest potential for generating tax revenue for the city. Subsequently, the Highway 99 Task Force was formed at the City Council retreat in 2003 to study and make recommendations on how to maximize economic growth along the Highway 99 corridor. As a result, the City of Edmonds Highway 99 Enhancement project began engaging neighborhood representatives and business and property owners in 2004 to identify key local objectives and recommendations along the corridor. This subarea plan is intended to augment the work started in 2004 and set forth concrete actions steps to move towards implementing land use and transportation improvements on Highway 99. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan is a result of many years of study and careful planning. Lifyof Edmonds 2004 Highway 99 Enhancement Project This identifies local report objectives and development opportunities for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning +`y Amendments eventually adopted in 2004. The plan outlined concepts for HIGHWAY 99 ENHANCEMENT PRE RR�r four focus areas along the corridor and made recommendations for furthering redevelopment efforts. 2004 Highway 99 Enhancement Project Market Assessment This report is a market feasibility assessment of commercial and °- residential development near Highway 99. The study identified enhancement • scenarios, market factors, multifamily housing considerations, and short- term retail development opportunities. The report also identified barriers to further development, including the need to improve left turns and highway crossings. _ 2007 Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study The Traffic Safety and Circulation Study I]IGH\l:\Y'I` .1.11 YI1: s.1PBi} �.n evaluated the transportation system's needs based on current and future traffic and land use conditions, developed a prioritized list of multi -modal solutions to the transportation needs of the study area, and identified projects for early implementation and incorporation into the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 2015 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan e®W■ The Comprehensive Plan identifies Highway 99 as a major E M® activity center 'intended to 0:• Cih of F.dmnndx encourage the development of a [amprrhenei.r Plnn pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Swedish/ Edmonds medical center and Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high -intensity development corridor along Highway 99" 2014 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It identifies transportation infrastructure and services needed to support projected land use within the city through the year 2035. Several intersections along Highway 99 were identified for transportation improvements to provide safer access management throughout the corridor and additional safety and urban design improvements. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 Su Packet Pg. 152 INTRODUCTION 6.1.b PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (EIS) OVERVIEW A Planned Action EIS is an upfront assessment of environmental conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea, rather than a piecemeal analysis on a project -by project basis. As such, the EIS provides developers certainty and predictability while streamlining the environmental review and permitting process and furthering the goals of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA). Planned actions still need to meet the City's development regulations and to obtain necessary permits. The alternatives considered in the Draft EIS for the Subarea Plan include No Action (Alternative 1) and two action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). Under Alternative 1, future growth would continue based on existing development regulations and past development trends. Alternative 2 assumes future mixed use growth with an emphasis on residential development and assumes a new vision for the area supported by transportation system improvements and minor updates to existing development regulations. Alternative 3 assumes future mixed use growth with an emphasis on commercial and office development, while assuming the same vision for the area and transportation system improvements and updated development regulations as assumed under Alternative 2. See Appendix X for a more detailed description of impacts for each alternative. FIGURE 1: PLANNED ACTION EIS PROCESS ISSUE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE R SCOPING NOTICE 1 CONDUCT SEPA SCOPING PREPARE DRAFT EIS ISSUE DRAFT EIS immmlmi DRAFT EIS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD PREPARE FINAL EIS ISSUE FINAL EIS S EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 153 6.1.b INTROD TABLE 1: KEY FEATURES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE IN THE EIS Cox=== New Housing Units by 2035 1,224 New Jobs by 2035 2,317 New commercial sq.ft. by 2035 964,683 3,325 3,013 654,944 Rezone the CG2, RM-1.5, BIN, and portions of the Zoning Designations No change RM-2.4 and BC zones throughout the study area to CG(see Figure 2-X.) In summary, development code amendments include the following (For a more detailed description of code amendments, see the Recommendations chapter on page 51.) Existing development >> Building height and CG zone consolidation Development Code Amendments regulations would remain >> Transit -supportive parking standards unchanged >> Building frontage standards Building transparency standards Park lot location Pedestrian Activity Zone Ground floor setback Upper story setbacks Future improvements would Improvements to the Highway 99 Corridor and continue to occur on an incremental basis with new adjacent local streets would include measures to Transportation Improvements development and as planned maintain level of service standards, increase east/ by the City's Transportation west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and Master Plan and WSDOT plans. Pedestrian mobility, and improve access to transit. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 154 6.1.b No Q Packet Pg. 155 6.1.b VISION + COMMUNITY VALUES The Vision for the Edmonds Highway 99 area establishes a framework for the Subarea Plan and describes an ideal snapshot of how the area could evolve in the future. The vision is based on the knowledge and ideas of Edmonds residents and stakeholders gathered during public workshops, stakeholder interviews, and through public surveys. The Edmonds community shared a wide -range of creative ideas for improvements that will enable people to enjoy safe and easy access to Highway 99's diverse services and amenities, better access to the area's robust transit system, and more opportunities for affordable housing, jobs, and destinations. THE VISION GOALS The Vision goals here represent the themes that surfaced throughout community discussions with Edmonds residents and stakeholders. They describe the qualities residents want to see in the Highway 99 corridor area. Economic Development Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new businesses, investment, and redevelopment. Safety and Walkability Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to move along and get across Highway 99. Housing and Development Encourage and incentivize mixed use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. Identity Establish a distinct identity along the corridor that supports existing cultural destinations and amenities and creates a welcoming and attractive environment for visitors and residents alike. Transportation Create more efficient and accessible connections between districts and destinations, and other transit centers/stations. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 156 VISION + GUIDING PRINCIPLES COMMUNITY VALUES AL 9 CONNECTIVITY WALKABILITY U Better connections and access Create walkable neighborhoods c Z---,) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and and commercial centers where transit riders to destinations visitors can walk safely and and amenities in the area. comfortably at all hours of the day. SAFETY HEALTHY 01111111111111 forter connecons sand access BUSINESSES rpedestrian, bicyclists, transit riders to destinations Bring in new businesses and and amenities in the area. jobs to the area, encourage existing businesses to thrive, and provide good quality retail and shopping amenities. DESTINATIONS Enhance distinct districts in the area such as the Health BEAUTIFICATION District and the International District to create more vibrant Create a more attractive place destinations and an even 1=1 for residents and visitors through better sense of place. landscaping and urban design. J/� AFFORDABLE HOUSING Encourage affordable housing options for a mix of income levels - low income, workforce, and moderate -income. 9 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 157 VISION + GUIDING PRI This page is left intentionally blank. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 158 EDMONDS ESPERANCE �w 12TH ST 3 W ..: Zero Q 1 � . �i MOUNTLAKE TERRACE - dr— -.—I I J T -j LTH .T• EDMONDS =� EDMONDS L-24 S 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS THE STUDY AREA The Edmonds Highway 99 subarea is approximately 2 miles bordered by several jurisdictions — Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, and the Unincorporated County community of Esperance. The area has distinct subdistricts and is already a horizontal mixed -use district. However, buildings along HWY 99 are predominately highway -oriented, set far back from the road with large surface parking lots in front which results in an unpleasant and unsafe environment for pedestrians. Many of the buildings are old and reaching the end of their natural life. As Edmonds contemplates where new growth and economic development can occur within the community, this stretch of HWY 99 has been identified for change and there is broad support for a reimagining of its historic role as just a high-speed highway. The study area currently has approximately 3,800 jobs and 1,600 housing units. There are about 2.4 jobs for every housing unit. As such, the subarea is currently an employment destination, with more than twice as many employees as households. Attracting more housing to this jobs - rich area will increase walking and biking trips and reduce the need for as many auto trips in the area. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 160 BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.1.b Key Assets in the Corridor Area: 1 Opportunity to build on the momentum of ongoing neighborhood improvements in Shoreline along Highway 99 while creating a mixed -use corridor that is distinctly Edmonds. High -quality transit facilities already in 2 place — Community Transit, Sound Transit, and Swift BRT — providing links to housing, employment and other amenities to the Seattle Metro region. Distinct districts are already emerging 3 along the corridor area — the International District and Health District — that provide core services and amenities for Edmonds' diversifying population. Corridor area is already a mixed -use district 4 with retail uses adjacent to apartments and single-family neighborhoods. The business and developer community 5 and residents alike are ready to see positive changes in the area and are excited for the opportunity to create a pedestrian -friendly, transit -oriented environment. UNIQUE DISTRICTS The area has three distinct subdistricts with major local and regional destinations along the corridor. HEALTH CARE DISTRICT Located approximately between SW 208th St. to SW 220th St., the Health Care District is home to variety of health care facilities and offices, most notably the Swedish Hospital Edmonds Campus. The Edmonds campus includes 34 facilities and services, 217 beds, over 450 physicians and specialists and more than 1,400 staff members. The hospital provides medical and surgical services including Level IV Trauma emergency medicine, diagnostic, treatment and support services. There are many other medical clinics and offices across Highway 99 in Lynnwood as well as schools and higher education such as Edmonds Woodway High School, Mountlake Terrace High School, and Edmonds Community College, within approximately 1.5 miles from the Health Care District core on Highway 99. The Health Care District is not only a provider of vital health services for the region, but also a growing incubator for medical research, partnerships, health and wellness advocacy, and education opportunities. Edmonds Health Care District 13 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 161 BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON 6.1. b FIGURE 2: DISTINCT DISTRICTS AND MAJOR DESTINATION WITHIN CORRIDOR AREA ! l"■' iL: 1 i -4r- Ir: I'm:L IN �'■. ..220thSt SWIL r Nam Ik is = •1 ;IN IN l■ ' . ja, ■■ �R `, _,d r Edmonds a Woodwa Aldercrest Health *' IAIIII,,. ' . ''• !.-_ ' I ----Pr ! --- ,_.__ m b Rehab Center — ■ _ . High School I_ j ■ ■ ,ti • I fir■-.--1 ■—� 1■r-----•l• Q I -' ■ I r V■ `■ 7 t 1' ` ■ J P .F— % �� «....�_■ -i-- E ■ Swedish ! District U) :'1 L .: `. � F .I �' Hospital ` -+■+ 7 ire-` �, -Y•, 1 ■ r�, 1==/- �,_ _ 11 '; - ' I - -L IJAedicine coo r MN Regional Heart Center ,0. r IN •'r`- "r=i ■.•j a■■ [- r ■I N. r. �122, -+�In ;I;' ■L.I r_.r, r� I Vi man ' 4; _ r l t.._.■ J.,■ L ■ I. rth St SW f f 1� 1 1 ram' _ I O INNN'I• F ■ 1 ' L '-•- ■ i 1r� 99 I7 INN U ■ s ' - ■ ' .ar_r .Y• _ - a ' ■ -r- I Plum Tree I ' :1•r ' - -�- *'-■-^•� 224th St SW -�r _ Plaza I International = J d •-, ■ • =,M. r , ,+a }1 .'tr r' : ■ ly 1-■ 1• + r f.'-r l IA . __J . ti 1 . - ...�.ILI District � .1 ■ 00 + 1 . L I 1 -r' . ' 99 Ra4h r }}. - ^. ; '-. I' 1 r 1 . 1 — --• _ . r 1.. ■.. . Public 31 ' ; 1 r ■ ■ r - a 1 _ !: - �' •.. ktora a Marl�t --. 1' „ 11 i i is =.'`'� r�l �r•I. g �� _' l f„-■Y �� ; t- 16 r �'''1� r•' �♦ ♦ �2-`1 ■.. a ��:' B an I 1r-a r�-. r = ■ •t IN, -'! - arket ', • :�-. N 228th St SW--�... �,... i $ .: � f "1 -`4 r O 1-a. -1R1 ; ■- ; :TF YBreLI ■...-Ir 230th 5t SW :,r j, * r�>` ♦ 1 ■ -1 1 -� , �- R �;■ i ■ , 1 •� +i1 L�■ . ■.r , r' 7-lR■'�,-V�:� j i a l l '• s ■ r•y. r.r ;- r • i 1 i t ;- 1 ■7 f / 1 1 1 1■ a r # • iT wr.; .,• ` , i ♦r IC . ■ r ■■nr..r, 1 . i 232nd St SW ► L...■-Nod-%lr �,��.•� m IC,. ,. ^ a i J. 1 ■ra■ 1 a . _ . ■ - :/i IF r-._- �.Y-F■,: 234th St SW +. l �" '. < ,.--.16161 V. F rn •• L 236th St Sr1 Cfl -■T- L ■ ■ .� _ _ t Aurora i 1 v r-i Marketplace Gateway LakeAM E !� 238th St SW I Ballinger ■ ,r:. ;�::�. District � d �.,. IN 1 240th St SW- 1:'- ':: cam- 1 1--�•■ae.� •�' y:; IN Major ■�r491, ' :I ' oces ;-1■1r� ,�■�1 r1.-r-* O Transportation Gateway 242nd 5t S ry.' : •" - {TFTII j 244th St 5 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 162 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT Located approximately between SW 224th St and SW 238th St, the International District is a major cluster of Asian -owned businesses, particularly Korean -American businesses, with diverse restaurants, grocers, and shops. The International District is already a regional destination for culture, food, and entertainment — but there is an opportunity to strengthen the identity of this district and help it thrive in the long term. The SR 99 International District Enhancement Project was a key recommendation identified in the 2004 Enhancement Study and the 2006 Market Analysis to build on the growing cluster of international businesses, largely anchored by the Ranch 99 Market, Boo Han Plaza, and other specialty plazas. In 2006, the City began efforts through federal grant funds to strengthen the International District identity by improving the area's visual identity and aesthetics, and implement pedestrian -oriented improvements with new gateway elements including a new pedestrian level lighting, new district identification signage on custom light poles, resurfacing of the island on 76th Avenue and a solar lit sculptural piece on the island as part of the gateway. A major transportation gateway on 228th and Highway 99 is planned to create safe and easy access across the highway and connect to the recently completed bicycle lane that flows to the future regional trail (Interurban Trail) and to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. These transportation improvements will provide a critical connection for both local residents and regional transit riders to the International District. The gateway design potential here will also help solidify the identity of the district. GATEWAY DISTRICT The Gateway District, located approximately between SW 234th and the 104 Interchange north of SW 205th St, is the first introduction to Edmonds on Highway 99. This area was identified in the Enhancement Study as "Residential Area Retail Center" and "Hotels Area Improvement". However, the Edmonds community expressed a strong desire for a "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds during a community workshop. A recognizable marker identifying the entry point to the city will help unify Edmonds as a place with rich history, arts, culture, food, and sense of place. International businesses along Highway 99. Left: Boo Han Plaza; right: Ranch 99 Market 15 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 163 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS The subarea today contains a mix of land uses including commercial, residential, industrial, public, and educational uses. Commercial uses make up the largest amount of square footage, which includes office, retail, services, and motels. Multi- family residential uses make up the second largest amount, most which are apartments but also townhomes or duplexes. Much of the surrounding areas to the east and west of the study area are developed as single family residential, and the residential uses on the edges of the study area help to provide transitions to these areas. There are vacant parcels located throughout the study area with a concentration in the south-central part of the study area. Existing development is generally low -intensity, with one- or two-story buildings and large surface parking areas. There are several plaza -type developments with larger scale grocers and marketplaces such as 99 Ranch Market, Boo Han Market, Aurora Marketplace, and Burlington Coat Factory. The Swedish Edmonds Campus is within a cluster of commercial uses including medical offices and clinics and some higher -intensity and higher -scale buildings. TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USES WITHIN STUDY AREA ZONING ASSESSMENT The study area has many zoning designations applied within it, and often in odd configurations. The haphazard pattern reflects both zones inherited from the County when the area was annexed and a variety of zone changes in specific places over the past several decades. The Comprehensive Plan designates nearly all of the study area with a single Highway 99 Corridor designation. As of 2016, there are eight zoning designations: CG and CG2: General Commercial NB: Neighborhood Business BC: Community Business MU: Medical Use RM-1.5: Mulifamily RM-2.4: Mulifamily RS-8: Single Family Residential Most the study area is zoned either General Commercial (CG or CG2) with Multifamily (RM-1.5) adjacent to the corridor. 65% of the study area is within CG and CG2 and 8% is within RM-1.5. The CG zone allows buildings up to 60 feet tall and the CG2 zone allows buildings up to 75 feet tall. Zoning for Commercial 5,729,924 50% Multi -Family Residential 3,070,474 27% Industrial 1,123,311 10% Single Family Residential 643,907 6% Public & Educational 808,607 7% TOTAL 11,376,223 100% EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 164 eC B7c C Gx 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON the areas surrounding the study area is established by the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County. In general, areas to the south, west and northeast are zoned for a mix of commercial and residential uses; areas to the east, southeast and southwest are zoned primarily for single family residential uses; and areas to the north and northwest are zoned for a mix of residential and public uses. Specific zoning designations in the area surrounding the study area are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA CG2 - General Commercial 2 32% CG - General Commercial 33% BN - Neighborhood Business 2% BC - Community Business 4% RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft. 2% RM-3 - Multi Family, 3,000 sq. ft. 1 % RM-2.4 - Multi Family, 2,400 sq. ft. 12% RM-1.5 - Multi Family, 1,500 sq. ft. 8% MU - Medical Use 5% EXISTING HOUSING For the greater metropolitan region in which Edmonds is located, housing supply has not been not keeping up with demand. Housing needs — along with housing costs —have been rising rapidly. In fact, data was recently obtained through the Alliance for Housing Affordability about the availability of affordable housing along Highway 99 in the Edmonds area. Research conducted in November 2016 showed that the number of rental units affordable to households below 80% of the area median income was very limited and little housing at all was available at rents affordable to households below 50% of the area median income. The same can be said for those wanting to own a home. (Note: "Affordable" rent for this purpose is considered to be a rental amount that does not exceed 30% of the household income.) See Appendix X for a more thorough analysis of housing in Edmonds. FIGURE 4: HOME SALE AFFORDABILITY GAP IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EXTREMELY VERY LOW LOW MODERATE MIDDLE LOW Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012 TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF RENT AFFORDABILITY BY SIZE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS Extremely Low No No No No Very Low Limited Limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes m Yes Source: Dupre and Scott 2013 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 166 BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.1.b EXISTING TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL ACCESS SR-99 is the highest -traffic carrying arterial in Edmonds and run north to Everett, and south through Shoreline to Seattle and the Tacoma metropolitan area. The subarea can be accessed through SR-104 which runs east -west through the southern -most border of the subarea between the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry dock in Downtown Edmonds to 1-5 east of Highway 99. 1-5 runs almost parallel to the east of Highway 99 providing regional access from surrounding cities to the north and south. FIGURE 5: REGIONAL CONTEXT ter. 99 � wood ntlake„ TAM 1 Jill,� ["41� r - ; �pllewa STREET NETWORK Highway 99 serves as a principal arterial in Edmonds providing north -south mobility and access to businesses and services along the corridor. Highway 99's diagonal orientation through a mostly gridded street pattern creates difficult and low visibility turns onto and from the highway for drivers and poses a major safety risk for bicyclists and pedestrians. The minor arterials in the subarea are on 238th Street, 228th Street, 220th Street, and 212th Street providing through traffic east -west. Many local streets are broken and do not have complete connections to other local streets and arterials, which is typical of a more suburban street network. A short portion of the right-of-way between 228th and 234th Street is located in Esperance, an unincorporated township of Snohomish County. TRANSIT SERVICE The subarea currently has a very robust transit network with enhancement and service frequency increases planned in the future. The subarea is served by Community Transit, Sound Transit, and Swift BRT lines. There are two Community Transit Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops along the corridor and many local bus stops with several transit connections between transit providers. Edmonds sits at the intersection of two major transit providers. The Community Transit Swift BRT system serves Edmonds and areas north, while the King County Metro BRT system serves areas south of Edmonds. A transfer station is located just over the border in Shoreline adjacent to the large Costco and Home Depot shopping center. Transfers between transit providers can cause significant delay in travel times if arrival and departure times are not coordinated tightly. King County Metro and Community Transit are coordinating times to ensure efficient transfer times, but the City will continue to monitor this to ensure Edmonds has quick and efficient access to Seattle and other points south. 19 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 167 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON FIGURE 6: CURRENTTRANSIT SERVICE ti ter FIGURE 8: CURRENT TRANSIT FREQUENCY �T-A�� v� T---- ' tT� Bus Trips on Weekdays 0-20 i 21-40 • 41-60 61-80 81-100 • 100+ Highway 99 Subarea 0 City Boundaries \ FIGURE 7: EXISTING SIDEWALKS FIGURE 9: EXISTING BIKE AND TRAIL INFRASTRUCTURE EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 168 BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.1.b PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Most area roads have sidewalks, but certain key streets that provide access to and across HWY 99 currently lack sidewalks. Roads that form the border of Edmonds and other jurisdictions, such as 228th west of HWY 99, pose unique problems for improvement and cost sharing. Improvements to substandard streets have been explored and recommendations have been identified in this plan's project list. Bicycle facilities are limited in the study area, particularly protected bicycle lanes. The proximity to the Interurban Trail, a major regional trail connecting Edmonds to communities north and south, is east of HWY 99 and has limited access from the center of Edmonds to the west. This process examined improved and new bicycle connections through the study area and included several in the recommended project list. PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICE A new commuter rail station is planned for nearby Mountlake Terrace. 228th will connect Edmonds and the HWY 99 study area to this new regional transit option. The extension of the Link light rail is scheduled for completion in 2023. This plan has specific recommendations for how to improve linkages and wayfinding between the future rail station and the HWY 99 corridor. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The City of Edmonds identifies planned transportation improvements surrounding the Highway 99 subarea in their 2015 Comprehensive Plan and in studies conducted for specific operational and safety conditions within the corridor. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan develops a balanced multimodal transportation system to serve the anticipated growth throughout the City and region. Within the Edmonds Highway 99 subarea the planned transportation improvements emphasize access to Highway 99 and connections to the downtown, surrounding residential neighborhoods and major transportation nodes. The improvements fall into several general areas including: Traffic safety and access management improvements: This area of improvement involves installation of vehicular channelization and median devices between intersections to separate traffic flows and restrict turns to and from driveways. These devices are intended to reduce crashes by eliminating mid -block vehicular conflicts caused by multiple driveways, minor uncontrolled intersections, and the continuous two-way left turn lane comprising the majority of Highway 99. A recent example of the implementation of access management is the segment of Highway 99 between 224th Street SW and 228th Street SW where the center median of Highway is a combination of Type-C curbing ("c-curb") and a raised concrete barrier median. This installation prohibits all movements that would normally cross the centerline and provides bi-directionality by allowing u-turns at the signalized intersections at either end of the segment. Type-C curbing and raised concrete barrier median at intersection of 76th Avenue and Highway 99 between 224th Street and 228th Street 21 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 169 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON Expansion of the citywide bicycle network: The City's 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes proposed bicycle facilities that expand the coverage of the existing bikeway system and connect various parts of the City. Within the plan area the proposed bikeway network emphasizes new east -west crossings of Highway 99 with connections to the Interurban Trail as well as north -south facilities paralleling Highway 99. The proposed bikeway network in the plan area is a combination of bicycle lanes (exclusively marked lanes for bikes) and designated bicycle routes where bicyclists and motorists share travel lanes Bike facilities are frequently implemented in stages as part of other roadway improvement projects. For example, bike lanes were added to 220th Street SW between 84th Avenue W and 76th Avenue W as part of a recent pavement overlay improvement of 220th Street SW. In the next stage of bikeway implementation, bike lanes will be added to 76th Avenue W from 220th Street SW to Olympic View Drive. Example of exclusively marked bike lane Example of bicycle route shared with bicyclists and motorists Intersection improvements for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety: This area of improvements focuses on closing gaps in the pedestrian system by constructing sidewalks but also includes reconstructing intersection approaches on streets intersecting Highway 99 to delineate traffic lanes, improve traffic signal phasing, and add bike lanes —all of which are intended to improve safety and also improve multimodal circulation for accessing and crossing Highway 99. These planned improvements are considered "Complete Streets" projects since they emphasize improving conditions for all users. A recent example of this type of improvement was the extension of 228th Street SW from Highway 99 to 76th Avenue W—a short, but strategic, complete street segment that improves pedestrian and bicycle circulation, access to transit, and removes a substantial obstacle to a crucial complete street corridor-228th Street SW/Lakeview Drive —connecting the plan area to Sound Transit's Mountlake Terrace transit terminal and future light rail station. Recently complete intersection improvements on 228th and Highway 99 to 76th Ave. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 170 BACKGROUND + EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.1.b Priority Transit Corridors: Improvements that focus on improving the mobility of transit on key transit corridors, improving pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, and enhancing transit stop environments with pedestrian amenities to encourage ridership. Priority Transit Corridors include Highway 99, 220th Street SW, 228th Street SW, and 238th Street SW each of which are currently important routes for Community Transit's local and Swift Rapid routes. The types of improvements in this category such as Transit Signal Priority, improved bus service and route interconnection, accessibility, and improved stops and stations, are cooperative projects between multiple agencies. FIGURE 10: PRIORITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR - -- _ 220TH ST i i T ' 4 r 229TH ST j- i I I %i 236TH 5T _ 23STA ST i r' EXISTING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS & MARKET TRENDS In February 2016, an assessment of the development market and round of developer interviews was conducted. The results of the assessment and the interviews is summarized with the following five points. Further discussion of each is below. 1. Edmonds is a good location for development, but has its challenges. 2. Residential uses will likely be the primary driver of development along the corridor. 3. Parking is an important factor in development form and feasibility. 4. The impact of right-of-way improvements on development was mixed. 5. Development incentives and regulatory process can support (or hinder) redevelopment. 1. EDMONDS IS A GOOD LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT HAS CHALLENGES Edmonds has a positive impression. It's viewed as a desirable community that people want to live and as a place they would consider building. Highway 99 in Edmonds does have some specific challenges, specifically crime, vehicle access, and the lack of large developable sites. High parking requirements may impede new development 23 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 171 6.1.b BACKGROUND + EXISTING CON 2. RESIDENTIAL USES WILL LIKELY BE THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR Apartment projects will likely be the main driver of development along the corridor. Most developers are looking to do sizable projects of 150 units or more, which requires larger sites. Mixed use development is fairly likely although the retail portion may be a drag on the project financially initially. Office development is not likely in the near - term, and demand for medical office use is not clear. Mixed -use, residential development 3. PARKING IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DEVELOPMENT FORM AND FEASIBILITY Accommodating parking is an important factor in redevelopment, particularly in a suburban and auto -oriented environment transitioning to being more dense and walkable. Future projects along the corridor will likely need structured or underground parking to maximize the development potential of a site. The cost of different parking types and site size and characteristics are important variables for parking configuration (surface/tuck-under/ underground). The number of spots per unit desired will vary depending on the project, but high minimum requirements and/or inflexible standards can be a significant barrier to new development. 4. THE IMPACT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT WAS MIXED Shoreline has made significant improvements along Highway 99. One interviewee saw the improvements as critical to development. Several interviewees viewed them as nice to have, but not critical. Access, particularly for retail use, is viewed as important and something to be maintained if any improvements are made to Highway 99 in Edmonds. Right-of-way improvements, like improved sidewalks, will be a critical part of new development 5. DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND REGULATORY PROCESS CAN SUPPORT (OR HINDER) REDEVELOPMENT The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program was used by a number of developers, and was considered an effective incentive. Permitting and timeliness of the permit process was considered important for facilitating development. The permitting process is an important aspect of development. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 172 6.1.b No Packet Pg. 173 6.1.b COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Subarea Plan is representative of input gathered from the overall community as well as key stakeholders, and other interested parties throughout the planning process. The public involvement process involved stakeholder interviews, a Technical Advisory Committee, a community visioning workshop, polling, and two open houses as well as online outreach and surveys. The community's participation during the planning process helped shaped the overarching vision and community values for the Highway 99 area which ultimately guides the recommended strategies in the Plan. The process also helped build public support around the near and long-term approach towards growth and prosperity for the Highway 99 area. Workshop participants during a design exercise about where they prefer to see different types of improvements in the study area. A! EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 174 COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 6.1.b Members of the Technical Advisory Committee City of Edmonds Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Community Transit Eric Goodman, Transportation Service Planner Carol Thompson, Director of IT Operations Sound Transit Patrice Hardy, Government Relations Manager Kathy Leotta, Senior Transportation Planner Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Annie Johnson, Transportation Planner Mike Swires, Traffic Engineer Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Ben Bakkenta, Growth Management Planning Program Manager Outreach Activity Timeline » CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING T» MEETING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The committee met 3 times during the planning process. This group consists of representatives from several transit agencies including the Washington State's Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Community Transit, Sound Transit. The TAC also included a representative from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and a transportation engineer from the City of Edmonds. In addition, representatives from Snohomish County and the Cities of Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood also participated in TAC meetings. KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Six focus -group style meetings were conducted, including a round of developer interviews, a meeting with property owners, non-profit organizations, and a representative from the Swedish Edmonds Campus. COMMUNITY VISIONING WORKSHOP Over 50 people participated in the visioning workshop in March 2016 which involved a fun and interactive map -based design workshop and live polling questions using keypads that display results from all participants after each question. » COMMUNITY WORKSHOP >> MAPPING EXERCISE >> LIVE POLLING » ONLINE SURVEY » TAC MEETING » OPEN HOUSE - SCENARIOS T>> ONLINE COMMENTING PERIOD » TAC MEETING .. 27 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 175 6.1.b COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGA Both activities asked participants to envision and share their ideas about what kinds of changes they would like to see in the future, such as commercial, housing, or mixed use development, new pedestrian crossing, safety improvements, new traffic signals, traffic calming measures, wider sidewalks and others. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES Two public open houses were held in May and November 2016 and served as an opportunity to learn about the project, hear from elected leaders, and converse with the project team and share their thoughts on the project. The May open house revealed near and long-term development and transportation scenarios for the study area, and the proposed scope of the Planned Action EIS. The November open house unveiled the draft recommended implementation strategies and before and after visualizations of what life could be like in the Highway 99 area. ONLINE SURVEYAND GENERAL COMMENTS The polling questions presented at the visioning workshop were also available in a survey format on the project website. The survey collected 167 responses and asked participants to share their top » OPEN HOUSE - RECOMMENDATIONS » ONLINE COMMENTING PERIOD >> TAC MEETING priority of housing, business, and infrastructure. See pages 27-28 for combined results from live polling and survey responses. The public also had opportunities throughout the planning process to share general comments about the near and long-term land use and transportation scenarios, the scope of the Planned Action EIS, and key elements of the implementation strategies and recommendations for the subarea. WEB OUTREACH AND SOCIAL MEDIA A dedicated project website was created to inform the public about the project and regularly updated with most recent project developments and event announcements throughout the planning process. The website provided an opportunity for those unable to attend the workshop or open houses to provide input and learn about the overall planning process, see results of workshops and surveys, and explore alternative scenarios and implementation strategies. Event announcements were also posted on the City of Edmonds Facebook page and on the City's official website including mailed announcements to over 2,100 addresses in the area. » PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING TBOARD PRESENTATION OF DRAFT PLAN 2017 » CITY COUNCIL REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTION EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 176 COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 6.1.b WE ASKED EDMONDS... HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Widespread desire for housing, particularly in the south end. TRAFFIC CALMING I � I � I I I I / I � I � -_ `all, I r� I ,' ENHANCED TRANSIT esire for traffic alming on high peed southern rea on HWY 99 104 interchange MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT I / I I I / i r LANDSCAPED MEDIAN Widespread desire for landscaped median enhancements Widespread desire for mixed use, particularly in the south and central end 29 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 177 6.1.b COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING �I+ PEDESTRIAN REFUGE , PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 0 Pedestrian safety is a major concern throughout the corridor i WAYFINDING & SIGNAGE 1 1 /1 00 PEDESTRIAN' LIGHTING , s� EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 178 COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 2%1 % 2% PARK WITHIN SIGHT OF EACH 0 WALK, BIKE OR BUS DESTINATION PARKING ONCE AND WALK OTHER / NOT SURE BETWEEN SHOPS RACE 74%, WHITE 1%, BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN 1%, LATINO OR HISPANIC 5%, ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER 1%, MULTIRACIAL 3%, OTHER 15%, RATHER NOT SAY AGE 5%, 20-29 17%, 30-39 19%, 40-49 22%, 50-59 26%, 60-69 11%,70+ m DRIVE MYSELF BIKE BUS OTHER WALK GENDER 51%, FEMALE 40%, MALE 1%, OTHER 9%, RATHER NOT SAY 31 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 179 COMMUNITY + STAKEHOLDER ENGA 6.1. b **a, w6l \ 8% 8% / BUSINESS CATALYST DEVELOPMENT ON MAJOR SITES STOREFRONT IMPROVEMENTS BRING NEW BUSINESS AND JOBS TO THE AREA 21% HOUSING ADD MORE HOUSING ADD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BEAUTIFICATION, BLIGHT REMOVAL, CODEENFORCEMENT INVEST IN HOMEGROWN ENTREPRENEURS NO CHANGE f SOMETHING ELSE HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FOR REHABILITATION NO CHANGE SOMETHING ELSE M* / O 14% O 18 0 16%- INFRASTRUCTURE ADDRESS PARKING - MANAGEMENTAND SHARE PUBLIC SPACE IMPROVEMENTSAND BEAUTIFICATION BETTER CONNECTIONS FOR BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS NC CHANGE SOMETHING ELSE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR BIKES OR PEDESTRIANS EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 180 6.1.b ME �L x V LO 00 r r 0 N O r m L R R L U) a) a) Cu 3 t a� x r c a� E r a Packet Pg. 181 6.1.b CONSTRAINTS + CHALLENGES LAND USE CONSTRAINTS b CHALLENGES One issue the corridor needs to overcome is a public perception as being unsafe, unattractive and undesirable. It is sometimes viewed as a leftover area of the city and is not inspiring. Citizens often pass through the area on their way to somewhere else. There are misperceptions of what the corridor is and what it could eventually become. Highway 99 is a wide auto -oriented regional thoroughfare; this type of road design can be challenging when attempting to create a more walkable and safe area. There are also many land owners in the area and some of the parcels are oddly shaped or have poor access to Highway 99. On top of that, compared with other communities in the region, potentially restrictive land use and parking regulations complicated future opportunities. These challenges can make it more difficult to design and build a viable development project. Key Takeaways: Constraints + Challenges Land Use Public perception of Highway 99 as a "pass - through" area and an unsafe, unattractive, and undesirable area Wide, auto -oriented thoroughfare Oddly -shaped parcels with poor access Restricitve land use and parking regulations Economic Limited retail trade area Lack of diverse housing choice and commercial space Transportation and Infrastructure Commute patterns of resident and outside labor force can cause traffic and safety issues Poor or lack of safe pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, and sidewalks EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 182 CONSTRAINTS + CHALLENGES ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS & CHALLENGES One challenge for the area is the limited retail trade area due to geographical constraints with Puget Sound to the west and Interstate 5 a short distance to the east. Several distinct major regional retail centers and lifestyle centers in nearby communities also compete with this area. Lack of housing choice can also be challenging. A wider variety of housing options and commercial space is available elsewhere in the region. The lack of housing variety has led to a shortage of affordable housing opportunities as well. The lack of commercial space may allow for retail "leakage," which is the loss of potential local sales activity to areas outside of the corridor and city. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS b CHALLENGES A substantial portion of the resident labor force commutes away for work, while large number of workers commute into town for work. This can create traffic and safety issues along the corridor Safe pedestrian crossings are presently inadequate. Many places where pedestrians want to cross the highway have no marked pedestrian crossing. This is particularly occurring in the southern section of the corridor. There are also long segments without any street crossings or traffic lights. For example, the central section of the corridor requires a 10-minute walk to find a safely marked crossing. Finally, sidewalks are limited along the stretch on the corridor and are not present everywhere. 35 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 183 00V 226714 a�sr HDLLY WIAPLE M&MOHA 219TH � 1IIII I� ~ 1 27 m 2T3TH ■ 1 215TH -- ■ 1 - 218TH m 1 224TH x 1 w � 1 ■� r r r 29TH / r � 23DTH ■ 1 ■ 1 lit T ■ r — —-t 1 1 r. 1 ! r W4TH i � 1 36 LL j ; e r — —� 1 N$TH' RK 1, w 241 1 242HD m f-243RD n ■ —D— Uff-EL F WAY 1 'I 1 = o 1 n 222ND 1 b 219TH 6.1.b No Packet Pg. 185 6.1.b OPPORTUNITIES LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES Because of a long history of auto - oriented design along the Highway 99 corridor there are many opportunities for major land use changes. Three specific locations on the corridor already have reasonably good urban form and include the area east of Highway 99 between 238th and 240th, the area east of Highway 99 at 228th and the area just to the north of the Swedish Medical Center along 212th. These three areas are considered to have good urban form because they currently have well -marked crossings, are near frequent transit service, have city block and lot sizes that are conducive to walking, and have a large amount of employment activity. Key Takeaways: Opportunities Land Use Good urban form already exists on the corridor Many opportunities exists for reinvestment, redevelopment, and increased density Economic Strong health services sector and International District » Existing and planned transit connections creates opportunities for transit -oriented development and a stronger business and employee base Transportation and Infrastructure Providing a complete transportation system with efficient and cost-effective accessibilty and mobility Providing safe and convenient access all throughout the subarea especially for pedestrians EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 186 6.1.b OPPORTUNITIES Although same areas have good urban form, there are also opportunities for better integrated land uses along the corridor. Many parcels are less than 25% covered with buildings, presenting an opportunity for redevelopment and increased density in the area. In addition, much of the few new buildings or historic buildings along the corridor are expected to remain the same for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, there are many low -to -moderate value buildings and just a few new, higher value buildings in the area. This means that there is great potential for reinvestment and buildings are between 25 and 60 years old and are redevelopment along the corridor. nearing the end of their functional lifespan. Just a FIGURE 12: URBAN FORM WITHIN STUDY AREA 39 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 187 6.1.b OPPORT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES The service sector will continue to dominate the Edmonds employm ent base, with continued growth expected, especially in the health care sector. The burgeoning health services sector, anchored by Swedish -Edmonds Hospital is a perfect example. The Highway 99 corridor near the medical services node around the hospital offers opportunities for additional hospitality facilities. Other opportunities include leveraging the "International District" to provide culturally -specific goods and services. The corridor already has a strong international business community, offering diverse array of goods and services. A substantial number of jobs in Edmonds are occupied by residents of other outside communities. Additional housing variety in the area with a greater distribution along the affordability spectrum could help capture the latent housing demand of many Edmonds workers. FIGURE 13: LAND VALUE PER SQUARE FEET 1, p $0 - $20.00 $20.01- $40.00 $40.01- $60.00 $60.01- $80.00 $80.01 - $100.00 - $100 + Highway 99 Subarea _ Q City Boundaries Existing and planned intermodal transit connections can leverage transit -oriented development. Also, additional population density in business districts can add market demand for goods and services and employee base for new and growing businesses. New business and job opportunities are largely brought to the corridor through new development and redevelopment. Appropriately sited and sized development and redevelopment projects will increase: Property tax receipts through the new construction provision that captures new construction value -based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and adds that value to the city's future property tax baseline. Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity. Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents, workers and businesses within newly developed buildings. Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers. FIGURE 14: FLOOR AREA RATIO \' 0 - 0.25 1 0.25 - 0.50 �0.50-0.75 - 1.0 + _; Highway 99 Subarea 0 City Boundaries EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 188 OPPORTUNITIES 6.1.b TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITIES The HWY 99 corridor is unique in that it is served by regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), local public transportation, and has access to commuter and express transit services to Seattle from the Mountlake Terrace 1-5 Station which will offer light rail transit service with the Lynwood Link Extension planned to open in the year 2023. The level of transit coverage within the Plan Area supports transit -oriented -development and attracts households with zero to low automobile ownership —a segment of the population that choose to reside near transit because they don't drive or don't want to encumber themselves with the cost of vehicle ownership. One of the characteristics of HWY 99 that helps BRT achieve its desirable rapidness —long distances between signal controlled intersections —is also one of the greatest impediments to pedestrian circulation. Despite the apparent conflict in functionality, the HWY 99 corridor presents opportunities to maintain the short travel times needed for an effective Swift rapid transit system while providing additional safe pedestrian crossings of HWY 99 and improving the overall multimodal connectivity of the Plan Area. Opportunities for maintaining a rapid transit system include: » Implementing a Transit Signal Priority system that allow BRT vehicles to trigger a change in traffic signal phasing in favor of the buses approaching a signalized intersection. » Strongly enforcing the corridor's BAT lanes and improving their effectiveness through better access management and their use as queue jumping lanes. Opportunities for improving pedestrian safety, circulation options, and access to transit include: » Transforming the approaches of streets intersecting HWY 99 into "Complete Streets" that improve the environment for all users to access and cross the corridor. Complete Street improvements might trade-off automobile travel lanes to create space for sidewalks and bike lanes, or might add a vehicular turning lane allowing for protected signal movements that eliminate conflicts with crossing pedestrians. » Strategic placement of new traffic signals and pedestrian crossings that break up the longest segments of HWY 99 without safe crosswalks. Reconfigure high-speed corners and ramps to slow traffic and install pedestrian -activated flashing beacons at uncontrolled crossings. FIGURE 15: BEFORE AND AFTER ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXAMPLE "COMPLETE STREET" IMPROVEMENTS Source: CityLab, The Atlantic 41 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 189 6.1.b OPPORT Transportation improvements within the Plan Area should take advantage of the opportunities provided by key assets within the Plan Area. The Interurban Trail is a key asset in the corridor. Improving access to the trail with short and strategically located pedestrian and bicycle -only connections from HWY 99 can increase the trail's usefulness for shorter trips as well as longer distance travel. Capitalize on the successful extension of 228th Street to break up large blocks and create more complete street connections to Edmond's designated Priority Transit Corridors to provide better pedestrian access to transit stops and improve overall mobility. Encourage transit use by enhancing transit stops in Priority Transit Corridors with amenities that make stops attractive, comfortable, and safe for waiting passengers. The Interurban Trail EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 190 6.1.b ME �L x V LO 00 r r 0 N O r m L R R L U) a) a) Cu 3 t a� x r c a� E r a Packet Pg. 191 6.1.b ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS Land use and transportation scenarios are an important part of the exploratory process in planning. Testing a range of policy options, development types and transportation improvements allows for a comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of virtual futures. Three separate land use and transportation scenarios were evaluated using the open source scenario planning platform Envision Tomorrow. The location and styles of development that were tested came from public input through the workshop process and the existing conditions analysis of redevelopment potential. The transportation components of the scenarios were a combination of public input from the workshops, and existing projects in previous plans. Sample scenario EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 192 6.1.b ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS The power of scenarios analysis lies in the ability to test out and compare different virtual futures. The three scenarios had different themes. Scenario Alternative 1 was the No Action Alternative, which assumes current zoning and roadway configurations remains the same. Alternative 2 was a residentially -focused scenario. The public workshops demonstrated a strong desire for additional housing on and around the HWY 99 corridor. This scenario assumes significant new development of both mixed -use and residential apartment buildings on and around the corridor. Alternative 3 had a stronger employment growth focus, particularly in the hospital district to the north. This scenario assumes strong growth in health -related employment in the north, in addition to the new mixed -use and residential development in Alternative 2. TABLE 5: EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVITY UNITS HWY 99 TOTAL ACTIVITY CORRIDOR ACTIVITY UNITS / TOTAL UNITS ACRE ACRES SCENARIO BUILDING BLOCKS Each of the scenarios was constructed using a range of building types calibrated to the Edmonds market. Within a context such as the HWY 99 study area, a range of buildings could be anticipated. However, existing roadway conditions and regulatory requirements have precluded the development of the mixed -use and residential building types desired by the public — predominantly three and four story apartments, and five and six story mixed -use buildings. Within the current context of the area, land developers are unable to achieve rents high enough to make these buildings feasible. However, with investments into roadway improvements and regulatory changes, such as a reduction in parking requirements, the market becomes much more desirable. More pedestrian -oriented road conditions Existing 352.55 9669 27.4 5,872 16.65 3,797 10.77 1,579 4.47 Conditions Alternative 1 (No Action) 352.55 13,226 27.5 7,112 20.17 6,114 17.34 2,803 7.95 Alternative 2 (Residential, 352.55 15,999 45.4 9,189 26.1 6,810 19.3 4,904 13.9 Commercial, Office Focus) 4S EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 193 6.1.b ALTERNATIVE SC FIGURE 16: ALTERNATIVE 2 EMPLOYMENT FOCUS I11l1l1i11111111'm��■1■" C —II '1G�7 \111■111g a mRlkli ■ii ImminnoI 1il�Illllll �Illf_�;u��l�l: :�Ifil:�lia�lllll On: -C■J = (1ii- ■� I'll : w ■ ru �V+1 ■1� Ir.� �- R'— '� 212th St 5W I ,'I1�� +� I u / El■s . NJ © r�� 1o1�lsWMI :�..._ - _ rrw.w2zoth St sW I _ :n Mao w n Alternative 2: Development Types to ■ 5/1 Mixed Use Office 511 Mixed Use Residential 3 Story Apartment Rllli�� Ill■i�'-: rrrrr : 0 ' 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles A EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 194 6.1.b ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS and development make the area more attractive to potential tenants, resulting in higher achievable rents, and therefore greater market feasibility for the type of development under consideration. This relationship between transportation, land use and the development market is well documented in Reid Ewing and Keith Bartholomew's research into Hedonic Price effects of Pedestrian- and Transit - Oriented Development (2011). Given the assumption that these investments and regulatory changes would take place, three primary building types came forward as the most likely to occur in the HWY 99 study area: three-story apartments, six -story mixed -use residential, and ten -story mixed -use office and residential in which the mixed -use buildings would include ground floor retail and service uses with either residential or office on the upper floors. These building types were used to construct the HWY 99 scenarios, and Table 5 summarizes the building characteristics of the three building types. TABLE 6: BUILDING TYPE CHARACTERISTICS Parking ratios Three-story apartment building type Six story mixed -use building type with ground floor retail and residential above Ten -story mixed -use building type with ground floor office and residential above 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit » 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit 0.75 spaces per dwelling » No parking required for first » No parking required for first unit 2,000 sq ft. 2,000 sq ft. 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sqft » 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sqft above above 2,000 2,000 Housing density 51.2 82.6 49.02 (dwelling units per acre) Employment density - 33.6 208.98 (jobs per acre) Average dwelling unit 850 759 759 size in square feet $1,669 / unit Average rent $1,700 / unit $1,669 / unit » $22 / sqft retail $26 / sqft office Achievable land cost per $41-$49 $80-$94 $70-$79 square foot 47 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 195 6.1.b ALTERNATIVE SC DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS As part of the subarea planning process, a maximum development capacity number was estimated by Fregonese Associates using the Envision Tomorrow model. In general, existing development does not fully utilize the development capacity available under current zoning, as much of the existing development in the study area is low -intensity and low -scale, with the medical uses surrounding the Swedish Edmonds Campus being the exception. Because current zoning in the study area allows for a mix of uses, maximum development capacity was estimated for two alternatives. Under the first alternative, future growth would continue based on existing development regulations and past development trends. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, assumes future mixed TABLE 7: DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS use growth with a mix of residential, commercial, and office development, an area -wide rezone, amendments to development regulations, and transportation improvements. Table 7 shows the maximum development capacity numbers in comparison to existing development in the study area and the preferred alternative. Development capacity estimates are not a prediction that a certain amount of development will occur or when it may occur, but instead a measure of the maximum development that could occur in a given area. As Table 7 shows, estimated development capacity is significantly greater than the sum of existing and new growth planned under the alternatives and indicate sufficient development capacity in the study area to accommodate growth under the alternatives. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY - Existing Development 1,579 3,797 Residential, Commercial, Office Focus 24,552 26,028 GROWTH TARGETS FOR 2035 (NEW DEVELOPMENT) Alternative 1 (No Action) 1,224 2,317 Alternative 2 (Residential, Commercial, Office Focus) 3,519 3,442 GROWTH TARGETS FOR 2035 (TOTAL DEVELOPMENT) Alternative 1 (No Action) 2,803 6,114 Alternative 2 (Residential, Commercial, 4,904 6,810 Office Focus) EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 196 6.1.b Packet Pg. 197 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS + ACTIONS The most important part of a plan are the actions that are taken to achieve the vision identified by the plan. As this plan is very action -oriented and strategic, the implementation strategies focus generally on aligning the City's planning and regulatory structure to support the vision, and to identify those public and private investments that will lead to the vision's realization. The implementation strategies can be generally categorized as: Identification of actions to support public and private investment, including recommendations to amend Edmonds land use and transportation policies and regulations for the entire 99 Subarea P Specific land use and transportation strategies, actions, policies and investments Specific recommended changes to zoning and development standards Timing and priority actions - organized into short, medium and long term action items Matrix of potential capital improvement projects along with preliminary costing and relevant partner agencies III Artist's rendering of what future development could potentially look like on the northwest corner of Highway 99 and 234th intersection. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 198 IMPLEMENTATION No a 51 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 199 SIMPLEME 6.1.b STRENGTHEN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Support the unique business clusters within the corridor such as the International District and the Health District which are major centers of employment and a regional draw. RECOMMENDATION 1.3 The City should proactively work to strengthen and continue support for business organizations such as the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, the Edmonds Community College Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and Business Training Center, Sustainable Edmonds, and other organizations in the county and state. RECOMMENDATION 1.2 Major auto sales facilities are also important to the local economy. Design standards, specifically the pedestrian activity zone, will allow auto sales to continue use of this zone. RECOMMENDATION 1.4 Continue to pursue expanded broadband internet within the corridor to make the location attractive to high-tech business investment. RECOMMENDATION 1.5 Consider unique designs for streetscape improvements in the area, such as unique signage and lighting. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 200 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b ENCOURAGE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Transit- and pedestrian -friendly development, with less reliance on individual automobile -driving, should be promoted through new design standards to increase sustainability. Recently adopted citywide requirements for new development to have greater energy -efficiency and more effective stormwater facilities will also contribute to sustainability. _111111S.— RECOMMENDATION 2.2 In addition, the City should consider requiring electric vehicle charging facilities, especially for new development with residential uses, and bicycle facilities, along with options for car -sharing. RECOMMENDATION 2.3 The use of solar panels and green building practices, even beyond current standards, should be encouraged. e 53 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 201 SIMPLEME 6.1.b MODIFY COMPREHENSIVE MAP TO IDENTIFY DISTRICTS Im THE ISSUE TODAY: The HWY 99 area has had several plans and studies in the past that have designated unique subdistricts within the HWY 99 area. This process has affirmed two of those subareas and changed one other. The subareas include a Hospital District at the north end, an International district in the center and a Gateway District in the south. The current Comprehensive Plan includes a subdistrict map that designates four focus areas, but does not reflect the community's desire for a southern "gateway" district that defines the entry into Edmonds. 220rb sr sw 1 2121h St 5W 1 ! 1-' •�h I 1--Z . Hospital Community)'J r� 1 Family Retail Center 220th St SW 1 1 224th St SW ' 1 International f District k " 228,h St SW k _ 1 1 232ntl StSW Residential Area 234tn$t SW 1�99 j — Retail Center mth St SW 23BIh St SW "Hoteis'Ilarea .-.: 1 , improvement 240th St SW 242nd StSW ♦, , - _ 1 9 0.1 ' 0.2 0.4 Mies 244th St SW S — — — — — y—' N RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Replace the current Comprehensive Plan maps and text with updated materials that clearly identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses. zz-, �w 1 ! _ xtzrn St sw 1 _ I �� !! Health a' ~� District „1 220th St SW I 1 1 � 2241h $1 SW ' - ; - International ' ~ District 228rn $t SW k� - 230th St SW ' ! 1 1 232ntl StSt 234th St SW 1 — — 1 236th$tSW �— 238th 3t SW Gateway 1 , District 240th$t SW 1 k ' Mejor 1 � Transportation 242ntlstsw 0- :�' a G.t —y 0.4 Mies 244th St sw k , �Pik+"' " N EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 202 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b CONSOLIDATE CG-1 AND CG-2 INTO A SINGLE CG ZONE THE ISSUE TODAY: The zoning in the planning area is unnecessarily complex and confusing. Most of the area is either zoned CG or CG2. The difference between them is a minor height difference of 15 feet. CG has a height allowance of 60 feet while CG2 has a height allowance of 75 feet. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 into a single CG zone with height limit at 75 feet. This allows for a cost-effective 6 story mixed -use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. The construction type of 5 wood framed floors over a ground floor, concrete podium (also known as a "5- over-1 building") is efficient and cost effective, and is also within the height capacity of fire truck ladders. SIMPLIFY ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND ALIGN ZONING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE ISSUE TODAY: Many of the current zones in the HWY 99 study area are remnants from the zones that were in place when this area of Edmonds was annexed from the County. The patchwork of zones is outdated and, in some cases, not consistent with parcel boundaries, meaning that some lots have more than one zone. RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Instead of having 6 or more zones, it is recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone be applied to most of the study area. Additional recommendations below will ensure new buildings transition in scale into the surrounding single family neighborhoods. These changes will better align the zoning with the Comprehensive Plan map. 55 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 203 CURRENT ZONING MAP RECOMMENDED ZONING MAP - C si'�� I4� YI` ::� lil■ �„�■� � I D KI! 1■ ht,]I 1 uuu I1��Rw�■ ] BRA, GRIIIIIL -. � 1 ■ -1.■um P�■■-■■ ` -iiil■ �� un■� ��if 16un J � ■1 p■■■ :1.1I III ■VIEVI LC7f.„_ Q .. 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION MODIFY CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS The design standard recommendations in this plan are not regulatory changes. Rather, they are proposed modifications to be considered when the design standards are written during the implementation of the plan. Code changes will only occur after the Subarea Plan has been adopted. During the implementation phase of the Plan when the design standards are modified, consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the standards are feasible. For instance, large parcels that would have multiple buildings if redeveloped and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges may require a modified approach to the design standards. ACCESS AND PARKING WHAT ARE THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS IN CG AND CG2 ZONES? Current standards require that not more than 50 percent of a project's total parking spaces may be located between the building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. THE ISSUE TODAY: This standard can allow too much parking on street fronts, which impacts pedestrian activity and hinders a vibrant urban street. This standard is attempting to encourage more parking in the rear of buildings, but it is regulating the location of a percentage of the parking rather than the amount of building front should be located towards the road. Depending on the project or lot size, the amount of parking in the front could still be very large with the existing standard. Regulating the percentage of the frontage that needs to be occupied by building instead of parking area is a more appropriate approach. 57 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 205 SIMPLEME 6.1.b RECOMMENDATION 6.1 BUILDINGS ON THE STREET FRONTAGE On a primary frontage, a minimum of 50% of the street frontage should have buildings within 10 feet of front property line (at the edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone) 50% of all other street frontages will have buildings, walls, or hedges at least 4 feet in height, within 10 feet of the property line. RECOMMENDATION 6.2 PARKING PREDOMINATELY ON SIDE OR REAR Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage. RECOMMENDATION 6.3 GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY 50% of primary frontage building faqade within 10 feet lot line shall be made of transparent windows and doors. All other street -facing facades within 30 feet of a public street require 30% transparency. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 206 IMPLEMENTATION SCREENING, BUFFERING, AND AMENITY SPACE WHAT ARE THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS IN CG AND CG2 ZONES? Currently the design standards require a dense Type IV landscaping buffer, a minimum of four feet wide, along all street frontages. Amenity space is not specifically required for development of a site. THE ISSUE TODAY: This standard creates landscaped barriers between pedestrians and buildings rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone. RECOMMENDATION 6.4 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ZONE Replace the 4-foot landscaped buffer with a required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone setback on all primary frontages with ground floor retail. Future design standards may consider special circumstances, such as auto dealer locations. RECOMMENDATION 6.5 AMENITY SPACE Outdoor amenity space, which may include landscaping, benches, or other amenities, should be required in conjunction with development. A portion of the required amenity space should be provided as common space and may include pedestrian activity areas. 1-1 59 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 207 SIMPLEME 6.1.b SETBACK AND BUFFERS FOR USES ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES WHAT ARE THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS IN CG AND CG2 ZONES? Ground Floor Setback: Current front setback is in RM-1.5 (the current multifamily zone near Highway 99) is 15' (ECDC 16.30.030). Where commercial, institutional, medical and multifamily uses are adjacent to residential zones, current standards require a 15' setback (ECDC 16.60.020). Where commercial, institutional, medical uses are adjacent to residential zones, current standards require a dense 10' landscaping buffer (ECDC 16.60.030.A.1.f) Where office and multifamily uses are adjacent to single-family zones, current standards require a minimum 4' wide and 10' tall landscaping buffer (ECDC 16.60.030.A.1.h) Upper Floor Stepback: No current standards exist for explicitly regulating the bulk and scale of buildings that The current Design Criteria seek to ensure "buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially zoned properties" and suggests a variety of architectural treatments to mitigate impact, but does not explicitly require a stepback. The Comprehensive Plan includes recommendations that should be considered when developing uses adjacent to single family areas. From "City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (2015) — Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor' section, page 64: "New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on are adjacent to single family zones. residentially -zoned properties" THE ISSUE TODAY: Current design standards do not ensure proper transition of higher density buildings adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 208 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION 6.5 Establish stepback and setback standards for apartments and mixed -use buildings adjacent to single family zones and include these standards in the zoning code. RECOMMENDATION 6.6 GROUND FLOOR SETBACK For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a Pedestrian Activity Zone. For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to 5 feet and encourage enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, useable landscaping, etc.). Keep current 15 feet setback and 10' landscaping requirements for lot line adjacency with single family zones. RECOMMENDATION 6.7 UPPER FLOOR SETBACK Zero upper floor setback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99). Minimum 10 feet setback above 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to residential zones. The portion of the building above 55 feet in height shall be set back at least 20 feet from a residential zone boundary. Minimum 8 feet setback above 25 feet in height on sides across a street from single family zones. Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies. Upper stories setback 20' from property line above 55' in building height Upper stories setback 10' above 25' in building height 61 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 209 SIMPLEME 6.1.b ADOPT TRANSIT -SUPPORTIVE PARKING STANDARDS HWY 99 has many local and regional transit options as well as regional trails and bike routes, giving residents many travel options. In transit - rich areas, it is common for communities to reduce required on -site parking to encourage higher rents and reduced affordability. Current estimates for the cost of structured parking is anywhere from $20,000-25,000 per space, and underground parking can exceed $50,000 per space. Edmonds should adopt new, transit higher intensity and mixed -use development. supportive parking standards for the Highway 99 Parking is also expensive and high parking area. requirements can raise costs, which results in CURRENT PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Studio apartment: 1.2 spaces 1-Bedroom: 1.5 spaces 2-Bedroom: 1.8 spaces 3-Bedroom: 2 spaces RECOMMENDATION 7.1 RESIDENTIAL One space per unit that is less than 700 square feet. A different ratio may be approved if the City determines that development is near a transit station or is supported by a parking study. COMMERCIAL 2.5 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 400 square feet) RECOMMENDATION 7.2 COMMERCIAL 2 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 500 square feet) Exempt the first 3,000 square feet of commercial within mixed -use buildings that have a shared parking plan (parking study and management plan). This reduces the cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs. Compliance should be at the staff level to reduce administrative time and cost. Allow for project -specific studies to reflect special situations. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 210 IMPLEMENTATION 63 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 211 SIMPLEME 6.1.b ENACT MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION (MFTE) PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION 8.1 The City of Edmonds should pass an ordinance to define the HWY 99 area a "target area" to allow MFTE projects within the HWY 99 area. This would incentivize the construction of additional housing and mixed -use projects by enabling qualifying projects to take advantage of a tax exemption on the residential -portion of new buildings for 12 years in exchange for keeping 20% of units affordable during that period. Anthem on 12th: An award -winning workforce housing development in Seattle financed through a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program. CONTINUE OR ENHANCE FEE WAIVER PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATION 9.1 The City should continue or enhance its program to allow the reduction of transportation and park impact fees for projects that include affordable housing. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 212 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b FACILITATE A MIXED -USE, MIXED -INCOME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATION 10.1 Identify a site with willing owner/partner, or purchase or secure a transferrable option on a site. RECOMMENDATION 10.2 The City can establish a special fund targeted at affordability and/or redevelopment, or make use of one or more of the tools listed on the next page to establish a special assessment district or direct state and federal funds towards a project. RECOMMENDATION 10.3 Actively recruit developers, both non-profit affordable housing builders like the Korean Women's Association or other developers familiar with public -private partnerships. This recruitment can also be done by a specialized consultant. RECOMMENDATION 10.4 Cultivate a champion who can motivate the development community and advocate for more affordable housing projects. This could be a local or state leader, such as an elected representative or a prominent local business leader.!' if L7' ;r.r RECOMMENDATION 10.5 Make this project the pilot project for the newly adopted MFTE and fee waiver program to ensure they function well and iron out any issues before broader adoption RECOMMENDATION 10.6 Consider adopting one or more of the special assessment districts listed on Recommendation 11.1 and locating this pilot project site within one of these districts. This will enable the City to make use of special funds to assist with development and infrastructure costs or other subsidies. The first project or few projects will require more assistance than subsequent projects. RECOMMENDATION 10.7 Assign special staff to the pilot project to ensure it remains a City priority and keeps moving forward. This staff person will also track what works well or what does not, and make final modification recommendations to the various programs before final broader adoption. : ■ pdR�;a -- +!17 ■an,- ,� WE ■ .: '.;- - }Ik , NCR 65 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 213 IMPLEME 6.1.b EXPAND USE OF FINANCING TOOLS RECOMMENDATION 11.1 The City should actively seek to make use of local, state and federal funds and funding mechanisms to expand the opportunities for affordable housing, redevelopment and economic development within the HWY 99 area. Below is a list of some key tools and funding sources that should be considered. City Fund for Redevelopment and Affordable Housing Community Renewal Area (CRA) — used in Shoreline Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Financing Program Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing Landscape Conservation and Local Improvement Program (LCLIP) Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) HUD HOME Program HUD CDBG Program Enterprise Community Partners Regional Equitable Development Initiative (REDI) Fund Lovejoy Station in Portland, Oregon is a five -story apartment community that serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 214 IMPLEMENTATION v L 67 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 215 SIMPLEME 6.1.b GATEWAY SIGNAGE AT HWY 99/ HWY 104 INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDATION 12.1 The public process identified the need to clearly establish the identify of Edmonds at the south end of the study area, through gateway features, such as signage and landscaping. The design treatments should clearly indicate an arrival into Edmonds and distinguish this stretch of HWY 99 from Shoreline. This could be accomplished in tandem with the realignment of the on and off ramps of HWY 104 proposed in the project list. TRANSIT GATEWAY SIGNAGE/STATION AT HWY 99/228TH RECOMMENDATION 13.1 Regional commuter rail to the Mountlake Terrace transit center is scheduled for completion in 2023. Edmonds to this new rail station is 228th. I to identify this transit gateway at the intersection of HWY 99 and 228th, and strengthen east -west connections for transit riders, bicyclists and commuters. and clear wayfinding signage at this intersection will establish the clear link for visitors and residents alike. A future transit linkage, either in the form of a reroute of existing local transit to connect Edmonds to the Mountlake Terrace transit station should be considered. In addition, an additional or moved BRT station and location at the intersection of 228th should also be examined in the future. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 216 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION � IMPROVE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE / ALONG THE CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION 14.1 Many amenities and community destinations exist near HWY 99, but the public process revealed that finding these amenities can be difficult, particularly for visitors. Wayfinding signage with a uniquely Edmonds identity should point out safe auto, bicycle and pedestrian routes to surrounding amenities. The amenities and destinations identified include downtown Edmonds, Lake Ballinger, the Interurban Trail, new regional rail at Mountlake Terrace, the International District, the Health District and hospital. DEVELOP A UNIQUE DISTRICT DESIGN IDENTITY RECOMMENDATION 15.1 The subdistricts identified in this process and previous processes highlight the existing nodes of similar business activity, such as international businesses and health and hospital related uses. The City should invest in signage, lighting and art to improve the vitality of these areas, and support business development organizations that build capacity within the private sector. Some ideas the City should pursue are establishing unique branding for each district, public and local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter designs, pavement patterns, special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, and banners. 69 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 217 SIMPLEME 6.1.b I � PROHIBIT NEW POLE SIGNS RECOMMENDATION 15.1 As the HWY 99 area transitions from an auto -oriented highway to a more dynamic and mixed -use environment, new large pole signs designed to capture the attention of fast moving traffic are no longer compatible. The City should prohibit new pole signs within the study area. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 218 IMPLEMENTATION 71 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 219 IMPLEME 6.1. b IMPROVE TRANSIT TRANSFERS RECOMMENDATION 17.1 The public workshop and stakeholder engagement process revealed a few needed improvements in transit, particularly related to improving transit transfers. The City should work with Community Transit and other transit partners to ensure regional and local bus stops are close together and schedules are aligned to ensure convenient and efficient transfers. This can be accomplished by a consolidation or coloration of stations to reduce walking distances between routes. Specific improvements related to emphasizing a new transit hub at 228th and HWY 99 include: Consider a shuttle/transit service from HWY 99 to the Mountlake Terrace regional transit center Consider a consolidated transit stop at 228th Consider a new BRT station Provide clear signage Provide high -quality bike connection on 228th EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 220 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b INCENTIVIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS RECOMMENDATION 18.1 A robust and resilient transit system offers a wide range of options to commuters and the community. This includes convenient access to regional transit and transportation facilities, but also the finer grained connections that allow for quick, short connections to be made. The City should establish additional impact fee reductions and on -site parking reduction allowances for development project that offer or accommodate alternative transportation options on -site. Examples of on -site alternative transportation options include subsidized transit passes for residents, on -site car share parking, bicycle parking, electric car charging stations and temporary parking for private ride sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft. �� LM 73 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 221 SIMPLEME 6.1.b This page is left intentionally blank. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 222 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b '1I • UOPIN I!\ ■ [• 0■■■Ymm0b 75 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 223 SIMPLEME 6.1.b EXPAND USE GRANT OF PROGRAMS TO FUND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION 19.1 The City should actively seek to make use of local, state and federal funds and funding mechanisms to expand opportunities for safety improvements and pedestrian and bike -friendly enhancements within the HWY 99 area. Below is a list of some key grant programs that should be considered: Safe Routes to School Program (Pedestrian & Bicycle projects within two miles of a school) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program (CMAQ) EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 224 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b The following includes a detailed list of short term and long term transportation improvements that include projects identified in previous plans and projects that have arisen as part of this process. The projects are designed to accommodate a The logical point within the gap for installation range of transportation goals, including: of a traffic signal and pedestrian crossings is at 234th Street SW. While not the midpoint of the Improve traffic flow and general safety and segment, there are other factors that strengthen access management Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from HWY 99 corridor Improve pedestrian environment along HWY 99 corridor Create safe pedestrian crossings of HWY 99 and access to transit Improve transit mobility and transit stop environment Further, the projects build upon or enhance the planned transportation improvements described earlier. KEY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS CLOSE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT GAP IN PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR The longest segment of Highway 99 in the Plan Area without a controlled pedestrian crossing is between 238th Street SW and 228th Street SW —a distance of about 3,700 feet. Prior to the completion of the 228th Street connection between 76th Avenue W and the new traffic signal at Highway 99, the longest segment without a controlled crossing was nearly a mile. The short- term recommendation to improve this major obstacle to pedestrian travel is to install a traffic signal on HWY 99 with pedestrian crossings on all approaches. the need for a pedestrian crossing at this location These include: This location is within a node having strong redevelopment potential creating increased demand for pedestrian travel. The Community Health Center is located 500 feet to the north of this intersection and Community Transit has bus stops on both sides of HWY 99 without a safe crossing to access the northbound bus stop. The signal will need to be installed concurrently with new development at the 234th Street node in order to help meet signal warrants. FIGURE 17: SAFETY HEAT MAP SHOWING GAP IN PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 77 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 225 SIMPLEME 6.1.b IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH AT THE SR 104 INTERCHANGE The present design of the SR 104 interchange with HWY 99 is automobile dominated partial cloverleaf with on and off -ramps designed for moderate speeds. Sidewalks exist on both sides of HWY 99 through the interchange but require pedestrians to cross an on and off -ramp in either direction. Most of these crossings are unmarked and located on curves where traffic is accelerating or decelerating from freeway speeds. Further, bridge structure and trees restrict motorist sight lines of pedestrians crossing the ramps. The conditions are daunting for pedestrians and likely discourage people from traversing the interchange on foot. The eastbound off -ramp at the southern end of the interchange is configured more favorably for pedestrians than the eastbound off -ramp at the northern end because the intersection is the terminus of a pedestrian pathway connecting the surrounding neighborhoods to HWY 99. The eastbound off -ramp is aligned at nearly a right angle to HWY 99, is controlled by a stop sign, and has a high visibility crosswalk crossing the ramp. In contrast, all of the remaining crossings are at uncontrolled and relatively high speed locations. The long-term recommendation is to reconfigure the ramps as conventional 90-degree stop control intersections with marked crossings similar to the eastbound off -ramp configuration. Trucks may be accommodated through the use of low -angle slip ramps and channelizing islands to keep crossing distances short. Reconfiguration in this manner improves visibility and slows turning traffic. As a short-term interim improvement, install pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) with high -visibility crosswalk markings at the pedestrian crossings of the SR 104 on and off -ramps and provide new, or redirect existing, safety lighting to illuminate the crosswalks. FIGURE 18: 90-DEGREE STOP CONTROL INTERSECTION TO AN OFF -RAMP CONFIGURATION FIGURE 19: RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB'S) ENCOURAGE WALKING AND BICYCLING TO ACCESS PLAN AREA FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS During the public workshop residents of the Plan Area expressed concern regarding the safety of walking and bicycling to the HWY 99 corridor from their neighborhoods. Their concerns focused on the rural nature of connecting streets which lack sidewalks and lighting, and have overgrown vegetation restricting sight distance. These concerns extended onto HWY 99 where there was EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 226 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b a general consensus on the need for safety and street lighting on HWY 99 and on the residential streets feeding into the corridor, particularly pedestrian -scaled lighting. The conditions described above limit the resident's desire to access HWY 99 as a pedestrian or bicyclists particularly at night. Specific streets identified in the workshop include 240th Street SW between 84th Avenue W and 80th Way W and approach HWY 99 and 224th Street SW approaching 76th Avenue and HWY 99. The City of Edmonds 2015 Comprehensive Plan identifies several "complete streets" projects on streets providing access to HWY 99. The improvements —as described in the section on Planned Improvements —include sidewalk construction, drainage improvements, lighting, and reallocation of the street's traveled way to improve safety for all users. Expanding on these projects to include additional streets feeding into the corridor can alleviate the resident's concerns about safety and dramatically increase active modes of transportation. Improvements need not be extensive to create a more desirable pedestrian environment — sidewalks can be constructed on one side of narrow streets or paths of decomposed granite with asphalt berms may suffice to move pedestrians and bicyclists out of the street's traveled way. Regardless of the extensiveness of the improvements, lighting should be a high priority in all cases. Safety lighting (lighting that illuminates intersection corners where pedestrians are expected to cross) and street lighting (overhead lighting that generally illuminates the width of the street) as well as pedestrian -scaled lighting (lighting on 12-17-foot tall standards that illuminate the pedestrian walkway) are fundamental prerequisites for walkable areas. Streets that cannot be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night, will experience limited travel during the day. IMPROVE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TRANSIT AND MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS The extensive transit network serving the corridor is an opportunity to shift employee commute modes at the corridor's larger employment centers from driving to transit. Part of an effective strategy to change employee travel behavior is improving the physical connection between transit and the destination. The SWIFT stations at 216th Street SW serve the corridor's largest employment center --the Swedish Hospital campus and its associated medical offices. The SWIFT bus rapid transit system is an ideal opportunity for employees and patients/visitors to access the campus by transit. However, the connection between the stations and the various facilities in the campus require pedestrians to walk up steep grades and through parking lots to access building entrances. The lack of connections, direction and amenities discourages people from taking transit to the site. This Plan recommends improving the connection between the Swift Stations at 216th Street SW and the Swedish Hospital Campus by implementing a pedestrian walkway system (potentially covered) internal to the campus with wayfinding to direct pedestrians to the various campus facilities including future land uses that support hospital expansion such as hotels and medical office buildings within the Health Care District. 79 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 227 SIMPLEME 6.1.b FIGURE 20: PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND ■ EXISTING SIGNALIZED ■ S16 ■ v ■ a ■ INTERSECTION AND PED XING ¢' L t ■ PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL ■ n ® AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ■ ■ :-. ■nowiiniiiiisoon ❑ INTERSECTION SAFETY 8 CAPACITY ■ IMPROVEMENTS ■ FFFFf NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION i a■ ■ ■ NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES a ■ STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR i ■� 0 PEDESTRIANS ■ ■� ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED ■ ■ ■ MEDIANS) ■ "* W ® SWIFT RAPID STATION : S16 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i S12: 220th Street ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ In ■ ■ SIGNAL ■_ i COORDINATION L ■ S10 224th Street■ ■ a ■ ■■T■�■�■��= ■ :S16 r S11 228th Street■ * me ■ ■ ■ 230th Street ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ 234th Stree i ■ i 236th Street■ 10010001000100010r 238th Street .. d■■ COMPLETE STREET --- IMPROVEMENTS ( ) 240th Street IMPROVE SOUTHBOUND LOCAL BUS STOP '4 CONCURRENTWITH . NEW DEVELOPMENT ( ) �� 244th Street ■ a■ Q�S17 a �■ L INTERSECTION CAPACITY ■ i & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS i ■ii S F ACC ANAGEMENT(L13) f INTERSECTION CAPACITY & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS(S37) `SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION(S4) ACCESS MANAGEMENT (L1 2) �—INTERSECTION IMPROVEME TSAPACIT(S36) &SAFETY ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S28) ►YiE:? ACCESS MANAGEMENT( COMPLETE STREET � ■ �� IMPROVEMENTS( ) ■ ■ i REGIONALLY COMMUNITYHEALTH (i / ■ SIGINIFICANT TRANSIT t ♦— ACCESS MANAGEMENT ■ CENTER - - ( ) EMPHASIS CORRIDOR A. () raj w �1� to ACCESS MANAGEMENT(S26) j NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL PEDESTRIAN j CROSSWALKSON ALL APPROACHES(S29) ACC S MANAGEMENT (S25) SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, DISTANCE VISIBILITY, H�•� Y,ADAAND1 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS( ) L S13 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING 61, IMPROVEMENTS(_ ) ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S24) IMPROVE NORTHBOUND LOCAL BUS STOP CONCURRENT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT( ) NOTE: The identifiers in red (i.e. SXX) correspond with the list of improvements on pages 83- 98). The letters in front of each identifier indicate short or long- term improvements - "S" for short-term and "L' for long-term. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 228 IMPLEMENTATION FIGURE 21: PROJECT SUPPORTIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND EXISTING SIGNALIZED o p INTERSECTION AND PED XING ;I ®PROPOSED NEWTRAFFIC SIGNAL AND FED XING r ❑PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK�,�-■-i FLASHING BEACON 7+� ® SWIFT RAPID STATION ®, ENHANCED LOCAL TRANSIT STOPS( ) I IMPROVED INTERNAL CONNECTIONS j AND WAYFINDING BETWEEN SWIFT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT STATIONS AND HOSPITAL CAMPUS NEW CONNECTION BETWEEN SR 99 ( ) AND INTERURBAN TRAIL(__.) ii PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA, AND LIGHTING) ( ) CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT (WIDEN SIDEWALK, PLANTING STRIP BUFFER)( ) CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY AND LIGHTING)( ) COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER IMPROVED LOCAL BUS STOPS SERVING COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (S30) HIGH -VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS + PEDESTRIAN -ACTIVATED RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS ON SR 104 ON AND OFF -RAMPS ( ) z m 00 NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND #�A �- PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS ON ALLA PROACHES( 00 is 0 �P • NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH NEW DEVELOPA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING)( ) RECONFIGURE OFF -RAMPS TO 90-DEGREE STOP CONTROL INTERSECTIONS( ) NOTE: The identifiers in red (i.e. SXX) correspond with the list of improvements on pages 83- 98). The letters in front of each identifier indicate short or long- term improvements - "S" for short-term and "L" for long-term. 81 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 229 SIMPLEME 6.1.b This page is left intentionally blank. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 91 SU Packet Pg. 230 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS S1 Pedestrian Safety Improve sidewalks, sight distance visibility, street and safety lighting on 240th from 84th Ave W to 80th Way W (primarily along commercial frontages) S2 Pedestrian Safety / Implement safety improvements at 224th and 76th Avenue W including constructing new or Ped Circulation improving existing sidewalks on both sides of 224th approaching 76th Ave and SR 99. Not Shown General Safety General need for safety and street lighting on residential streets surrounding SR 99, particularly pedestrian -scaled lighting. Workshop participants identified the need to widen sidewalks on 228th east of SR 99. In the Summer of 2016 a number of pedestrian improvements were completed in this regionally significant multimodal corridor (see notes). Where narrow sidewalks still remain within the corridor or on connecting residential streets, the following pedestrian improvements may be considered in -lieu of widening sidewalks: 1. Buffer pedestrians from moving traffic with street trees in tree wells constructed within Regionally parking lanes. S3 Significant Transit Emphasis Corridor 2. Consistent application of high visibility crosswalk markings at intersections. 3. Ensure street lighting illuminates entire width of street. Currently, street lights are located on one side of the street. Intersections with marked crosswalks should have safety lighting illuminating each end of crosswalks. 4. Install bus shelters at local bus stops with street lighting. Where right of way wont permit a shelter, use curb extensions to add width. Pedestrian and S4 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 216th St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to SR 99 Ped Circulation Pedestrian and S5 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 236th St. SW from HWY. 99 to 76th Ave. W Ped Circulation Pedestrian and S6 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 238th St. SW from HWY. 99 to 76th Ave. W Ped Circulation S7 Complete Streets 238th Street SW, between SR 104 and SR 99. Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike Impvts lanes, and sidewalk. S8 Complete Streets 228th Street SW, between SR 99 and 95th PI. W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike Impvts lanes and sidewalk, as well as intersection improvements at 228th @ 95th. 83 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 231 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER This type of corridorwide frontage improvement typically occurs as a condition Workshop of approval when the fronting property redevelops. 224th Street, as a route, provides access to a few destination such as the interurban trail, but is not a primary route to major generators. However, many residential neighborhoods feed into 224th and it may serve as a lower volume Workshop and lower speed alternative for pedestrians and bicyclists. Near SR 99 224th lacks sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. Many of the workshop participants commented on the lack of street lighting on streets intersecting or paralleling SR 99. Safety lighting (lighting that illuminates intersection corners where pedestrians are expected to cross) and street lighting (overhead lighting that generally illuminates the width of the street) Workshop as well as pedestrian -scaled lighting (lighting on 12-17-foot tall standards that illuminate the pedestrian walkway) are fundamental prerequisites for walkable areas. Streets that cannot be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night, will experience limited travel during the day. 228th Street SW is one of the study area's only Complete Streets. It connects the SR 99 corridor to numerous destinations including Highway 104 into downtown, the interurban trail, parks and recreational facilities, and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center where Sound Transit's extension of the Lynnwood LINK light rail will connect with local, commuter, and regional busses by the year 2023.228th is also a local bus route. Class II bicycle lanes on 228th connect SR 99 to the interurban trail. The City recently extended 228th from 76th Avenue to complete its connection to SR 99. Other recent pedestrian Workshop improvements in the corridor include new ADA compliant ramps at corners, sidewalk repair, driveways moved to side streets, and an improved crosswalk at the Interurban Trail crossing with new curb extensions. The very narrow sidewalks on 228th that once connected to the Trail (two to three feet wide) have been augmented with a multi -use path parallel to the west side of the street extending to the Interstate 5. The pedestrian environment along some segments of 228th need improvement. Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Element Projects Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2022-2035. Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2022-2035. Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 232 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS S9 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes on 212th Street from Main Street to 68th Avenue crossing SR 99. S10 Bicycle Circulation Bike route designation on 224th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to interurban trail. S11 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes on 228th Street SW from SR 104 across SR 99 to existing Class II lanes on 76th Avenue W. S12 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes on 76th Avenue W from 208th to 220th and bike route designation to 224th Street SW. S13 Bicycle Circulation Bike route designation on 238th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to existing Class II bike lanes on 76th Avenue W. S14 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes on 84th Avenue W from 212th Street SW to 236th Street SW and bike route designation on 84th Avenue W south to 238th Street SW. S15 Bicycle Circulation Class II bike lanes on 236th Street SW from SR 104 to 84th Avenue W. S16 Bicycle Circulation Bike route designation on 80th Avenue W from 206th Street SW to 228th Street SW S17 Bicycle Circulation Bike route designation on 72nd Avenue W from 208th Street SW to 216th Street SW and continuing on 216th Street SW to SR 99. S18 Bicycle Circulation Bike route designation on 73rd PI W from 224th Street SW to 226th PI SW. 85 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 233 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element 72nd Avenue from 208th to 212th is a heavily utilized transit route. Because of the frequency of buses on this street, Community Transit Bic City Bic of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan &Comprehensive recommends providing bicycle lanes instead of a route designation, Plans Transportation Element or, if bicycle lanes cannot be provided, to relocate the route designation to an alternative parallel street. City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 234 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Install pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) with high -visibility S19 Pedestrian Safety crosswalk markings at the pedestrian crossings of the SR 104 on and off -ramps and provide safety lighting to illuminate the crosswalks. Pedestrian and Not Shown General Multimodal Implement corridorwide wayfinding signage to local districts and major multimodal facilities Circulation 87 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 235 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER This is an interim improvement prior to the proposed reconfiguration DKS Associates of the ramp termini to eliminate high-speed movements. A corridorwide wayfinding system should be established providing signing at key intersections conecting to major destinations such as downtown, train station, SWIFT stops, nearest bicycle facilities, Workshop and DKS Associates interurban trail access, parks and open space, local districts along the corridor, and freeway access. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 236 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Improve connection between the Swedish Hospital Campus and the Swift Stations at Access to/from Transit and 216th Street SW by implementing a pedestrian walkway system (potentially covered) S20 Major Employment Center internal to the campus with wayfinding to direct pedestrians to the various campus facilities including future land uses that support hospital expansion such as hotels and medical office buildings within the Health Care District. Provide pedestrian and bicycle links that connect the Interurban Trail to the SWIFT Station S21 Access to/from Transit and and Community Transit bus stops serving the Health Care District. When the property on Interurban Trail the east side of SR 99 between 216th Street SW and 220th Street SW redevelops, require the development to dedicate an easement connecting the trail to SR 99. S22 Pedestrian Safety / Access "New pedestrian crossing at 234th Street which is the approximate mid -point of the large to Transit gap in crossings. This crossing may be achieved as shown in the notes column" "Traffic Safety Install raised median (with potential gateway features) between 240th and 238th. S24 Access Management / Channelize westbound traffic on 240th for right turns only. Allow u-turns at 238th. See not Safe Pedestrian Crossing" [1] below. S25 "Traffic Safety Access Management / 236th Street to 234th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict le Safe Pedestrian Crossing" turns from stop controlled 236th Street. S26 "Traffic Safety Access Management / 234th Street to 230th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict le Safe Pedestrian Crossing" turns from stop controlled 234th Street. S27 "Traffic Safety Access Management / 230th Street to 228th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict lei Safe Pedestrian Crossing" turns from stop controlled 234th Street. 89 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 237 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT The SWIFT stations at 216th Street SW serve corridor's largest employment center -- the Swedish Hospital campus and its associated medical offices. The SWIFT bus rapid transit system and these stations are an ideal opportunity for employees and patients/ visitors to access the campus by transit. However, the connection between the stations Community Transit and DKS and the various facilities in the campus are by 216th Street SW and SR 99 driveways Associates requiring pedestrians to walk up steep grades and through parking lots to access building entrances. The lack of connections, direction and amenities discourages people from taking transit to the site. The Interurban Trail generally parallels SR 99 and its alignment is closest to SR 99 between 216th Street SW and 220th Street SW --with only one parcel of land separation- -an opportunity to provide a more direct link to the SWIFT stations (via crosswalks) and Community Transit and DKS Community Transit bus stops located on the near and far sides of 216th Street SW. Associates When the under-utilized land separating the trail from SR 99 redevelops, a condition of approval should require the property owner to dedicate an easement for this connection. A. With significant high density development at 234th node, potentially intersection would warrant a traffic signal (see long-term improvements) B. Install a HAWK pedestrian activated signal C. Install a temporary two -stage unsignalized crossing in the interim timeframe befotre a signal is warranted. DKS Associates The crossing at this location should be a priority given it improves access to the community health facility from transit and closes a 3,500 foot gap in protected crossings within this segment of Highway 99 Improvements at 240th are geared towards obtaining a pedestrian crossing of SR 99 to close one of the crossing gaps in the corridor and to improve vehicular safety and access to the Burlington Coat Factory site. 240th Avenue at SR 99 is one of the highest SR 99 Access Management and vehicular collision locations in the corridor and it is not prudent to add an unsignalized Cross Section Focused Assessment crossing at thgis location. Current crossing demand is too low to warrant a short-term pedestrian crossing improvement. See long-term improvements. For long segments with numerous driveways, use intermittently placed medians to allow left turn in/out functions at key driveways. Access managed segments must permit SR 99 Access Management and u-turns at adjacent signalized intersections. Use median to restrict left turns from stop- Cross Section Focused Assessment controlled side streets with high collision histories unless the restriction conflicts with a short-term improvement or other proposed change in traffic control. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 238 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT, CONT-D. "Traffic Safety Access S28 Management / 224th Street to 220th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Safe Pedestrian Crossing" S29 Safe Pedestrian Crossing / Development Access Install traffic signal at SR 99 / 234th including pedestrian crosswalks on all approaches IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT Not Shown Transit Mobility Access to Transit S30 / Transit Stop Environment Implement a Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system along SR 99 for the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit system. Improve local bus stops between 234th and 230th that serve Community Health Center and new development within the International and Gateway Districts. Access to Transit S31 / Transit Stop Provide enhanced local transit stops near Swedish Hospital. Environment S32 Transit Service / Priority Transit Corridor: SR 99 from 208th to SR 104 (See Figure 10 on page 23 for Priority Ped Amenities Transit Corridors designations in the subarea) Priority Transit Corridor: 228th Street SW from SR 104 to 76th Avenue W continuing to the S33 Transit Service / Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. A new SWIFT station is proposed at SR 99 and 228th Ped Amenities Street SW. (See Figure 10 on page 23 for Priority Transit Corridors designations in the subarea) 91 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 239 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT, CONT'D. For long segments with numerous driveways, use intermittently placed medians to allow left turn in/out functions at key driveways. Access managed segments must permit SR 99 Access Management and u-turns at adjacent signalized intersections. Use median to restrict left turns from stop- Cross Section Focused Assessment controlled side streets with high collision histories unless the restriction conflicts with a short-term improvement or other proposed change in traffic control. This improvement may only be feasible with significantly high density development at 234th Street node and with access from 234th Street to meet signal warrants. New Workshop and DKS Associates development fronting SR 99 adjacent to the intersection should be required to dedicate land to provide width for wider sidewalks. IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT Transit Signal Priority (TSP) systems allow BRT vehicles to trigger a change in traffic signal phasing in favor of the buses approaching a signalized intersection. TSP can either expedite a green light for buses passing through an intersection, or expedite buses stopping at far -side bus stops and using the traffic signal's following cycle to load / unload passengers thus avoiding the delay waiting to cross to the far -side stop. DKS Associates Provide shelters, benches, lighting, and buffer the stop from moving traffic. DKS Associates The Swift Rapid stations are excellent examples of Bus Rapid Transit stations with ample rider amenities. The nearby local bus stops are established some distance away and most have only signs, some have a bench and waste receptacle. Enhancements should be considered at local stops near major employment centers, major retail Workshop concentrations, or institutions where employees may commute by transit. Local bus stops enhanced with wider waiting areas with shelters, benches, shade, lighting, bike racks, etc. may help encourage transit ridership, particularly in combination with employer trip reduction programs. These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop Comprehensive Plan 2015 amenities to make transit attractive. Transportation Element These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. Although the LINK light rail extension to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center is still six years out (2023) implementing incremental Comprehensive Plan 2015 Priority Transit Corridor improvements on 228th is recommended in the short term to Transportation Element improve current bus service in the corridor as well as prepare the corridor for LRT service in 2023. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 240 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation Safety improvements at the intersection of SR 99 / 224th Street SW and between 224th and 76th Avenues (particularly LT into Ranch 99 Market). Intersection SR 99 and 212th Street SW -widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot S35 Capacity & Safety / storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide Ped Safety protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Intersection SR 99 and 220th Street SW Widen 220th to add a 325-foot westbound right turn lane and a S36 Capacity & Safety / 300-foot eastbound right turn lane. Widen 220th to add a second westbound left turn lane. Ped Safety (This would add about 24 additional feet of croswalk distance). Intersection SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane, one through lane and one right S37 Capacity & Safety / turn lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn Ped Safety lanes. Add eastbound right turn overlap with northbound protected left turn. S38 Intersection Capacity Signal Coordination on 220th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to SR 99. Access "Consideration of operational strategies to help SR 99 traffic flow optimization, including: Not Shown Management - U-turns (recommended at intersections in the access management memorandum). & Traffic Flow - Jug handle movement accommodations at intersections. Improvements - Use of adaptive traffic signals" NOTES: 1. From the southern border at the county line (MP 43.50) until approximately 114 mile to the north, just past the interchange area but before 240th Street SW (MP 43.72), SR 99 is designated as Limited Access Partially Controlled. This is defined as 'At -grade intersections are allowed for selected public roads and approaches for existing private driveways, no commercial approaches allowed, and no direct access if alternate public road access is available". 2. From the point just north of the SR 104 interchange (MP 43.72) northward through both Edmonds and Lynnwood (MP 43.72 - 48.92), the designation of SR 99 is Managed Access Class 4. 93 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 241 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT Revision of the side street channelization at 224th to avoid the need for a split phase. WSDOT suggests changing the shared thru/left and right -only lanes to a left -only and Workshop and WSDOT shared thru/right configuration. This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021. This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021. This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021. Should be implemented in coordination with a Transit Signal Priority system (see S37). U-turns will be extremely important with implementation of median access management. Thus, use of various and innovative measures to accommodate changes in traffic patterns is encouraged and might come as a result of site redevelopment. Note that 48-50 feet is the minimum U-turn diameter accepted in the past by the State, with justification. Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element 3. State of Washington Legal Requirements of M4 Highways. Class 4 Managed Access highways are designed to have a posted speed limit of 30 to 35 mph in urbanized areas and 35 to 45 mph in rural areas. In urban areas and developing areas where higher volumes are present or growth that will require a change in intersection control is expected in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that the location of any public access point be planned carefully to ensure adequate traffic progression. Where feasible, major intersecting roadways that might ultimately require intersection control changes are planned with a minimum of vZ-mile spacing. Private access connections to the highway are spaced 250 feet apart, only a single access for individual or contiguous parcels under the same owner, and variance permits may be allowed. 4. Within Incorporated Cities. Under PC 35.78.030 and RCW 47.50, incorporated cities and towns have jurisdiction over access permitting on streets designated as state highways. Accesses located within incorporated cities and towns are regulated by the city or town and no deviation by WSDOT will be required. Document decisions made on these accesses in the DDP. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 242 6.1.b IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Pedestrian Widen sidewalks on SR 99 from 212th street to 240th Street to include a minimum 4-foot L1 Circulation wide planting strip to buffer pedestrians from moving traffic. Use space for placement of appropriate street trees. L2 Vehicular / Install street lighting on SR 99 corridor to close gaps and to achieve uniform spacing and Pedestrian Safety illumination. Install safety lighting at intersections as part of this improvement. Pedestrian Install new signal at 240th (with crosswalks on all four legs) concurrent with new L3 Circulation development at 240th node. Consolidate and relocate driveways to 240th (helps meet signal warrants) Vehicular / Reconfigure off -ramps as conventional 90-degree stop control intersections. The L4 Pedestrian Safety Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) recommended as an interim short-term improvements (S19) may continue to be used with the reconfigured ramps. 95 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Packet Pg. 243 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT OTHER This improvement requires approximately 6-feet of right of way. The City should require dedication of right of way (or a permanent public access easement) from private "Highway 99 Traffic Safety and property when redeveloped. Dedication or easement may also be used when properties Circulation Study (2007) adjacent to local bus stops redevelop in order to obtain width for ADA compliance and DKS Associates" bus shelters. This improvement may also be implemented in conjuction with district identity, "Highway 99 Traffic Safety and streetscape, or themed urban design projects. Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates" This improvement requires approximately 6-feet of right of way. The City should require dedication of right of way (or a permanent public access easement) from private "Highway 99 Traffic Safety and property when redeveloped. Dedication or easement may also be used when properties Circulation Study (2007) adjacent to local bus stops redevelop in order to obtain width for ADA compliance and DKS Associates" bus shelters. This improvement may also be implemented in conjuction with district identity, "Highway 99 Traffic Safety and streetscape, or themed urban design projects. Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates" EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 244 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1.b PROPOSED LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The following Priority Transit Corridor improvement designations are included in Edmond's Comprehensive Plan. Improvements specific to Priority Transit Corridors are not specifically defined but generally include frequent and reliable service, and bus stop amenities which can include wider waiting areas, shelters, seating, shade, good illunination, accessibility for the disabled, and buffers from moving traffic. Transit Service / Priority Transit Corridor: 220th Street SW from 76th Avenue W to proposed light rail L5 Ped Amenities transit station at 1-5 interchange. (See Figure 10 on page 23 for Priority Transit Corridors designations in the subarea) L6 Transit Service / Ped Amenities L7 Transit Service / Ped Amenities L8 Transit Service / Ped Amenities L9 L10 L11 Priority Transit Corridor: 238th Street SW from SR 104 to SR 99. (See Figure 10 on page 23 for Priority Transit Corridors designations in the subarea) Improve local bus stop northbound at 240th (provide seating, shelter, refuge can, lighting, etc.) concurrent with new development at 240th Street node. Improve local bus stop southbound at 240th (provide seating, shelter, refuge can, lighting, etc.) concurrent with new development at 240th Street node. Transit Service Extend BAT lanes on SR 99 onto overcrossing of SR 104 and continuing to 244th Street. Efficiency IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT Access 238th Street to 236th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Management Access 228th Street to 224th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Management L12 Access Management L13 Access Management 220th Street to 216th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. 216th Street to 212th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. 97 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN I Packet Pg. 245 SIMPLEME 6.1.b PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNED IMPROVEMENT IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT OTHER These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop Comprehensive Plan 2015 amenities to make transit attractive. Transportation Element These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. This improvement most likely needed when higher intensity redevelopment occurs within the 240th node. This improvement would best benefit from the installation of a traffic signal at SR 99 / 240th Street. Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Workshop Workshop and DKS Associates Extension of the BAT lanes through the bottleneck created by the four -lane overcrossing provides additional efficiency for SWIFT service which has experienced a drop in reliability Community Transit due to congestion within the corridor. IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT For long segments with numerous driveways, use intermittently placed medians to allow SR 99 Access Management and left turn in/out functions at key driveways. Access managed segments must permit Cross Section Focused Assessment u-turns at adjacent signalized intersections. Use median to restrict left turns from stop- (2015) and controlled side streets with high collision histories unless the restriction conflicts with a Workshop short-term improvement or other proposed change in traffic control. EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 246 Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan December 2016 Packet Pg. 247 f x1f0i EDMONDS� HIGHWAY990 Highway 99 Subarea Planning Project Edmonds, WA February 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 248 .�L k_n � .� III '+ J ,.�� I '' qr� r. �- k'T•! _}� * � { _ F e Y`. „✓ 'tea � r'{R l :r: � •+i'{. �� . www 'Y r MIDONU1 KET ACE •x �} .#,,fir I� 3J�• �: - .�#fi,.I-` -4 Jx. kY } A, ` . EDMdNv SMORLz1.;IM� � . 6.1.c The Planning Process HIGHWAY 7 9 Understanding Develop Lard SEPA & D-evelop Sub- Final ub- Existing Use and Planncd Action area Draft aria Plan Conditions Transportations Environmental Plan ProcessScenarios Impact Assossr ent ' E ARE � Ti-upli-FPHERE EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 250 March 2016 Public Workshop • Identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and infrastructure upgrades • What did the public want? n EDMOND�� HIGHWAY 416 j[,fyr CU 0 �L CU 0 F. i U CL LO 00 r Lf) N O r c 0 t w _ Q Packet Pg. 251 6.1.c May 2016 Open House • Revealed near and long-term development and transportation opportunities and its impacts November 2016 Open House • Revealed implementation strategies and policy recommendations is Public had opportunity to review the recommendations at the Open House and online and provide feedback ZONING & DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS &ft comprehensive map modifications to identified districts Current Map Recommendation 7: 0 Consolidate CG and CG2 zones into a single CG zone Current P"""Od Zoning Map 7—ing Map "IMLL EDMONDSO HIGHWAY 79 3: a 0 to 00 LC) Cu rrent Design Standard for Setback and lluffeT Family Z,—, onHWY 99 C—nd- 4 '---t Recommended Design Standards .ose the 1—tv" side Famiiyzenes Parking reductions to 0 transit supportive parking standards (D Current Standard Current Standard E for Residential f., C....1 p, 101 1—de.1.1 for C—e—1 P, Packet Pg. 253 6.1.c Community Values Connectivity Destinations Beautification ea o, �0V Safety 0 EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Walkability o) 1 Affordable Housing Healthy Businesses Packet Pg. 254 ;Q-)T1 3r u 6.1.c W Distinct Su bdistricts k-. -.,LTH UV= od IF r High Schad CU .5T- �T 5W �A i7ei '11111 -L SIN A IIE-M Kr Sv 2-C.- • Major local and Swelllisl;-' M I Hospital regional destinations 14ealth 0 C on Hwy 99 Wi nCo District S Foods CU • H"r Z-4 -S International District :I`117 Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; CL W rn TreeLO major Korean L PluPlaza business cluster *AI LV iwr 00 LO ul u:blkc • Health District T Hark towage LO 8 0 Man N Swedish Hospital and C� medical offices International U- • Gateway District District — Identified by the T. ST community during workshop U r kL EJ 0 Desire for "gateway" L, U and distinct transition point in and out of A=UfOFi19 Edmonds aAetplace _7 E Gateway.� S District Mall EDMONDSO HIGHWAY 79 Packet Pg. 255 Long Segments Without Crossings • Central area requires 10 minute walk to find safe crossing • Green-1 minute • Yellow —10minut • Red — 20 minutes EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY EC�k'Ch:3 w4J�/�V kkil SWMIEH +J `vLkOMv* CAWJS ff f . 6.1.c 212th 0 O� _ C O 220th U) 00 r LO N O a ►i Housing Development • Widespread desire for housing • Particularly in south EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY I 212th CU 220thCU —� LO 00 �� r 228th o 3 U lAhL a E rt�+ ,� J. �JeLarrne. IN: F,' Nf P. Nf- Q cis Mixed Use Development • Widespread desire for mixed use • Particularly in south and central EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY I 212th Cu o R t I 220th Cu 2 i N LO LO 00 v � 228th o 46 0 Mi Cn 3 c t E — y j ) .2 Mfthoe Loi in e. IN'RPr-,'-NI P. Nc Q !C;S ajor7 Packet Pg. 258 Pedestrian Crossing • More mid -block crossings throughout EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY New Crossing at 228t" — I 212th CU I � En CU I = I 220th LO 00 r 10 228th N 0 .r I I r � R Health . Center o Cn I I � I = c r � Ufthoe Loi in e. IN'RPr-,'-NI P. Nc Q !C;S Packet Pg. 259 6.1.c Key Assets in the Corridor Area • Opportunity to build on the momentum of ongoing improvements in Shoreline along Hwy 99 • High -quality transit facilities already in place providing links to housing, jobs and amenities in the region EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY It it 1 im r ■" ,.a _, ..., 1 i. 111go dIM ■ w t= Packet Pg. 260 6.1.c Key Assets in the Corridor Area • Distinct districts already emerging — International and Health Districts —that 1 provide core services and - amenities u:y • Already a mixed -use district with retail uses adjacent to single- and multi -family ' g Y housing • Business, developer community and residents are ready to see positive changes to create a safe, walkable, healthy place EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 2LOth 224th — II 230th St SW 00 3 o U 2, Mh St r C'y i i 99 HWY 99 COMPkEHEN54YE PI ' �� HgmnaY 99 Corrider 2 Sth S!`-., �\ti,I _ \ Mae, Use Cammerclel +..i \;� Haspite4 r Medial u: Single Fa ly-t ,_` � ■ M�It Femly Metldm H, U I �� NeigM1lwdgotl C—Merc �140tf' w . H'rR se Oreriny t a Ac[Iv�ty Center z4-=�1 er�� r , ___ Packet Pg. 261 6.1.c IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS + ACTIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS TRANSIT RECOMMENDATIONS b, od EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY �1 SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING RECOMMENDATIONS co T Lo r N O LaL C �L d 2 .v c 0 t� 0) a) x a m E 0 2 a Packet Pg. 262 6.1.c EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY a, a •L ca a� x u a. a � a Packet Pg. ! 3 6.1.c Strengthen Economic Opportunity • Support unique business clusters such as International District and Health District • Major auto sales facilities remains important to the local economy. Pedestrian Activity Zone standard will allow auto sales to continue business as usual. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY CU 0 CU CL LO 00 LO N O 6.1.c Strengthen Economic Opportunity Strengthen and continue support for business orgs. in county and state Pursue broadband internet throughout corridor to attract high-tech business investment Consider unique designs for streetscape improvements such as signage and lighting EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Phone Vi Phon FREE WiFi' Digital '' ;a CU O CU O d LO 00 LO N 0 a 6.1.c Encourage Sustainable Building Practices • Transit and pedestrian -friendly development with less reliance on automobile trips, should be promoted through new design standards • Consider requiring electric vehicle charging facilities especially within new residential developments and bicycle facilities • Encourage use of solar panels and green building practices EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 266 220th St swif M :�a I 212thStsv Cu Health Proposed = � � ��#� � e � 1 # District x Update to -*� � t=� .c r Cu Comp Plans _, '.-j_ a Designations 224thSkSw . LO .. _. International O District LO N 228t h S# SW E 4d C 234th C,L S 232n<1 St SW tiy$ +`*xr �� 4 O 234th stiSwi. JL g{j _ ��,_ p � I I r 7 ; 5,,. -•Y�? ' 236th St 59N 1 } t' i , I # `� 3 •--'+,J, .,; ' Chi _ 4I 230th St Sri' -Gateway A: j{ 1 District L a 2400h St SW l •L •,i $ t � fj { +-• � Major v { • ,', �F TransRorkatwn,,� w -+ „ 242 nd St 5+,+1 f r'; !� GatewayEOMONDSO icy_ Q � •�� rho ± r { 244thSt SW i� ' ` Packet Pg. 267 Current Zoning Map 9 The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75') 9 Many current zones are remnants from the counties antiquated zoning • Many zones do not match with the parcel boundaries EDMONDSO HIGHWAY 79 213-h at 17 I-F"TlTrTr-r, -71 71' �T EL LT it (224LH M L Lv 1 4 h E B - -� m F 9S,20C' SL d. r. r 2--C'An S- �',A- r 6t Swr-' �m Sw '164t I HwffOO 20NING.- MSTING 0 C.-, SN hGlpbwhaadeusni%; -n r PC Cx munky Pknixes r-HT .3-nt!,.15k)U- .1 ti L) to P pjtri:u%.- y 'k. ' Packet Pg. 268 Proposed Zoning Map • The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone • Incorporate design standards directly into zones to ensure scale transition into neighborhoods • More predictable outcomes for community EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Ti T L 6.1.c ,i CU - C L CU ` RM,24-4LII=a�r.lv,2 WOsq.t I � U FUA-1.5-NJIi=a�rlK.1,SCOsgi� � MU-rxdk-A Uu + N - Patdiw Usn k;;:;;_ Packet Pg. 269 ill�� f}� +I ;k4 r• I 6.1.c Draft Zoning and Development Recommendations • Strengthen current design standards • Incorporate them directly into the zoning code • Consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the standards are feasible, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if redeveloped and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges may require a modified approach to the design standards. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 271 6.1.c Changes to Access and Parking • Issue Today: current standards allow too much parking in the front of buildings, which negatively effects the pedestrian environment and hinders redevelopment potential EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 272 Existing District -based Design Standards HWY 99 Corridor CG/CG2 — Criteria • Current Standards: • Access and Parking — Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 273 Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas Parking Predominately on Side or Rear — Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage. — Better design than current standard: no more than 50% of total project parking spaces may be located between building's front fagade and the primary street EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 6.1.c More parkin; in rear Cu 0 �L Cu CL 00 r LO N O �L O V CD CD d E a Packet Pg. 274 Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas • Buildings on the Street Frontage — Primary Frontage — min. 50% of primary street frontage should have buildings within 10feet of front property line (at the edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone) — All Other Frontages — 50% of side and rear street frontages to have buildings, walls, or hedges at least 4 feet in height, within 10 ft of property line EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 11 6.1.c Packet Pg. 275 Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas • Ground Floor Transparency 6.1.c 0 L Cu — 50% of Primary Frontage building fagade within 10 feet of frontage lot line be made of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30% transparency. Trajjspat gr Iond—lel windows and doors -----ia.---- LO CO r O LO N N � - O a �L C �. 0 U rn 3 2 r c 0 E l� --- ------- a Packet Pg. 276 Existing District -based Design Standards HWY 99 Corridor CG/CG2 — Criteria • Current Standards: • Screening and Buffering — Parking lots — Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages. THE ISSUE TODAY: This standard cremes landscaped barriers between pedestrians and buildings rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 6.1.c CU 0 �L R a) LO 00 LO N O a� �L R 0 U E M r a Packet Pg. 277 6.1.c Changes to Screening and Buffering "Pedestrian Activity Zone" • Replace with required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone — Allows for a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art, street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, pavement patterns, lighting, etc. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY _�4 10 N 0 / LL a M M 1L U Q Packet Pg. 278 6.1.c Proposed Expanded Sidewalk Width EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 279 6.1.c Amenity Space • Outdoor amenity space, such as landscaping, benches, etc. should be required in conjunction with development • A portion of the required amenity space should be provided as common space and may include pedestrian areas iL#-%qV EDMOHDS HIGHWAY I Y Packet Pg. 280 6.1.c New Stepback Design Standards • No current stepback regulations exist • Purpose: Ensure a transition in height and bulk between multifamily/mixed-use buildings in commercial zones and adjacent single family zones, while enabling more housing options to be built adjacent to Hwy 99 EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Example of Stepback Regulation CU 0 �L R a) �CL L, 00 Ul) _ N CD�a CU 3 0 U s 0 E t+ Q Packet Pg. 281 6.1.c Recommended Front Setback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family Zones GROUND FLOOR SETBACK • For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a Pedestrian Activity Zone. • For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to 5 foot and encourage enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, useable landscaping, etc.). • Keep current 15 feet setback and 10' landscaping requirements for lot line adjacency with single family zones. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 282 Recommended Front Stepback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family Zones 3 UPPER FLOOR SETBACK • Zero setback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99). • 10 foot setback beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single family zones • 20 foot setback beyond 55 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single family zones • 8 foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height on sides across a street from single family zones • Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies. Packet Pg. 283 6.1.c Recommended Transit -Supportive Parking Standards • Reduce minimums; follow market demand for parking — Residential • Current: Studio: 1.2 / 1-Bedroom: 1.5 / 2-Bedroom: 1.8 / 3-Bedroom: 2 • Recommended: One space per unit that is less than 700 sq.ft. — Commercial • Current: 2.5 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 400 sq ft) • Recommended: 2 per 1,000 square feet — Exempt first 3,000 scl ft of commercial uses within mixed -use buildings that have a shared parking plan (parking study and management plan) • Reduces cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs • Staff decision on compliance A f4qft EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 284 6.1.c EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY LO co r w r LO r N O Q LL a Packet Pg. 185 6.1.c Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations • Define Hwy 99area asa "target area" to allow MultiFamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) projects — Pass ordinance to enable MFTE project in Hwy 99 area — All residential -portion of building value tax exempt for 12 years with at least 20% affordable units • Continue to enhance fee waiver program for affordable housing — Enhance its City program to allow the reduction of transportation and park impact fees for projects that include affordable housing d,� #*qft EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY CU 0 �L CU 0 LO 00 r LO N O LL 0 U rn 3 _ r c m E t t+ Q Packet Pg. 286 6.1.c Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations • Mixed -Use, Mixed -Income Demonstration Project —Identify site with willing owner or City purchase/transferrable option —Actively recruit developers (non-profit; public -private) —Pilot project for new MFTE and fee waiver programs, and other possible special assessment districts EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 287 Other Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Finance RecommendationsCU • Key Financing Tools and Funding Sources to Pursue 0 — City Fund for Redevelopment and Affordable HousingCU — Community Renewal Area (CRA) — used in Shoreline — Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Financing ProgramLO LO — Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing N — Landscape Conservation and Local Improvement Program (LCLIP) — Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) L — HUD HOME Program — HUD CDBG Program — Enterprise Community Partiers Regional Equitable Development Initiative E { EDMONDSO Packet Pg. 288 HIGHWAY 6.1.c EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY No a� c �L Cu 0 C.) 3 CL Packet Pg. 289 6.1.c Draft Signage and Wayfinding Recommendations • Gateway Signage at Hwy 99/Hwy 104 interchange • Transit Gateway Signage/Station at Hwy 99/228th • Improve wayfinding signage along corridor — Identify downtown, Lake Ballinger, multiuse path (Interurban Trail), new regional rail, International District, Health District, other activity nodes • Unique District Design Identity — Branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter designs, pavement patterns, special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc. • Prohibit new pole signs EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 290 6.1.c ii EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY LO co w LO r N O Q LL a Packet Pg. i91 6.1.c Draft Transportation Recommendations im 3 27, O Improve Transit Transfers: — Unify/consolidate BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distance for transfers t k Hwy 99 and 228th will be Key Intersection — 228th will connect Edmonds to regional rail in Mountlake Terrace. — Shuttle/transit service from Hwy 99 to regional rail station — Consolidated transit stop at 228th — New BRT station — Clear signage — High quality bike connection on 228th EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY �L CU A LO LO Cm CO ra V 04 yo N o O Transit Stops Q LL • BRT Stops Sound Transit Express i �L Local � In -County Commuter •� Intar-County Commuter 3 University Cistrict Cl-u V Bus Rapid Transit E a Packet Pg. 292 6.1.c Draft Transportation Recommendations T • Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options: 0 — Car Share/Bike Share — On -site bike parking — Ride sharing services (Uber, Lyft) — Electric car charging stations EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Incentives: Impact fee reductions and parking requirement offsets for providir a dedicated accommodating alternativeLO w transportation options on -site = J LO N f � O 0 U rn 3 2 m E U �a Q Packet Pg. 293 6.1.c EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY No a� c �L Cu 0 C.) 3 CL 114, Packet Pg. 294 6.1.c Draft Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations • Expand use of grant programs to fund safety improvements and pedestrian facilities — Safe Route to School Program — Pedestrian and Bicycle Program — Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) — Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program (CMAQ) EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 295 6.1.c PROPOSED SHORT & LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS • Transportation Goals: — Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from Hwy 99 corridor — Improve pedestrian environment along Hwy 99 corridor — Safe pedestrian crossing of Hwy 99 and access to transit — Improved transit mobility and transit stop environment — Improved traffic flow and general safety with access management EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 296 6.1.c Key Recommended Transportation Improvements • Close the most significant gap in the pedestrian crossings within the corridor • 238th to 2281h — a distance of 31700 ft. has no controlled pedestrian crossing EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 6.1.c Key Recommended Transportation Improvements • Improve pedestrian access from the south at the SR 104 interchange • Long-term recommendation: Reconfigure ramps to conventional 90-degree stop control intersections • Short-term recommendation: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB"s) with high visibility crosswalk EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY CU 0 CU CL LO 00 LO N O 0 U a Packet Pg. ! 8 6.1.c Key Recommended Transportation Improvements • Encourage walking and biking to access plan Highway 99 from surrounding neighborhoods • "Complete Streets" — sidewalks, safety lighting, street lighting, pedestrian -scaled lighting, drainage improvements, etc. • Streets that can be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night will experience travel during the day 17. EDMOND HIGHWAY 6.1.c Key Recommended Transportation Improvements • Improve connections between transit and major employment ce me rs — Swift Stations at 216tn and the Swedish Hospital Campus: Implement a pedestrian walkway system within campus with wayfinding EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY !*I Packet Pg. 300 6.1.c Draft Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY SXx IMPROVEMENT INDEX NUMBER (REFER TO TABLE OF IMPROVEMENTS) EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND PIED KING PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ❑ INTERSECTION SAFETY&CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION I I N I N NEW CLASS II BICYCLE CLE LANES STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIANS ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED � MEDIANS) crax STOP PEDESTRIAN HYBRID SIGNAL (HAWK) Oh�Ek Packet Pg. 301 Planned Transportation Improvements Sxx IMPROVEMENT INDEX NUMBER (REFER TOTABLE OF IMPROVEMENTS, 1 ExrSTING SIGNALIZED +� INTERSECTION AND PED XIPTG PROPOSED NEVVTRArrIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CRO551NG ❑ INTERSECTIONSAFETY &CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS N 0 I M 8 NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION ■ ■■ ■ NEW GLASS II BICYCLE LAN rr. STREET IMP4ROVEMENTS ::OR PEDESTRIANS ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED MEDIANS) PEDESTRIAN HYBRID SIGNAL (HAV) K; If 4q,ft EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY LEGEND EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTEASECTICN.4NDPEDY.ING ■ m ES16 q ■ PROPOSED NE;k TkFFFIC 516NFL ■ ^ ® AN D PEDESTRIAN CROSSING S9 2121h5t1eet ... �f...[........K INTERSECTION SHFETYfr CAVACITY I�PRCrEdEN75 - ■ ■[[[[ NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION ■ ■ ■■■■■ FI CLASS II 2ICYCLL LANES 4� STREET WPAOliEUENTS FOR m■ 0 PEDESTRIANS �L_fL ',CCESS MANHGENENTi RAISED - MEDIANS; i e516 li ® sm�IFrRr'.PlDsrgTloN ■ I ■ I ■ ■ r I - i S12 ■ zzahstreet■ ■S14: ■ ■ JI'l ■ SIGNAL : COORDINATION ■ • ■ 5361 ■ I r■ m■ ■ I S10 224th Street■nnalle I on was off■ ■ r ■ - �Si6 511 229thSt—t• COMPLETE STREET ■ IMPROVEMENTS(S8) 230th Street ■ WMMUNIIYHEALIH / CENTER ■ Lrr. ,,. a 234th St..; N -r C S 14: 236M Street■ S15 238th Street 240th Street IMPROVE SOUTHBOUND ? LOCAL RUS STOP CONCURRENTWTTH ` NEWDEVELOPMENT 244th Street nommommemem ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S24) •IMPROVE NORTHBOUND LOCAL B US STOP CONCURRENT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT(L7) ;S12 a S17 a 6.1.c T.i7 L , �r< � r• K' . ,. �ACEE55 MANAGI 3 .13) 5 . CAPA SFETY INTERSECTION MPROVEMENTS(S:S{S; � ■ ■ - Fr.. j O ■ sl SIDFWALKCONSTRU 0) )4) ,^•G��T� ACCESSMANAGEMEL I N ■v:�..----� INTERSECTION CAPA ® = 1FETY ,p IMPROVEMENTS(S: C) 3 d ACCES5MANAGEMENT(S28) "S10 00 ■ A SSMANAGEMENT(L11) CV -d[[A1■ 110#* r *■■ f■ r ,. i REGIONALLY � S-�ACCESS MANAGEMENT a SIGINIFICANTTR .L EMPHASIS CORR ( ;) v■ (S3) N u ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S26) EWTRAFFIC SIGNAL PEDESTRIAN 7 R055WALKSON ALL APPROACHES(S29) ■ O ACCESSMANAGEMENT(S25) i �.. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGN1.1 DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADAAND ■Iq[[[I land LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (S% 3 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGHT E� DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING = .. IMPROVEMENTS(56) d E L C) a Packet Pg. 102 Project Supportive Transportation Improvements Sxx IMPROVEMENT INDEX NUMBER (REFER TOTABLE OF Ir4MPROVEMENTSI 1 ExrSTING SIGNALIZED +� INTERSECTION AND PED XIrrG PROPOSED NEVVTRArrIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CRO551NG ❑ INTERSECTIONSAFETY &CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS N ■ B M 8 NEW BIKE RQUTE DESIGNATION ■ ■■ ■ NEW GLASS II BICYCLE LAN rr. STREET IMP4ROVEMENTS ::OR PEDESTRIANS ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED w MEDIANS) wl �; PEDESTRIAN HYBRID SIGNAL (HAV) K; EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY LEGEND EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND PEDXING NFVITRAFFIC SfGNAL ®PROPOSED AND PED RING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVFMFNTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FI ASHINC 3FA(0N ® SWIFT RAPID STATION 0 IMPROVED INTERNAL CONNECTIONS AND WAYFINDING BETWEEN SWIFT STATIONS AND HOSPITAL CAMPUS (S20) PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA,ANDLIGHTING)(S2, S39) CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT (WIDEN SIDEWALK, PLANTING STRIP BUFFER) (L1) CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY AND LIGHTING) (L2) COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER IMPROVED LOCAL BUS STOPS SERVING COMMUNITY HEALTHCENTER(S30) J 6.1.c I - 3 ENHANCEDL01 x TRANSIT STOP: O O ueV E'E 4 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPF x IT NEW CONN ECTION BETWEEN SIR (,T AND INTERURBAN TRAIL (S2 1) '- n � 3 d 00 ILI O .m s` #S�rA x •, � V "r`T s" NEW TRAFFIC 5IGNAL ANO i� C — PEDESTRIANCROSSWALKSON ALLAPPROACHES(S22) • O O :a U rn '•il■■■■I . I■■■ NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONCURRENT HIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKS+ ® WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT(L3) C PEDESTRIAN -ACTIVATED 0) RECTANGULAR RAPIDFLASHING _ PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS E REACONSON SR104ON AND All-- (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE OFF-RAMPS(S19) VISIBILITY, ADAAND LIGHTING) (S1) V Ca RECONFIGURE OFF-RAMPSTO L 90-DEGREE STOPCONTROL Q _ INTERSECTIONS(L4) Packet Pg. 303 ■ NS12 a -nS17 > LEGEND ■ INTERSECTION CAPAC'T" EXISTING SIGNALIZED &SAFETY IMPROVEMI INTERSECTION AND PIED XING 516 s ■ S35) PROPOSED NEWTRAFFIC SIGNAL ■ °�.° n ■ 3 AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING S8 ■ _ m 212th Street ■■■!�■■■■■■■■■■!■ a o• INTERSECTION SAFETY& CAPACITY C � IMPROVEMENTS ■ � � ■-■JM NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION ■ �= SEMEN NEW CLASS II BfCYCLE LANES ACCESS MANAGEMENT [ .2 I} ■ S STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR 0 ■ . � '� . � a 0 PEDESTRIANSLO ■ r ■ ■ : .. LO ■ ■ '�'� 00 ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED MEDIANS) ■ �� _ A�� F fNTERSECTION CAPACITY & 5 IY ■ ■ IMPROVEMENTS(S37) ® SWIFT RAPID STATION ■ ■ ` `� y `n ■ ■ _•__� r ■ ■ "' ` /r 04 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION {; � ■ f : � j��7'ry eta: S12■ ACCESSMANAGEMENT(L1e Planned Trans ortationIr ■;� � • INTERSECTION CAPACITY & S = FY IMPROVEMENTS(S36) Improvements GNAL ; COORr ITION O a'■ ■ ' IN c45 on ACCESS ACCESS MANAGEMENT ( 328) ■ A! Qi blu 224thStreet■ E ■ SI i � ■ i � Q IN ■ ■ ■ r■■■■■■�■■■�■�� Nsle 3 :04 S18 Packet Pg. ■ ■ i S i l 228th Street■ ■ ■ ■ 230th Street ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 234th Street ■ S14i ■ 236th Street■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■IF 238th Street COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (' 240th Street IMPROVE SOUTHBOUND LOCAL BUS STOP CONCURRENTWITH NEW DEVELOPMENT (L_S) COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (SS) i COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER r r . S13 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Mul ) ■ ■ ■ ■ -<-- ACCESS MANAGEMENT ■ 6.1.c REGIONALLY SIGINIFICANT TRANSI (S2) EMPHASIS tORRIDOR (S3) ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S26) NEWTRAFFIC SIGNAL PEDESTRIAN 0 . CROSSWALKSON ALL APPROACHES(S23) los ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S25) -S■■■■■■■■■■■■■ F- ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S24) IMPROVE NORTHBOUND LOCAL BUS STOP CONCURRENT WITH 'F NEW DEVELOPMENT(L.7) ■ SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGH1 _ r DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND �l1B■■■ j LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (S5) SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (S6) Planned Transportatior Improvements 244th Street Packet Pg. 305 6.1.c LEGEND EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND PED XING PROPOSED NEWTRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PED XING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FLASHING BEACON ® SWIFT RAPID STATION Project Supportive Tra n s po rtil,AWNTERN CONNECTIONS AND WAYFINDING I TWEEN SWIFT Imp rove m e , tqD HO5 TAL CAMPUS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA, AND LIGHTING) (S2, S39) �® a ENHANCED LOCALLn TRANSIT STOPS (S31; 00 w LO r N Q LL tm PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEME NEW CONNECTION BETWEEN SR 99 = AND INTERURBAN TRAIL ( ' ') U a 0 U rn rn A 3 x a CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT (WIDEN SIDEWALK, PLANTING , Packet Pg. 306 CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT (WIDEN SIDEWALK, PLANTING STRIP BUFFER) (L1) CORRIDOR -WIDE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY AND LIGHTING) (L2) IMPROVED LOCAL BUS STOPS SERVING COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (S30) HIGH-VISIBILITYCROSSWALKS + PEDESTRIAN -ACTIVATED RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS ON SR104ON AND OFF-RAMPS(S19) N 1�Q ■z ■m wo �9 s 00 pmffw NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND .p PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS ON n ALL APPROACHES (S22) • 0 NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONCURRENT WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT( ) PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LI RECONFIGURE OFF -RAMPS TO 90-DEGREE STOP CONTROL ILITmCrrTIALI[ / Al 4 **MENO■■■EE Project Supportive - Transportation Improvements Packet Pg. 307 6.1.c PROPOSED SHORT & LONG-TERM IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS S1 Pedestrian Safety Improve sidewalks, sight distance visibility, street and safety lighting on 240th from 84th Ave W to Wth Way W {primarily along commercial frontages} S2 Pedestrian Safety/ Implement safety improvements at 224th and 76th Avenue W including constructing new or Ped Circulation improving existing sidewalks on both sides of 224th approaching 76th Ave and SR 99. Not Shown General Safety General need for safety and street lighting on residential streets surrounding SR 99, particularly peckawrianrscaled lighting. Workshop participants identified the need to widen sidewalks on 228th east of SR 99. In the Summer of 2016 a numberof pedestrian improvements were completed in this regionally signfimat multirrodal corridor (see notes). Where narrow sidewalks still remain withinthe corridor oron connecting residential streets, the following pedestrian improvements may be considered irH eu of widening sidewalks: 1. Buffer pedestrians from moving traffic with streettrees in tree wells constructed within Regionally parki rig lanes. S3 SignificantTransrt Emphasis Corridor 2. Consistent application of high visibility crosswalk markings at intersections. 3. Ensure street lighting illuminates entire width of street Currently, street lights are located on one side of the street. Intersections with marked crosswalks should have safety lighting illuminating each end of crosswalks. 4. Install bus shelters at local bus stops with street lighting. Where right of way wont permit a shelter, use curb extensions to add width. Pedestrian and S4 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 216th St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to SR 99 Ped Circulation Pedestrian and S5 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 236th St. SW from HWY. 99 to 76th Ave. W Ped Circulation Pedestrian and S6 Vehicular Safety / Sidewalk construction projects: 235th St. SW from HWY. 99 to 76th Ave. W Ped Circulation S7 Complete Streets 235th Street SW, between SR 104 and SR 99. Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike mints lanes, and sidewalk S8 Complete Streets 225th Street SW, between SR 99 and 95th PI. W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike I"WAS lanes and sidewalk<as well as intersection improvements at 228th @ 95th. RS EOM0N❑5 HIGHWAY 99 SU RAREA PLAN la IM PL EM EN TA_ 27, PROJECT SUPPORTIVE PLANNEDIMPROVEMENT OTHER = C 0 C PEDESTRIANIMPROVE l ..0 ll L R NOTES 1 a) 2 This type of corridorwide frontage improvement typicaly occurs as a oondit on Workshop 0 of approval when the fronting property redevelops- 224th Street, as a route, provides access to a few destination such as the 7 inteuban trai I, but is not a primary route to major generators. However, many d residential neighborhoods feed into 224th and it may serve as a Iowervolume Workshop and lower speed alternative for pedestrians and bicyclists. Near SR 99 224th lacks sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. 00 Very cf the workshop participants commented on the lack of street lighting on r st •eets intersecting or paralleling SR 99. Safety lighting (lighting that illuminates -rnersec:ion corners where pedestrians are expected cross) and street iggting •%o•verhead lighting that generally illuminates the width of the street} Workshop r as well as pedestria rrscaled lighting (lighting on 12-17-foot tal l standards that L0 illuminate 'hem pedestrian walkway) arefundaental prerequisites for walkable r areas. Streets that cannot be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at 04 night will experience limited travel during the day. G r 228th Street SW is one of the study area's only Complete Streets. It connects LL the SR 99 corridor to numerous destinations including Highway 104 into downtown, the interurban trail, parks and recreational facilities, and the r Mountlake Terrace Transit Center where Sound Transit§ extension of the m Lynnwood LINK light rail will connect with local, comuter, and regional busses C by the year 2023. 225th is also a local bus route. Class I I bicycle lanes on 'L 228th connect SR 99 to the interurban trail. The City recently extended 228th from 76th Avenue to complete its connection to SR 99. Other recent pedestrian Workshop improvements in the corridor include new ADA compl iant ramps at corners, sidewalk repair, driveways moved to side sweets, and an improved crosswalk •V at the Interurban Trail crossing with new curb extensions. The very narrow sidewalks on 228th that once connected tatbe Trail (two to three feet wide) C have been augmented with a mutduse path parallel tothe wrest side of the street extending to the Interstate 5. The pedestrian environment along some C segments of 226th reed improvement Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation a% Project identified as a high priority intbe Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Element- Recommended Roadway Capital Element Projects Project identified as a high priority intbe Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Element- Reoormmerded Roadway Capital Projects C Project identified as a high priority intbe Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation 4c) Element Element- Reconmended Roadway Capital G Projects This project is recommended for inclusion in the CitysTransportation Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2022-203S Element- Recommended Roadway Capital +, Projects This project is recommended for inclusion in the ffWsTransportation Comprehensive Ilan 2015 Transportation Improvcvnent Plan (TIP) for 2022-2035. Element- Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Packet Pg. 308 EDM6N05 Health District Gateway - Today EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 309 Health District Gateway — with initial investments EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY public Packet Pg. 310 Health District Gateway — with corresponding private investment Cu i M11 1 �-6_€ + , h EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 311 SW 234th — Today EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 312 0 SW 234 TH —with initial public investments EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY 3 s as x C 0 aM 'L d x a u� Co T v to r r N O LaL C L. M N x C 7 O t) 0) 0! 3 x r c m E a Packet Pg. 313 SW 234 6.1.c TH _ with corresponding private investmert 3 s as x 0 a� 'L d x Ia LI CO T x r C t V EDMOND�� HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 314 6.1.c LIxI T-Ni EDMONDS HIGHWAY99 Next Steps: • March 21— City Council Hearing of Subarea Plan • March 22 — Open House for Planned Action EIS • April 12 — Planning Board public hearing on Development Code Amendments and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) • May 9 — City Council public hearing on Dev. Code and PAO • June 5 — Subarea Plan, Dev. Code Amendments and PAO Adoption Packet Pg. 315 6.1.c Questions? Visit www.EdmondsHWY99.or for more information such as project updates, workshop results, upcoming events and more. EDMOHD599 HIGHWAY Packet Pg. 316 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Ordinance Requiring the Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms (10 min.) Staff Lead: Andrew Pierce Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History On February 14, 2017, the Council passed a resolution supporting the responsible storage of firearms and urging the State Legislature to pass House Bill 1122, titled, "Protecting public safety through responsible storage of firearms," to help prevent unintentional firearm deaths among children and to reduce suicide among children and teenagers. The Council also discussed an ordinance requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms and directed that the ordinance be included for potential action on the February 21, 2017 agenda. Staff Recommendation N/A. Narrative This ordinance requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms will promote public safety by enabling law enforcement to better track illegal guns and firearms used in the commission of crimes, help return lost guns to their rightful owners, and protect gun owners from being wrongly implicated in crimes committed with lost or stolen guns. Attachments: Ordinance 405X Firearms Edmonds_LOS021317 Packet Pg. 317 7.1.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON REQUIRING THE REPORTING OF LOST AND STOLEN FIREARMS WHEREAS, in one year, Washington State had 5,053 guns reported stolen or lost according to a 2012 report from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, many of which went unreported; and WHEREAS, the total value of guns reported stolen in Washington State in 2013 was $3,990,218; and WHEREAS, lost or stolen firearms are frequently involved in the commission of crimes; and WHEREAS, laws that require the reporting of lost and stolen firearms to police promote public safety by enabling law enforcement to better track illegal guns and firearms used in the commission of crimes; and WHEREAS, mandatory reporting requirements also help return lost guns to their rightful owners and protect gun owners from being wrongly implicated in crimes committed with lost or stolen guns; and WHEREAS, Federal law requires firearms businesses with a federal license to report lost or stolen guns but does not require individual gun owners to do so; and WHEREAS, the vast majority of stolen and lost guns (96% in Washington State) were from private individuals, not licensed businesses; and WHEREAS, those that steal firearms commit violent crimes with stolen guns, transfer stolen firearms to others who commit crimes, and create a secondary market for firearms, including a market for those who are prohibited by law from possessing a gun; and WHEREAS, even if a firearm is reported as lost or stolen, individuals often are unable to report the serial number to law enforcement because they are not required to record the serial number or maintain records of the firearms they own for identification purposes, resulting in many lost and stolen firearms entering secondary markets undetectably; and WHEREAS, this ordinance does not impose criminal penalties on any person for any act or omission, and is not intended to regulate the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, Packet Pg. 318 7.1.a acquisition, transfer, discharge, or transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components; and WHEREAS, other states and local jurisdictions in Washington require the prompt reporting of lost and stolen firearms; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLOWS: Section 1. A new section 5.24.070 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled, "Reporting theft or loss of firearm required," is hereby added to read as follows: 5.24.070 Reporting theft or loss of firearm required. A. If a firearm is lost or stolen, the person who owned or was in possession of the firearm shall report the theft or loss to the Edmonds Police Department if the loss or theft occurred in Edmonds. The report shall be made within 24 hours after the theft or loss is first discovered, and shall include to the extent known: 1. The firearm's caliber, make, model, manufacturer, and serial number; 2. Any other distinguishing number or identification mark on the firearm; and 3. The circumstances of the loss or theft, including the date, place, and manner B. On receipt of a report of a stolen or lost firearm under this section, the Edmonds Police Department shall enter into the National Crime Information Center Database the following information, to the extent known: 1. The firearm's caliber, make, model, manufacturer, and serial number; and 2. Any other distinguishing number or identification mark on the firearm. C. Any violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00. Packet Pg. 319 7.1.a Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 10, 2017 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: February 21, 2017 PUBLISHED: February 26, 2017 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2017 ORDINANCE NO.: 405X Packet Pg. 320 7.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 405X of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 21St day of February, 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 405X. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON REQUIRING THE REPORTING OF LOST AND STOLEN FIREARMS The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 22"d day of February, 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 321 7.1.b UV p SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT WWW.SNOHD.ORG February 13, 2017 The Honorable Kristiana Johnson The Honorable Mike Nelson The Honorable Adrienne Fraley-Monillas The Honorable Diane Buckshnis The Honorable Dave Teitzel The Honorable Thomas Mesaros The Honorable Neil Tibbott 121 — 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 To members of the Edmonds City Council: Administration Division I am writing to support your efforts to reduce gun violence, notably consideration of Resolution 138X and Ordinance 405X. In 2013, the Snohomish County Board of Health passed Resolution 2013-03 that "calls on federal and state lawmakers to take meaningful action to address gun violence." Resolution 138X and Ordinance 405X align with the Board of Health's position. Resolution 138X, which urges the legislature to pass House Bill 1122, notes the many sad statistics about gun violence, highlighting the markedly increased risks of youth suicide and accidental injury and death in households where firearms are present. Many of these deaths could be prevented if all firearms were securely stored so that only adults could readily access them. There is ample evidence that laws requiring secure storage of firearms reduce injuries to and deaths of children, while not limiting appropriate adult access to firearms. The Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials (WSALPHO) supports House Bill 1122. I urge the City of Edmonds to join my WSALPHO colleagues and me by passing Resolution 138X. Ordinance 405X, which would require reporting lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement, would prevent diversion of firearms for illegal uses. I believe that any efforts to reduce the number of firearms available on the street would reduce youth access, and could thereby reduce youth suicides. Suicide among youth is especially impulsive, so ready access to a firearm dramatically increases the likelihood that a depressed youth will succeed in killing him or herself. This is in contrast to other means (such as hanging or overdosing), which require more effort and can more easily be interrupted. I urge the City of Edmonds to pass Ordinance 405X. I applaud the City of Edmonds for recognizing gun violence as a public health issue that demands multiple prevention strategies. Resolution 138X and Ordinance 405X are important steps to reducing gun violence. Sincerely, Gary Goldbaum, MD, MPH Health Officer & Director M N 0 co 0 J i c 0 E w c as E z c� a 3020 Rucker Avenue, Suite 306 ■ Everett, WA 98201-3900 ■ tel: 425.339.5210 ■ fax: 425.339.5263 Packet Pg. 322 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 City Council Meeting Format and Potential Committee Structure (20 min.) Staff Lead: Tom Mesaros Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History During the 2017 Edmonds City Council Retreat the format of City Council meetings was discussed (see attached Council Retreat Minutes). From that discussion it was decided that the Council should consider and debate the reinstatement of standing Council Committee meetings as conducted prior to the Council disbanding that practice in 2015 (see July 7th, 2015 Agenda Packet, Council Meeting minutes from between July 7 and July 28 of 2015, and Ordinance 4004). Prior to their disbandment, there were three standing Council Committees, including the following three committees: Finance; Parks, Planning, and Public Works; and Public Safety and Personnel (a draft description of each committee is included for debate). Staff Recommendation Discuss and debate the reinstatement of standing Council Committees, including a review of the draft ordinance. Narrative In order to facilitate the operation of public works, City institutions must incorporate procedures that allow those institutions to effectively yet thoroughly conduct City operations. As such, it behooves the City government to examine, explore, and incorporate procedures to accommodate efficiency, transparency, and robust debate around all business before the City. Attachments: July 7th Agenda Packet Ordinance 4004 2017 Council Retreat Minutes July 7, 2015 Minutes July 14, 2015 Minutes July 28, 2015 Minutes Draft Ordinance Language 2017-02-15 draft ordinance re council committees Packet Pg. 323 7.2.a AM-7825 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/07/2015 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: 30 Minutes Councilmember Buckshnis City Council Potential Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 10. Jana Spellman Subject Title Discussion and Potential Action regarding Council Study Sessions and Council Committees Recommendation Previous Council Action August 26, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes attached. September 2, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes attached. September 23, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes Attached Council held its first study session on October 14, 2014 (minutes attached). October 28, 2014 Council Meeting: Due to the lateness of the hour the Continued Discussion on Study Sessions was rescheduled as an item for this agenda. November 10, 2014 Council Meeting: See attached minutes. January 13, 2015 Council Meeting: Due to the lateness of the hour, this agenda item was postponed to a future Council Meeting. June 23, 2015 Council Meeting: See attached draft minutes. Narrative The July 7 agenda provides for the Council to revisit whether it will return to a Council Committee format or stay with the Study Session format. See Attachment 0 (i.e., the very first attachment below) for a brief summary that: --Compares pros and cons of each format --Identifies ways that each format could be improved to address previous concerns --Notes key questions that should be addressed in using either format. BACKGROUND The City Council decided to try using a format of two study sessions per month, as an outgrowth of its Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 324 7.2.a 2014 Council retreat. One of the key reasons was to have more opportunity for Council members to discuss items in a less formal meeting format prior to voting on them. On October 14, 2014, the Council began to use the Study Session format and to have the sessions televised. Note: At a previous City Council meeting (September 23, 2014), a Study Session example format had been tested. The discussion had focused on setting a policy on the format of these types of meetings. Items considered were: 1) Start time of meetings — consistent with Business Meetings or change meeting time altogether? Study Meeting dates set at 6PM unless executive session and if executive session, meeting will start after 6PM executive session. Regular Meetings to start at 7PM. Compromise? Does Council want all meetings to start at 6:30? 2) Configuration of tables, some Council Members do not want their back to the audience and others want to have an informal set-up where discussion can easily occur which means having Council Members face each other. 3) SPEAKING into the microphone. This needs to happen. Many complaints as some Council Members were not heard. 4) All presentations need to be available for the public to see. As an example, the insurance switch was handled at the table with Council but no overhead was shown for the public. 5) Round-robin — Doesn't have to be round robin per se but Council Members are allowed one or two questions and then another Council Member is allowed to answer questions. 6) Timing for discussions — with Westgate, there was maybe 15 minutes afforded for questions; do we want to have at least one-half hour set aside for discussions? 7) Understood that all items that are moved, are moved onto Consent for the next week, unless specified. On June 23, the City Council had its latest discussion on the alternative formats--i.e., standing Council committees compared to study sessions. See Attachment 8 for draft minutes. Attachments Attcht 0 - Comparison of Formats Attachment 1 - Special Meeting Format Test Attachment 2 - 8-26-14 Approved CM Attachment 3 - 9-2-14 Approved CM Attachment 4 - 9-23-14 Approved CM Attachment 5 - Oct 14 2014 Approved CM Attachment 6 - 11-10-14 Approved Council Minutes Attach 7- 2-12-13 PS-P Committe Min and Proposed Lang re Comm Aud Com Attachment 8: 6-23-15 draft minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 07/01/2015 10:52 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/01/2015 10:52 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/01/2015 11:01 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/01/2015 11:02 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/24/2015 09:03 AM Final Approval Date: 07/01/2015 Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 325 7.2.a July 1, 2015 Committee Meetings & Study Sessions: Comparison of Formats and Options for Improvements to Either Format Key Issue The key issue is what format to use for certain kinds of City Council meetings, namely: A. Whether to have standing City Council committees that meet regularly and make recommendations to the rest of the Council —and if so, how would they be structured and how would they operate? B. Whether to continue the current practice of not having standing Council committee meetings and to instead have two study sessions per month of the full Council —and if this is preferred, how could the study sessions be improved? Major Factors to Consider Overarching factors to consider include: ❑ Efficiency and timeliness to carry out City business ❑ Ability for general public to view or participate ("transparency") ❑ Ability for some individuals to view or participate ❑ Ability for Council members to have dialogue with each other ❑ Ability for Council members to ask staff questions (before a decision is made) ❑ Clarity of process Point/Counterpoint Each format —Council committee meetings and study sessions —has its pros and cons. Furthermore, either format could be improved over how it has operated in the past. Below is a brief comparison of the pros/cons and potential improvements for each format. Committee Meeting Format Below are the pros/cons and a list of potential changes from the past if this format is used. Some "Pros" ❑ Small group of Council members (i.e., "Committees") may be able to move through business items more efficiently. ❑ Committees maybe able to recommend more items for the Consent Calendar, thereby keeping down the number of separate agenda items at business meetings. ❑ Committees may allow more casual discussion among members ❑ Some individual citizens may come to Committee meetings that would not attend or "tune into" meetings of the whole Council. ❑ Members of a committee may review an agenda item at least 3 times, while others not on the committee may review the item only 2 times. Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 326 7.2.a Some "Cons" ❑ Certain items may benefit from having broad Council discussion (for example, at a study session), rather than just Committee discussion before the Council is expected to act. ❑ When frequently the same information presented to the Committee has to be repeated at a Council meeting of the whole, the combined amount of time for Council meetings and committee meetings may increase over the current. ❑ Committee meetings that regularly allow a few members of the public to sit at the table with Council members and be part of an off -screen --but official -- dialogue may not leave time for Council committee members to have full discussion, and in the past, may sometimes have led to less than civil conversation. ❑ If every Council decision item has to go to a committee first and each committee meets only once per month, taking care of City business can get bogged down (especially for routine but time -sensitive decisions) ❑ It would be difficult to televise all Committee meetings, so less of the public may be easily able to view this part of official city business. Some Potential Ways to Help the Committee Format Work Well Below are several options, one or more of which could be used to help the Committee approach run more smoothly or avoid perceived problems. • Hold all standing committee meetings twice per month (in place of two study sessions), so that one week after each committee meeting, the full Council could take action on items presented to committee, especially on routine items. • Use only two committees instead of three (perhaps having them meet for sequentially instead of simultaneously, such as one committee at 6 pm and the other at 7 pm on the same nights). • Televise all committee meetings. • Set up a few ground rules that would apply to the operation of all standing Council committees, recognizing that committees may have additional practices or rules as they wish. • As a possible option --On fifth Tuesdays, regularly hold a full Council study session for general items that don't need a near -term decision, such as presentations from guest speakers. Decisions to Consider before Goine to "Standine Committee" Format 1. How many times per month should each committee meet? 2. If a committee meets less than twice per month, can routine decisions move forward without some of them having to wait 2-5 weeks before Council action? 3. Should the committee meetings be televised or not? 4. Should any common ground rules apply to standing Council committees? If so, should they address: Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 327 7.2.a a. Typical thresholds for sending items to the Consent Calendar, rather than to the full Council for presentation (for example: approval of a contract that is within budget or under a certain dollar amount)? b. Whether individual citizens should participate at the table with Council members or be provided a three -minute comment opportunity at a given point in the meeting? c. Anything else? 5. What standing committees should be created and who would serve on them initially? 6. Should standing committee meetings be at a different time than regular Council meetings (for example, could one committee meet at 6 pm and another at 7 pm)? 7. How would notes or minutes of the committees betaken? Study Session Format Below are the pros/cons and a list of potential changes from the past if this format is used. Some "Pros" • Regular study sessions are easily televised, so they can be widely viewed by the public. • The bi-monthly study session format allows all Council members to be familiar with items on the agenda (especially those that don't go straight to the Consent Calendar) • The bi-monthly study session format allows full Council review/discussion of all non -routine items at least one meeting ahead of a vote being taken. • The proximity of Council members to each other and to staff presenters is likely to encourage good dialogue. Some "Cons" • Under the current setting (i.e., Council on the floor, rather than the dais and with battery -operated microphones), audio quality is reported to be low. • Members at the far end of the table may have a hard time seeing slide presentations on the big screen. • Study session agendas sometimes get loaded up and meetings can last more than 3 hours. • Study sessions sometimes include items that might be handled more quickly at a smaller committee meeting. Some Potential Ways to Help the Study Session Format Work Well Below are several options, one or more of which could be used to help the study session approach run more smoothly or avoid perceived problems. • Better microphones could be purchased for study sessions. Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 328 7.2.a • The Council could return to the dais (at least until better mikes could be obtained). • Equipment could be purchased for visual presentations that would be easier for the Council and public to view. • Meetings could go faster if topics were grouped together so that different presenters don't have to alternate with each other (which requires extra time for transition and set-up). • A "general rule" could be decided by the Council so that routine decisions below a certain threshold (for example, contracts under a certain budget amount) could routinely go to the Consent Calendar and not need a study session presentation —although a good written staff report for Council would be needed for such items) Decisions to Consider for Continuing Bi-Monthly Studv Session Format 1. Should better microphones be purchased? 2. Should better audio-visual equipment be obtained to make presentations easier to view? 3. Would other furniture arrangements help? 4. Should some routine items typically go to the Council's Consent Calendar, without a study session first? 5. Should meeting agenda items be grouped more tightly by department, so there's less transition time between items? Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 329 7.2.a SPECIAL MEETING FORMAT TEST Tonight is a testing of a popular format and we will discuss at the next Special Session, if this is sufficient or if changes need to occur. 1) Sit on floor in u-shape with presenters also sitting in top of u unless presenting 2) Presentation by staff 3) After presentation, round-robin scenario with each Council Member allowed three questions. 4) Round-robin continues until all questions have been answered 5) After all questions and answers and time permits, Council discussions can follow. Other Suggested Formats not being done tonight: • Round-robin with time limits. • No time limits but round-robin. • Regular question and answer with no round-robin formatting. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 330 7.2.a 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Development Services Director Hope explained at a Council retreat in May there was discussion about ways to make Council meetings more efficient and effective and allowing more dialogue between Councilmembers prior to voting on an item. One idea that was briefly discussed was the possibility of two study sessions per month alternating with two business meetings per month. At business meetings, the Council would take official action. Study sessions would be an opportunity for Councilmembers to have dialogue, ask questions, etc.; votes would not be taken at study sessions. Under the proposal both business meetings and study sessions would be recorded and televised. Typically at a study session the Council would be seated around a table instead of seated at the dais. Many other cities in this area have a similar format; it works well to get things done and provides an opportunity for conversation. Ms. Hope explained by including all Councilmembers in the conversation, separate community meetings would not be needed as all information can be presented to the Council in a transparent, public process. An exception could be made for the Finance Committee to address routine business as the Council may choose. She summarized alternating study sessions and business meetings would be a more efficient way for the Council to have dialogue. Although the exact details do not have to be included in the code, if the Council chooses this format, some minor amendments to the code will be necessary. If the Council is interested in this format, she suggested providing direction to the City Attorney to craft an ordinance for consideration at a future meeting. Councilmember Mesaros observed under this proposal, the Finance Committee would meet before one of the study sessions. He felt the committee meetings were quite efficient and typically lasted only an hour. He suggested holding the other two committee meetings at the same time as the Finance Committee meeting. For example, start at the committee meetings at 6:30 p.m. and begin the study session at 7:30 p.m. That would allow the committees to discuss some items that would be scheduled on the consent agenda. Ms. Hope agreed that was an option. One of the rationales behind not having committee meetings was it was difficult to be fully functional for another, longer meeting after a committee meeting. Secondly, committee meetings are often discussion on items that still need to be discussed by the full Council, resulting in repetition. Councilmember Mesaros commented that was an agenda management issues; items that require discussion by the full Council would not go to committee. The committees could review items that were typically scheduled on the consent agenda. If an item needed to be reviewed by the full Council, it could be discussed at a study session. He acknowledged sometimes the full Council will discuss an item that could have been on the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers can always request an item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the full agenda. Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the proposed format. She noted there are items that some Councilmembers want discussed by the full Council. To ensure transparency, she preferred to have the Council's discussions televised. A determination can be made by the Council President, Council President Pro Tem and the Mayor regarding items to be placed on the Consent Agenda. She suggested trying this format; if it doesn't work, the format can be changed back. She referred to last week's agenda as an example of how many items ended up on the agenda, several that Councilmembers did not want moved to the Consent Agenda. She summarized eliminating committee meetings will minimize repetition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked this idea because the Council was able to have a full discussion. Sometimes when things are discussed by a committee, by the time it comes to Council, the other Councilmembers may not know the reason the committee supported or did not support an item. Having two study sessions and two work sessions and eliminating two committees will make the ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 131 Packet Pg. 331 7.2.a Council's job easier. She did not find the Public Safety & Personnel (PSP) or the Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committees very effective as often staff gives a full report to the committee and then give it again to the full Council. She was uncertain how items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda as there are different opinions regarding what should be on the Consent Agenda and what should be presented to the full Council. Ms. Hope said the Q&A in the Council packet includes criteria for items that would be on the Consent Agenda although she understood that could differ between Councilmembers. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Mesaros, stating she found the committee structure incredibly efficient. If two committee members listen to a presentation such as regarding a lift station and determine it can be on the Consent Agenda, that saves the Council time and does not damage transparency. Councilmembers also have 10-12 days' notice before an item appears on the Consent Agenda and can pull it for further questions if necessary. She was also very concerned with splitting the committees; if the motivation was to include all Councilmember to improve transparency, clearly the one committee that should no long exist is Finance. It is important Finance Committee items be done in the open and in the public and not by a small group of Councilmembers behind closed doors and placing items on the Consent Agenda. She recalled an example of that in the past with the contingent loan agreement with the Public Facilities District, a $4 million guarantee by the City, that was placed on the Consent Agenda and did not want to risk that again. If the Finance Committee morphs into a Long Range Financial Task Force she felt that needed to be done in the public. Long Range Financial Task Forces inevitably conclude a levy will be needed in the future and a levy requires the participation and endorsement of all seven Councilmembers. She preferred to retain the current committees or eliminate all of them. Her preference was study sessions and the current committees; the committees could regulate what needs a study session. Councilmember Johnson was an advocate of this proposal, advising she has seen work effectively in other jurisdictions. One of the big advantages is the format; having the Council seated at the table allows conversation amongst Councilmembers and staff presenting information and it will be easier to see the screen. This is an effective way to do business; change is difficult and there is a tendency to do things the way they have always been done. She supported having study sessions, acknowledging there will be a transition period to sort things out but in the end it was worth trying. Councilmember Peterson commented one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language is we've always done things that way. He supported the proposal, finding it an excellent idea. The proposed criteria will determine what is scheduled on the Consent Agenda. In his early years on the Council, many items were on the Consent Agenda that had not been reviewed by committee. That changed after some surprise items on the Consent Agenda; the proposal will address that without the unnecessary minutia in committee meetings. The Council can add additional guidelines and Councilmembers have the ability to pull items from the Consent Agenda. The proposed format allows Councilmembers to ask questions of staff, adds transparency and assists staff, the public and councilmembers. It will provide greater opportunity for the public to see more of what is going on and gives Councilmember a better understanding of the details. Councilmember Bloom said she emailed Councilmembers a proposed hybrid approach but was unable to find it now. She suggested Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman find the email with her suggested approach. Councilmember Bloom explained she averaged the number of committee items and found an average of 17.2 total items per month. The PSP Committee has a lot fewer agenda items, Finance and PPP Committees have the highest number of agenda items. Her analysis also considered public comments at committee meetings. She found that public comment at committees was more intimate and allowed conversation. Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 332 7.2.a Councilmember Bloom suggested holding committee meetings before meetings and two work sessions to discuss all the items the Council typically considers and are most likely not to be scheduled on Consent Agenda. She also suggested holding committee meetings following one Council meeting per month to discuss items that seem to be Consent Agenda items. This approach would cover all the bases. She was concerned with eliminating the PPP Committee as reviewing the volume of agenda items would be an enormous burden on the full Council. She preferred to have the PPP Committee screen those items. Councilmember Bloom was also concerned the proposal to continue the Finance Committee, comprised of the Council President and two other Councilmembers, places an additional responsibility on the Council President. An option would be to eliminate the PSP Committee since most of the items are on Consent and those that are not, require discussion by the full Council such as the ethics policy and code of conduct. If the PSP Committee were eliminated, Councilmembers with the exception of the Council President, could be divided among the two remaining committees. She requested the Council consider this hybrid approach and for the information in her email to be provided the next time the Council discusses this topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support having committee meetings following Council meetings. Often the Council meets as early as 6 p.m. for an executive session; having a committee meeting following a Council meeting would be very difficult. She suggested dissolving the PSP and PPP Committees and holding the Finance Committee meeting prior to a Council meeting and filming it. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his proposal was also a hybrid; the committees would be retained and meet at the same time as the Finance Committee. To avoid repetition, the committees can consider items that will be scheduled on the Consent Agenda, items the full Council should discuss will not be reviewed by a committee. Councilmember Petso endorsed Councilmember Mesaros' approach which would retain the committees. Another option is to shift park -related items to the PSP Committee to better distribute agenda items, noting Ms. Hite already attends the PSP meetings to present items related to personnel. Council President Buckshnis assured it was not her intent to have Finance Committee meetings that were secret or behind closed doors. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion to have Finance Committee meetings filmed. She suggested retaining the Finance Committee because of the four cities listed, three kept their Finance Committee. She felt it was more effective to discuss long range financing, budget forecasting and policy discussions in a smaller group setting and then forward it to the full Council. She included the Council President in the Finance Committee to add a third member. She supported trying the alternating study session with only the Finance Committee and if a Councilmember had an issue with a Consent Agenda item, it could be pulled. Council President Buckshnis said in Council Presidents, Councilmembers and Mayors in other cities agree this is a more efficient method; it avoids duplication of work and information and allows for better communication between Councilmembers and with the public. If the public is uncomfortable with being filmed during a Council during study sessions, their comments can be audio recorded rather than filmed. Councilmember Peterson said he was initially undecided about keeping the Finance Committee; it makes sense as it is the basis of a lot of decisions. With only the Finance Committee, it can be televised and additional Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting if they wish because the meetings are noticed as open public meeting. Televising the Finance Committee meetings also allows the public to see the steps in the process. If all three committees are retained, there is no way to televise all three. Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 333 7.2.a Councilmember Bloom asked how the Finance Committee meeting could be televised. Councilmember Peterson explained their meeting would be held before the work session. If all Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting and it is televised, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the items could just be discussed at a full Council meeting. She supported having two work sessions per month. However, during the budget process it was her understanding the Council President found it difficult to schedule agenda items and she anticipated it would be even more difficult if action would not be taken at two meetings per month. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom's comment regarding scheduling in the final quarter of year. She experienced that last year and recalled Councilmember Peterson chastising the Council with the phrase, "we're running out of Tuesdays in this calendar year." If the Council chooses to change the format, she suggested beginning in January. Council President Buckshnis recalled last year there was a closed record review that consumed a great deal of the Council's time. She has worked with Mayor and Directors on the extended agenda and preferred to try the proposed process beginning in October. She reiterated her support for retaining the Finance Committee, pointing out three of four cities have a Finance Committee and it is important to have policy discussion and long term planning in a committee meeting. Mayor Earling advised the discussion will continue next week. Council President Buckshnis relayed the agenda item next week will include action. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE Planning U4,nager Rob Chave provided background on the Westgate code discussion: • Public Baring on August 4, 2014 • Staff has iewed the hearing record and follow-up discussion on the draft code. As part of that review, staffs ested: o Make sure tha he code is consistent with the expressed intent o Remove inconsis Gies • Approximately a dozen is es were combined into seven discussion topics: 1. Commercial reauireme • Clarifying the various Rallding types to include commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial n1ked use types Building Type Re ' ential Uses Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor" -,,Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live -work Not ground floor round floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft mixed use Not ground floor An floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed use Not ground floor An r Ground floor onl 7. Commercial Mixed use tNot ground floor Not group oor Any floor 8. Assuring commercial space • Adjusted the building type location diagram (page 8) to be more c intent with the overall intended commercial mixed use chapter of Westgate. (The o diagram is included on page 9 for reference, but will be deleted if the new diagram on age 8 is preferable. Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 334 7.2.a considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow th City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment. The ort has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology's letter recommends the Council consider Chang g the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add addition language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor Square re velo1 ent process. Councilmemb Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet. Mr. Lien answ ed it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board s considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback originally came fro Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the Edmonds Marsh have 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone without a buffer require ent would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider than the current 25-foot o n space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out this proposal do les the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson exp ssed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the redevelopment that is occurring a the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any stormwater mitigation in the Antiq Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that would be considered a restoration proj t and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson commented i a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be advantageous. He asked whether a deck co d be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr. Lien answered not within the 150-foot setbac Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback nd asked whether a roof penetration could be done to install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements n be made within the existing building footprint but the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding an hing in the setback area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language i the letter from Ecology that states within this designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotia development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim design ion for this property. Ecology is available to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien esponded that was the reason for his concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the inte ' designation assuming the City and the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas obse ed the City and Port have not been working together. Ecology's offer to help reach an agreement is an im rtant step in determining the best setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the n t two years. Council President Pro Tern Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at th Planning Board; an area of the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has b en graveled and used for temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that t open space and remove the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the avel parking next to Harbor Square Athletic Club. Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the dec ion on the Port plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the e of 2013; he acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 335 7.2.a Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council's discussion last week as a follow up to discussion at a retreat regarding ways for the Council to work together better and options for dialogue without voting. The proposal is to alternate study sessions and business meetings and not have committees other than a Finance Committee to address routine or designated business. Not having committee meetings would allow all Councilmembers to hear presentations and Q&A and not have it done twice, once at a committee meeting and again at a Council meeting. Councilmember Mesaros reiterated he was in favor of this format. However, if the Finance Committee continued to meet, he recommended the other two committees also continue to meet. If the purpose is to allow the full Council to discuss items, he recommended not having any committee meetings. If finance is such an important topic, the full Council should be provided the information at a study session that would have been provided at a Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Mesaros' suggestion. If the intent was for the Finance Committee to meet at 6 p.m. and have the regular Council meeting start at 7 p.m., the Council meeting could simply start early and all Councilmembers could attend. Her primary concern with eliminating all the committees is her research found an average of 17.2 committee meeting agenda items per month. The committees screen items that come to the Council on a regular basis and schedule them on the Consent Agenda which she felt was very efficient; Councilmembers have the option of pulling an item from Consent. Some items reviewed by committee should go to the Council such as the Public Works Quarterly Report. Rather than eliminating all the committees, she suggested the Council decide what items should regularly come to the Council to prevent them from being reviewed in committee and by the full Council. She was inclined not to change the Council meeting format unless all the committees were eliminated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE STUDY SESSIONS FOR THE COUNCIL'S FUTURE FORMAT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO BUSINESS SESSIONS AND TWO STUDY SESSIONS PER MONTH. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding what would happen with the committees under Council President Pro Tem Johnson's motion. Council President Pro Tem Johnson answered time will tell what works best. She wanted the Council to have better dialogue with staff in the study session. She recalled Finance Director Scott James said the Finance Committee meeting does not necessarily have to be held Tuesday at 6 p.m.; it could be held at any time. Mr. James' interest in retaining the Finance Committee was not to do the regular work the committee is doing now but to have a long term strategy. That could include all or some of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested starting without committee meetings and add them if necessary. With regard to the Finance Committee, she felt it would be beneficial for all Councilmembers to hear what occurs in the Finance Committee meetings. She suggested 15-30 minutes could be spent during a study session to discuss Finance Committee meeting topics. She supported the study session/business meeting format because she liked to hear why items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda or the full agenda, noting it seemed to differ based on the Councilmembers on the committee or even staff assigned to the committee; there was no consistency. She anticipated the Council may be able to review agenda items more quickly with this format. Councilmember Peterson suggested the first half hour of the first study session of the month consider Finance Committee meeting topics. Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 336 7.2.a In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' concern with why some items are scheduled on the Consent Agenda and others are schedule for full Council, Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that items that would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda would not be presented to the full Council. The Council President would determine which items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that could be worked out, perhaps by a smaller subgroup; she supported abolishing the committees. Councilmember Bloom referred to the average of 17.2 items per month discussed by committee which equated to 8 items per study session in addition to regular agenda items. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis commented there are some Consent. Each meeting will have an agenda that Councilmembers can pull items from the Consent Agenda, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. routine things that are always scheduled on includes a Consent Agenda each meeting. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. For Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the motion directed him to prepare an ordinance. The Council did not need to wait until the effective date of the ordinance to implement the new process. Under the current code, the Council has four meetings per month; the Council can decide to the two of the meetings be study sessions and two be business meetings. Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis suggested the first study session be held on October 14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014 ncilm ber Fraley-Monillas reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. Liquo ecreational Marijuana License Review Process — Full Council B. Lead Co Clerk job description — Full Council C. No public co ent Finance Committee Council President Pro Tem John reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. 2014 June Quarterly Budget Financial Report — Consent Agenda B. Employee Expenses, Volunteer cognition and Reimbursements Policy — Discussion only C. IT Update — Discussion only D. PFD Quarterly Report — Consent Agen E. Business License Fees Discussion — Consen F. Public comment from Judge Fair regarding and from Port Commissioner David Preston which was discussed on tonight's agenda, the Port's tiered late fee Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Mesaros reported on items discussed by the committee d action taken: A. Public Works Quarterly Project Report — Full Council B. Report and Project Close Out for the WWTP Switchgear Upgrade Proj t — Full Council C. Phase 4 - Energy Improvement Project— Consent Agenda D. Proof -of -Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project — Full Co it E. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 2014 Citywide rm Drainage Improvement Project to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the Amount of $337,759.43 — Consent enda Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 337 7.2.a For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between applying for and a epting a grant. The City is not under any obligation to accept grant funds once it a grant is awarded al, ugh the City would look bad to the granting agencies and potentially lose credibility if it rejected grants n a regular basis. He has noticed the Council and administration may not be on the same page about h to pursue grant funds and that a great deal of the frustration and tension regarding projects often stem from a grant application. It is a chicken and egg problem, what authority if any should the administratio have to pursue grants; whether a project needs to be on a particular list in order to pursue a grant. There is gitimate policy debate the Council needs to have regarding these questions. Mr. Taraday comm ted another issue is prioritization of projects and who should prioritize projects, the Council or administra ' n, and can the administration pursue a grant for any project in the CFP. In reality, administration has a bet r handle on what projects they can obtain funds for. The Council may have its prioritized list but there ne)54s to be better dialogue between the Council and the administration regarding projects administration thinkl,unding can be obtained for which may not necessarily match the Council's prioritized list. Council President Buckshnis com nted using $10,000 to leverage $320,000 was a no brainer. She agreed there may need to be a policy b ause this issue keeps coming up. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Coun 'l President Buckshnis' question and asked about the current policy with regard to this set of facts. Mr. aday answered the Council currently adopts the budget at the fund level which gives the administration he authority to reallocate funds as long as it does not overspend the appropriation for a given fund. For xample, the crosswalk, he supposed the fund language was lenient to enough allow for some reallocation w1thin the fund. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that Ne City did not receive a grant from the State for the crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed, adding the City did At apply for a grant. Councilmember Mesaros summarized therefore the project did not have to be on the CPV, or CIP because it was not a City project. Councilmember Petso said she understood that staff can reallocat within the fund but she was not aware that staff could reallocate money to projects that are not on CFP, P or TIP. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on how the documents are drafted; he has not been asked to yze whether the way the current budget is adopted gives the administration flexibility to reallocate funds projects that are not otherwise on the list. If the Council approves a project such as a walkway and realistically funding 's easier to obtain if the project is converted into a multiuse pathway, Councilmember Petso asked wheth that decision should come back to Council or does approval of a walkway also approve a change in a prof ct to cater to a grant opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered there was a policy question and a legal question. gally it depends on how detailed the description of the project is. For example if the capital budget says 2014 the City will spend money on these and only these capital projects and those capital projects are ry carefully detailed in a manner that do not allow a change such as from a walkway to a multiuse path, it uld not be done without a budget amendment. He did not know if that had been done in the past. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Buckshnis distributed a suggested format fo the study session. 10. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO WESTGATE Council President Buckshnis relayed tonight is a trial run; there will be a format in place for the next study session on October 14. She described tonight's format: a presentation from staff, followed by a Attachment 4 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 10 Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 338 7.2.a round robin of questions where each Councilmember is allowed three questions, and continuing until all questions have been answered. If time permits after all the questions have been answered, the Council can have a global discussion. Planning Manager Rob Chave commented on the process to date including a Council public hearing on August 4, 2014. He provided examples of recent changes/adjustments: • Clarified standards for amenity space and open space, for example clarified 15% minimum for each, clarified where these can be located • Additional design standards for buildings • Incentives for large retail spaces With regard to traffic and setbacks: • Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) • 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in last 2014/early 2015 will identify any additional recommendations for ROW improvements Setback requirements can be revised if needed With regard to parking: • Parking standards are minimums • Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900 square feet. Achieves two goals: o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit) o Provides an added incentive for smaller units • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 11500 square foot • Existing grocery stores have a range 1 space per 350-370 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour; much less during other parts of day • Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided onsite (e.g. QFC property has 1 space per 475 square foot) • Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely many at 11500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdictions • Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units Regarding lots and setbacks: • Commercial areas provide street and residential setbacks, but not other setbacks • Provides flexibility for locating and linking businesses Mr. Chave displayed and described an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. He explained commercial areas provide setback in two ways, 1) from residential areas, and 2) from streets. There are no side setbacks or minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. He noted the QFC and PCC buildings were set on several of their lot lines. QFC owns their property; PCC leases their property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and described the amenity/open space versus setbacks. He provided details regarding the McDonald's property: • 190 feet deep • 400 feet wide Approx. 50 foot old front setback (actual - which includes 5-foot landscaping strip) Approx. 50 foot non -developed slope area 76,000 total lot area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 11 Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 339 7.2.a • 11,400 - 15% amenity space required • 11,400 - 15% open space • 20,000 protected slope area 26.3% of total site • 4,800 front 12-foot setback 6.3% of total site • 8,000 front 20-foot setback 10.5% of total site • Development scenarios Existing Code New Code o Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 o Are available for building 62,000 44,600 o Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 With regard to amenity vs. open space: • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area, with a 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirement • Note: No other zone in the City has anything like these requirements With regard to commercial requirements: • Clarified the various building types to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types: Building Type Residential Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live -Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor He displayed the original and a revised building type map. With regard to building design, he explained: • A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, blank walls and ground floor ceiling heights. • Note that any 4"' story "must be stepped back 10 feet from a building fagade facing SR-104 or 100'h Avenue West" (page 27) Mr. Chave displayed illustrations in the plan, largely taken from the commercial building standards for downtown. With regard to large format retail, he explained: • Incentives have been added for large -format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) 1) Adding bonus points for large -format retail in the height bonus table (p. 38) 2) A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling space in a large format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail space is provided in building (page 6/7) • Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell's interest in expanding their investment Mr. Chave displayed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that qualified for height bonus. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 12 Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 340 7.2.a Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Chave's statement that parking requirements are minimums. In the example of Bartell's, if they feel they need more parking to redevelop they will provide it to enhance their business. Mr. Chave identified a lot behind Bartells that was provided in anticipation of a new building. Bartells provided more parking than they needed in anticipation of that additional development which did not occur due to the economy. Councilmember Peterson commented there is a certain point in development where the developer makes their decision; if the City does not overly restrict, the market will dictate what is required. Mr. Chave answered one aspect of the market is the developer's experience or the store's experience with the type of parking they need. A second factor is the bank/investor looks closely at the market, access and parking. The final phase is ensuring the proposal meets the City's parking standards. If the parking standards are too tight, it can halt the process at the beginning particularly with infill in existing areas. In Bartell's case, they have a well-defined site and parking; they have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking for their store. Mr. Chase commented another significant issue is the existing investments and ownership patterns. Bartells is in the process acquiring the entire corner; they currently only own store. QFC owns their property and have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking. QFC did a significant interior remodel approximately five years ago and is a very successful store even with PCC across the street. He did not fore see any of the main anchors, PCC, QFC or Bartells, moving out any time soon because they very successful. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any requirement that the entire first floor of the Type 7 buildings be commercial versus tuck -under or semi -underground parking. Mr. Chave did not recall any specific numbers. Councilmember Petso asked why amenity space was allowed to be in the setback area or six feet underground or six feet above ground. If the amenity space was in the setback area, she feared it may be close to the road. If the amenity space is underground or above ground, it may be nearly inaccessible and potentially invisible to passersby. She asked why that type of the amenity would be desired. Mr. Chave answered the reason for the six-foot requirement was to bring it down, close to the ground. In areas that have this type of amenity space such as plazas, there are frequently multiple levels, integrated seating, or a multi -functional plaza that serves as an outdoor amphitheater. The intent of the six feet was to make it pedestrian scale but also provide flexibility with regard to how the space was arranged. A requirement for ground floor would not provide for that type of varied areas. With regard to the setback, in the McDonald's example, Mr. Chave explained if there is a 12-foot front setback there is already a reserved area behind near the slope; adding the amenity space leaves very little site area. The area cannot be used for parking and a McDonald's is not going to have parking under the building which may rule out a use like a McDonald's. Many sites will be hard pressed to satisfy the amenity space requirement even if the amenity space is in the front. If a walkway is provided near the right-of-way, for example the new landscaping/walkway area in front of Walgreens, the walkway is wider than the usual 4-5 feet. Near Walgreens there is a 5-foot planting area and a 7-foot wide walkway. The right-of-way was only 10 feet; in order to construct the additional walkway, an easement was obtained from the property owner to expand the walkway. The sidewalk does not count as amenity space; they still have to provide the 15%. Councilmember Petso asked why language was added during this latest update that the buildings may not stand in isolation (page 193), noting it would seem to contribute to the side -lot to side -lot corridor effect down SR-104 and along 100th. Mr. Chave recalled that language was added to clarify that buildings need to be connected to the other buildings, sidewalks and walkways and not standing in isolation. Mr. Taraday Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 13 Packet Page 132 Packet Pg. 341 7.2.a recalled that was added to clarify other language. Councilmember Petso asked why that was desirable, to have buildings connected along the stretch. Mr. Chave clarified it was not buildings physically connected wall to wall, the intent was connectivity between the buildings such as walkways, pathways, connected drives, etc. He suggested clarifying the language if that was not clear. Council President Buckshnis said having the amenity space stratified is great, referring to downtown Lake Oswego. She asked whether there was an art aspect to the amenity space. Mr. Chave answered language could be included that encourages art as part of the amenity space or added to the score sheet. Council President Buckshnis relayed she understood the concept of not having buildings stand in isolation. Mr. Chave commented the concept will fail if there is a building in a large parking and no way to get to from that building to buildings nearby. Council President Buckshnis commented PCC was very successful, they have a 30 year lease but their building is isolated. Mr. Chave agreed it was somewhat isolated but they have areas in front. The intent with redevelopment is things like changes in the paving and trees planted along walkways to identify the location of the walkway. Businesses like PCC may be willing to partner with the City. Council President Buckshnis referred to the old fashioned sidewalks along SR-104. She asked whether the plan includes streetscapes with trees between the roadway and sidewalk to separate pedestrians from the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed yes, referring to the newer scheme in front of Walgreens and the multifamily development near Compass that separates pedestrians from the roadway. Councilmember Johnson commented last week the Council authorized the SR-104 which has a Westgate emphasis. She asked how the results of the Westgate Transportation Study will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the SR-104 study will occur late 2014/early 2015. By that time she assumed the code would be adopted along with the minor changes to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will then come back for review by the Planning Board, Transportation Committee and City Council and elements will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan via the Transportation Element or other plans such as the Streetscape Plan. Any potential code changes could also be adopted at that time. Councilmember Johnson commented it was important for the public to understand the two will eventually be connected. Councilmember Johnson commented the purpose and intent of the Westgate code calls for designing a landscape emphasis at the primary intersection of SR-104 & 100"'/9 h. Regardless of whether the existing 20-foot setback is retained or the proposed 12-foot setback adopted, she asked how the landscape emphasis will be achieved at the intersection. Mr. Chave commented the additional stepback which will result in the buildings being quite low. It may be worthwhile to add language regarding signature plaza spaces and water features in addition to landscaping. He agreed that was an important concept, visitors should have a feeling that they have arrived somewhere. Councilmember Johnson observed SR-104 has a natural environment notable for tall stands of evergreen trees. She asked how the green factors score sheet could be modified if there was a desire for greater emphasis on native trees. Mr. Chave responded one of the reasons for the protected slopes was due to the location of the large evergreens. An option would be to increase the points in the table for native vegetation. There is a significant bonus for protecting existing trees. Councilmember Johnson observed the bonus is 1 for bio-retention, .8 for protecting large existing trees and .1 for native. She suggested increasing the bonus for native trees. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the protected slopes and the emphasis on protecting trees in general; the bonus could be increased for protecting native species. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 14 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 342 7.2.a Councilmember Bloom observed the proposal was to allow 4 stories on the Bartell property with a 12- foot setback and an additional 5 feet in height would be allowed for 15,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed the building could not subdivided below 15,000 square feet of retail space for the life of building. She asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Chave said it would need to be provided upfront and the City sees all tenant improvements; any tenant improvement that would divide the space below 15,000 square feet would be denied. Mr. Taraday advised there would likely be something recorded against the title of any property taking advantage of the 15,000 square foot height bonus to create a permanent record on the title that so all future permit applications would be reviewed in light of that restriction. Councilmember Bloom observed commercial mixed use was allowed on all properties, other uses are sprinkled throughout and some quadrants only allow a portion of commercial mixed use for example QFC. There was concern expressed at her Town Hall meeting about a tunnel effect if every property were developed commercial mixed use and located 12 feet from the road. Mr. Chave said the idea of tunnel was the vertical space relative to the horizontal space. He referred to downtown where there is a 60-foot right-of-way, an average of 30 foot building on both sides with no setbacks. At Westgate there is an 80- foot right-of-way, 12-foot setback and 35 foot buildings with the potential of an additional 10-15 feet of height. He summarized in terms of scale to the right-of-way, the buildings in Westgate were similar to the overall proportion of downtown. He did not see that as having a tunnel effect. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was a reason for allowing commercial mixed use on every property when QFC and PCC were not likely to redevelop. Mr. Chave commented there was a misconception about what that means, pointing out QFC, PCC, McDonalds are commercial buildings although they are different shapes and sizes and if they had residential, they would be commercial mixed use. The idea is not one size fits all; commercial mixed use buildings will each look different, especially at the intersection where a stepback is required on a 4-story building. That combined with the design standards that require differentiating the ground floor from the upper floors, the appearance of separate sections even in a larger building, etc. that will interact to mitigate the fear of a tunnel look to the development. Councilmember Bloom commented Mr. Barber, who owns Bartells, was at the Town Hall meeting and was very concerned about the parking. Recalling a conversation she and Councilmember Petso had with Mr. Doherty, Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave, she asked whether the plan could start with the Bartells quadrant, work on that quadrant with Bartells, and do the other quadrants later once the SR-104 transportation study is completed since they are unlikely to redevelop. Ms. Hope responded anything is possible. Her understanding was there has been a deliberative process over 3-4 years to look at all 4 quadrants and how they affect each other. Although each quadrant could be considered separately, there is value in having a plan that works reasonably for all four quadrants and fine-tune it based on development that occurs in one of the quadrants. Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns expressed at the Town Hall meeting included traffic patterns, crossing SR-104 and 100'h, parking, ingress and egress, existing parking difficulties at QFC, and driving from QFC to PCC. She summarized pedestrian crossing is not convenient and that is something the SR- 104 study will consider. Ms. Hope responded some of the traffic issues have been studied and it may be that perception is not the same as what is actually proposed. The SR-104 analysis will be done within a few months and a lot of the concerns will be addressed. Councilmember Mesaros observed QFC's existing parking is 1/475 square feet. He inquired about PCC's parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet in the area immediately in front. Most commercial areas have blended/spill over parking. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about Goodwill's parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is shared parking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 15 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 343 7.2.a Councilmember Mesaros said he has heard canyon -effect mentioned and appreciated Mr. Chave's comparison of the right-of-way and buildings in Westgate to downtown. He asked whether the proposed zoning allow would allow 4-story buildings all along the corridor. Mr. Chave identified areas where 4, 3, and 2 story buildings would be allowed, noting it is not a uniform 4 stories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed heights up to 4 stories would be allowed at the cross of the quadrants at Edmonds Way and 100th/9th Mr. Chave identified 2 sides where 4-story buildings would be allowed and 2 sides where 3-story buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could potentially feel like canyon or tunnel in the center. Mr. Chave did not think so, particularly with the stepback at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the walkability of University Village, recalling the series of roads through University Village in the past. She asked the timeframe for making a decision on this plan. Mr. Chave envisioned Thanksgiving. He feared if a decision was delayed too long, it would take a backseat to the budget. Councilmember Peterson agreed it is not comfortable walk on the sidewalk on SR-104 but the concept via redevelopment in 20-30 years is to create internal walkability and a pedestrian friendly shopping and living experience. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the raised sidewalks in U-Village clearly identify the pedestrian areas. To Councilmember Bloom suggestion to do one quadrant at a time, Councilmember Peterson asked whether that would be a radical change to the Planning Board's recommendation and require restarting the public process and holding another public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered worst case scenario another public hearing would need to be held to ensure the GMA requirement for public participation was met. As a practical matter, because the other properties are unlikely to redevelop it may not matter whether a plan for the entire area is adopted and tweaked later or only a plan for the quadrant that is likely to develop sooner. Mr. Chave explained it was within the Council discretion to do a phased approach; however, it is unknown what the property owners outside the SR-104 & 100`h/9`h intersection are considering. The City is limited in what it can do to improve the flow and access until some redevelopment occurs. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there were grant funds available for overpasses between the quadrants. She referred to overpasses in Charlotte. Ms. Hope answered there are no grants available in Washington for that at this time. She agreed connectivity between the quadrants was an important element. Mr. Taraday suggested an overpass could be added to the amenity score sheet for a height bonus; it was more likely to occur that way rather than via grant funding. Council President Buckshnis asked if there was a percentage of residential in the plan. Ms. Hope answered for example residential cannot be on the first floor. Some property owners may prefer office space to commercial. Council President Buckshnis asked how Councilmembers should inform staff of additional incentives. Ms. Hope suggested sending information to staff to allow further research. Council President Buckshnis suggested adding art. Councilmember Johnson observed properties in the Westgate area have varied height limits depending on the location and topography. She asked the Planning Board's rationale for four stories in the QFC quadrant where there is flat topography. Mr. Chave displayed the height map, explaining there are no slopes in the QFC area but the cemetery separates the site from the surrounding area. Four stories were not allowed in the northeast due to its small size. Councilmember Johnson referred to the intersection analysis done by Jennifer Barnes in June 2013 for the SR-104/100'h intersection. She asked Mr. Chave to contrast that analysis with the new transportation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 16 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 344 7.2.a study of Westgate with regard to the forecast years, land use assumptions and the scope of work. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Barnes supplemented the analysis in the Transportation Plan where the planning horizon is 2025, analyzing overall volumes, turning movements, levels of service, signalization, etc. The 2015 update will expand the horizon to 2035. The UW's analysis assumed 4-5 stories; the impact of the current 2-4 story plan will be substantially less. Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Barnes' analysis was of the intersection; the transportation study will consider other components. Mr. Chave agreed, especially the SR-104 study. Councilmember Bloom referred page 7c regarding building not standing in isolation, specifically the last sentence that states, will achieve these connectivity and space -shaping goals more effectively by allowing such an exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking shall not be located between the building and the public street in any instance. She asked whether the eventual goal was no parking in front of QFC or PCC and for buildings to be located up to the street. Mr. Chave answered the intent is to form the spaces for parking and pedestrian circulation in the area internal to the quadrant by the placement of the buildings. The old strip mall model is parking lot in front with buildings set back with a sign identifying the tenants. When buildings are closer to the sidewalk, they provide a presence at the street front. Councilmember Bloom observed the goal of the plan was for all buildings to be close to the street. Mr. Chave answered all the buildings would not be at the street because the property configuration of some would not allow the buildings to be placed at the street. The general principle is to have the buildings at the street. If the buildings are not at the street, there will be limited ability to create interconnected spaces, aisles and driveways behind the buildings. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any accommodation made for bike trails. Mr. Chave answered they are not precluded, they could be provided as part of the connections but would be limited by space. The emphasis is along 9th because it is a challenge to provide a bike trail to the east. The north and east connectors in the City's existing bike plans are further north. The language regarding internal circulation could be expanded to emphasize bikes. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the plan regarding units less than 900 square feet, a percentage allowed to be over 1600 square and encouraging affordable housing. She emphasize that was not affordable housing; affordable housing was when a person paid no more than 1/3 of their income for housing. As it appeared there was interest in providing affordable housing at Westgate, she asked why actual affordable housing was not included in the plan. Mr. Chave explained the City did not have an affordable housing program; there was no zoning regulation to require affordable housing in a development. He and Ms. Hope have discussed developing that type of program but it would take a couple years including working with the Housing Authority and the new Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) of Snohomish County. If such a program were developed, it could be added to the Westgate plan; another potential location is nodes on Hwy 99 that are close to transit. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson referred to the proposal to maintain 15,000 square feet for the life of a building and observed that would preclude the old Albertsons from being dividing to provide space for a pet store as well as prohibit the former Safeway from being developed as Salish Crossing. She questioned whether that was a good idea. Mr. Chave answered the developer would have to be seeking the fourth story for that requirement to be imposed. Second, it would only require 15,000 square feet; for example if the old Albertsons had 20,000 square feet, they could designate 15,000 for PCC and the remainder for other stores. Mayor Earling suggested for future study session discussions, staff be seated at the table. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 17 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 345 7.2.a Councilmember Petso advised she would email staff with a number of requests for future presentations. She suggested deleting the provision that allow using a portion of the sidewalk in the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, etc. Although currently allowed downtown, it would not make sense on SR-104. Council President Buckshnis commented it may not be appropriate on SR-104 but it could be appropriate in other areas in Westgate. Councilmember Petso suggested a requirement that the first floor be devoted to retail and not parking. As examples she referred to the Compass Apartments where parking is provided in back under the units and a building in Shoreline near Costco where there most of the ground floor is parking. She feared turning a vibrant business district into parking holding up residential. Council President Buckshnis referred to the parking configuration allowed downtown. Councilmember Petso answered there is already a walkable pedestrian area downtown. She relayed comments about why the City wants to create a second walkable pedestrian area. She wanted to ensure Westgate retained legitimate commercial uses on the first floor. Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking on 9th in front of the cemetery, assuming it was employee parking. She asked whether consideration had been given to offsite parking for employees to better accommodate customer parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is also commuter parking for people taking the bus because there are no time limits on the parking in that area. Council President Buckshnis clarified smaller units can be affordable housing. She envisioned a walkable neighborhood with residential away from SR-104. Councilmember Bloom pointed out affordable housing has a specific definition, there is no guarantee a 900 square foot unit is affordable. She agreed with Council President Buckshnis' suggestion to have residential setback from SR-104 but that was not what this plan proposed. The plan allows commercial mixed use everywhere and only one of the residential uses, rowhouses, was strictly residential; everything else is mixed use including the live -work. She preferred to designate where residential is allowed and that it be setback and private. This plan allows buildings up to 4 stories of mixed use at the Bartell and QFC mixed use with 3 stories of residential and 1 floor of commercial and parking to accommodate the uses. Council President Buckshnis did not support designating where specific building types could be located. Councilmember Peterson referred to the presentation by Mark Smith, AHA, who pointed out there are a number of striations to affordable housing including what the private sector provides and what the City could provide via an affordable housing program. Mr. Smith indicated Edmonds is woefully inadequate in both regards; the affordable housing the private sector provides is typically smaller units. Encouraging smaller units in Westgate and throughout the City is an excellent way for the private sector to provide affordable housing. If housing was restricted to specific areas such as rowhouses that are private, it automatically increases the footprint and the price and would eliminate the sector of affordable housing that can be provided by the private sector. The more the location of housing is restricted, the worse the opportunity for providing any type of affordable housing. This type of development is needed throughout the City; there are opportunities in Westgate, downtown, Hwy 99 and Five Corners. Councilmember Petso agreed small units are not affordable housing and recalled Mr. Smith saying that. There may be less construction costs but the smaller size does not make them affordable housing particularly for families who cannot live in a small unit. She relayed the public wants to identify the places at Westgate where they are willing to accept taller building and residential units and not interfere with other areas at Westgate; that is not what this plan does. Due to the late hour, this item was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2014 Page 18 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 346 7.2.a He provided the following comparison: enefit Standard Cigna Li and AD&D $0.195 and $0.045 $0.18 and $0.022 Cigna matching rate of $0.29 per unit for dependents MEBT ' e $13.50 ($75k benefit) $13.94 (100k benefit) Cigna matching rate of $0.54 for disabled lives Long Term Di bility $0.595 $0.49 Total Cost Differential -11.9% ($15,713) Councilmember Petso rel ed her understanding that the Cigna plan provides greater benefits, less cost and a three year rate guarant there are no hidden fees or fine print. Mr. Robertson agreed it seemed too good to be true. Typically whe a firm has a monopoly and no competition, their fees are higher. The person who designed and programffied the policy that most municipalities in Washington participate in at Standard, left Standard and went to Cilva. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSkINIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO FORWARD THE EM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED (4-0). (Councilmem=VIOL on was not present for the vote.) 5. PROCLAMATION FOR DOMESTIC CE AWARENESS MONTH — YWCA WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 2014 as omestic Violence Awareness Month and the third week of October as YWCA Week Without Violence. Mary Ann Dillon, Senior Regional Director, YWCA Snohomish Nabt on behalf of the YWCA, thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for raising awareness domestic violence via the proclamation. She noted there were several members of the YWCA audience as well as Dr. Suzanne Poppema, President, Zonta Club of Everett. Zonta is a women's or nization that works on many women's issues including eliminating human trafficking locally, nationally a internationally. Ms. Dillon explained recent incidents involving NFL players and domestic violence has ut the spotlight on the problem and has men and women participating in important dialogue about dom tic violence. There are great opportunities to keep the conversation going and make systemic changes. She mmented a week without violence would be 7 days, 168 hours, 10,080 minutes free of domestic violenc , sexual assault, early childhood enforced marriages, etc. She thanked the Council and Mayor for eir commitment to ending violence and the making community safer for all. 12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Council President Buckshnis recalled in a test of the study session format a couple weeks ago the Council used a round robin, three question format. She asked for Councilmembers' input regarding how study sessions should be run, the configuration, whether to have a time limit on questions, a round robin with a limit on the number of questions, etc., noting the microphones needed to be improved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers take turns asking questions to ensure everyone is able to participate. She noted typically the first person asks multiple questions. She preferred Councilmembers ask one question at a time unless there was a follow-up or clarification question. Councilmember Petso disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Her understanding of a study session format was to promote interactive discussions in a less structured atmosphere. At the study Attachment 5 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 347 session regarding Westgate, the meeting included questions in a much more structured format than when Councilmembers are seated at the dais and there no discussion. She envisioned a less formal study session would provide opportunity for more dialogue and discussion. Council President Buckshnis commented there was discussion at the end of the study session regarding Westgate. The length of the agenda that evening also limited the amount of discussion regarding Westgate. She favored the round robin format because it allowed each person to speak. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the more informal setting with Councilmembers seated at the table; her preference was to allow all Councilmembers to ask questions and participate in the process versus one Councilmember with a lot of questions monopolizing the subject matter. Councilmember Peterson said he also likes the informal nature of sitting at a table but he has heard from citizens who watch the Council meetings that they are not able to engage due to the poor sound quality and the camera angles. The Council needs to balance what makes them comfortable with the public's ability to engage in the discussion. The technology is not currently set up to accommodate the format with Councilmembers seated at the table. He suggested gathering feedback from people who watch the Council meetings. Councilmember Johnson said it was beneficial to have rules for study sessions; the Council can make them up as they go or rely on Roberts Rules of Order although Roberts Rules may be too restrictive. She suggested either establishing a time limit or a number of questions. She suggested playing with the table layout, recalling the original configuration did not have Councilmembers in a line and allowed them to see each other. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem with the current configuration is some Councilmembers have their backs to the audience. Councilmember Johnson said she can see the screen better from the table; it is nearly impossible to see the screen when seated at the dais. She noted it would be helpful to provide Councilmembers with presentation materials. Councilmember Petso noted she could see the screen better from the dais than from the table. Council President Buckshnis summarized for future study sessions: • Work on a different table configuration • Round robin with 1-2 questions each Council President Buckshnis asked whether Councilmembers wanted discussion after each question. Councilmember Petso commented it depends on the issue. For Westgate, it may have been more productive to allow discussion after each question was raised. For items on tonight's agenda that previously would have been handled by committee, few questions arose. She summarized less formality would be preferable. Councilmember Johnson asked whether Councilmembers wanted to start meetings at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. She preferred all the meetings start at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said either 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. was acceptable. With regard to the number of questions, she said to drive democracy the number of questions cannot be limited. She suggested a Councilmember who had a number of questions could continue to ask questions after other Councilmember's questions had been answered. Council President Buckshnis commented she was surprised by the 6:30 p.m. start time tonight. She preferred to start meeting at 7:00 p.m. because that was what citizens are used to. Unless there were Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 348 7.2.a objections, she will continue with a 7:00 p.m. start time and, when necessary, hold executive sessions prior to Council meetings. Mayor Earling commented staff s understanding was study sessions would start at 6:00 p.m., if there was an executive session, the meeting would start at 6:00 p.m., followed by the executive session and convene the study session at the conclusion of the executive session. There may be an advantage to starting the study session earlier; for example, tonight's agenda was a 4-hour meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested all Council meetings could start at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. to avoid confusion. Mayor Earling summarized Council President Buckshnis will take the Council's comments and present a recommendation at the next study session. PRESENTATION REGARDING FIRE DISTRICT 1 Mayo Earling explained the invoice was provided at an initial meeting with Fire District 1 (FD1) on August Several subsequent meetings have been held including a meeting with Brier's Mayor, SN Mountlake errace's City Manager and himself where it was agreed the three cities' Finance Directors would meet to iscuss concerns with the billing. Following that meeting the Finance Directors met with FD1's Finance ' ector. During these meetings, further information has been requested from FD1. He met with Chief Wi is and Commissioner Chan last Friday where it was agreed the timing and the way the information regar the increase was presented was handled poorly by FD 1. It was also agreed to have further discussion on ' sues of concern to Edmonds and likely all three cities. Following tonight's presentatio and discussion, there will be a follow-up meeting this week with the three cities' Finance Directors, B ' is Mayor, Mountlake Terrace's City Manager and him. He will be seeking a meeting with the three citie and FD 1 late this week or early next week. He summarized there has been a good dialogue to this point. Fire District 1 Chief Ed Widdis commented X provided this same presentation to Mountlake Terrace, illustrating the benefits of contracting with FD The primary reasons Edmonds contracted with FD 1 were: • More efficiencies o A 12-station fire department o A larger group of employees to pool from o More specialized equipment o More resources for the community o Re -classed the City fire service from a Class 4 to Class 3 Save Money (He displayed the following spreadsheets): o City Revenue — Edmonds Fire (2010-2016) o Edmonds Fire Budget (2010-2016) o Contract Cost ■ Edmonds Fire Revenue Loss (Woodway and Esperance Contracts) ■ Costs Transferred to District o Estimated 5-year outlook (2010-2014) ■ Estimated savings via contracting : $5.8 million ■ Actual 5 year savings: $6 million Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 349 7.2.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Spellman will no longer videotape Council meetings. Council President Buckshnis advised that was correct at this time. Her contract will be adjusted to reflect she will no longer videotape Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some Councilmembers are interested in determining how many hours would be needed for legislative aid type work. Councilmember Petso commented she had not heard of people sharing a legislative assistant and the concept seems very odd. For example, one Councilmember may ask the aid to research what cities have done to help acquire parks; and another Councilmember may ask him/her to research what cities are doing to sell off surplus parks. She was hesitant to have a single, shared legislative assistant among seven people. 12. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling advised this would be delayed to a future meeting. 13. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS This item was rescheduled to a future meeting via action taken at the conclusion of Agenda Item 9. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling advised Rick Schaefer, the Principle at Tetra Tech, was scheduled to make a presentation at the November 28 meeting. His father passed away so his presentation has been rescheduled to November 25. Mayor Earling thanked Council and staff who attended the Five Corners ribbon cutting last week. Staff and elected officials have endured a lot of bullets as that project moved along. Early reports, including some from people who were opposed to the roundabout, have been positive. Mayor Earling invited the public to the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza at 11 a.m. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis advised she is working on the extended agenda. The Council will not be meeting on December 23 or 30. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Attachment 6 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 10, 2014 Page 19 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 350 7.2.a MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Edmonds City Code Updates STAFF PRESENT: At Compaan, Chief of Police Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carrie Hite, HR Reporting Director Councilmember Bloom requested clarification on Item D. Even though this is the current language, she wanted to clarify the current practice. She would like to amend this to say "Council President approves travel and training for Councilmembers and Boards and Commissions." Councilmember Peterson agreed. This will be amended, and forwarded to City Council for approval on the consent agenda. 2. Robert's Rules Jeff recalled that council agreed to adopt Roberts Rules in its entirety, and use a shortened version. He also suggested that we may want to get training through Jurassic Parliament or perhaps MRSC. There are also self study options that could be purchased for Council library. We agreed to schedule training to be put on agenda for a work session. Suggest someone from MRSC be asked to present. 3. Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 — Marijuana The Committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 relating to controlled substances, Paraphernalia, poisons and toxic fumes. The Committee forwarded the ordinance to City Council to place on the Consent Agenda with an approval recommendation. 4. Animals Roaming at Large With Al Compaan and animal control officer, Debbie Dawson, discussed adding "with the exclusion of licensed, spayed and neutered cats" to the animals roaming at large ordinance. Agreed that Debbie Dawson wilt bring information related to licensing of cats to next Public Safety/Personnel Committee meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Language to Include on Agendas Related to Public Comment Agreed to adopt Frank Yamamoto's suggested language into the Council Meeting Procedures on the city website B. Public Comment Bruce Witenberg: Re: questions at end of committee meeting- if not allowing, articulate what has been the problem in the past. Re: Adoption of Roberts' rules. Pointed out that there is a way to reconsider a vote. Can be brought back by someone on the prevailing side of the issue. Don't know about the time frame. Suggests training be held in council chambers so public can become educated about new rules as well. Roger Hertrich: Mr. Hertrich agreed with every one of Mr. Witenberg points, Re: roaming at large, suggested starting with a simple change such as licensing of cats. Evaluate the results. Re: Roberts' rules- Don't feel adoption of full rules is necessary. Like casual aspect of meeting, don't get too sticky about procedure. Re: Boards and commissions- choice of Mayor, sometimes in conflict with Council. Suggests applications be available to all (Council and Mayor) prior to final selection - Council members Peterson and Bloom explained to Mr. Wittenberg that it was not our intention to eliminate the option of citizens asking questions at a committee meeting. The intent was that the council members at the meeting would ask staff to answer the question(s), if the council member felt it was appropriate to do so. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Attachment 7 - 2 pages Public Safety and Personnel Committee February 12, 2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 133 Packet Pg. 351 7.2.a Proposed language to include on City Council Committee Meeting Agenda: Council President Petso and Councilmember Fralev-Monillas The City Council committee mectings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments during the audience comments portion of the meeting. Councilmember Yamamoto The City Council committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person. Councilmember BLIckshnis The City Council committee mectings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting. These comments can include questions and answers. Attachment 7, page 2 acket Page 134 Packet Pg. 352 7.2.a Engineer Rob English said he had hoped to bring the bid results to Council but an addendum was issue t extended the bid opening to Thursday. This project is storm drainage improvements on 105`h and 1061}i A es as they intersect 228t1i in southwest Edmonds. If good bid results are received, he recommended shar them with Council and scheduling approval on the Consent Agenda. If bid results are higher than expecte resentation and any budget adjustment will be scheduled on the Council's July 7 agenda. Staff wants to ma' in the schedule to ensure the project is completed before fall rains. He said feedback has indicated the engin estimates may be low; that will be determined when bids are opened on Thursday. 10. City Engineer Rob English reported this project began in August 2014 an luded installation of over 7,000 lineal feet of new pipe as part of the 2014 Watermain Replacement Progra well as 2 pressure reducing stations. The bid award was $1,474,497; the final paid amount of $1,582,025 in ed 4 changes orders. 11. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS Councilmember Buckshnis reported study sessions began in August 2014 as a pilot project. Early in the process study sessions were more interactive with tables arranged so that Councilmembers faced each other; it is now arranged very similar to the dais. Early study sessions also included round robin discussion which is not done anymore. There are no time constraints on items and meetings are now 3-4 hours every Tuesday. She recalled the consultant Jim Reid suggested the study session format so that the Council could be more informal. Councilmember Bloom felt this was an experiment that had run its course and the Council should return to committees with a few changes. She recalled the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee had the most agenda items (9.5 per month), followed by Finance Committee and Personnel & Public Safety Committee. The Council now spends an inordinate amount of time on Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee issues that could have been addressed and screened in a committee meeting. She recalled the Council discussed a three touch rule before an issue came to Council for a decision; now some issues come to the Council once before they are scheduled on the Consent Agenda. She found the study sessions much less efficient and as Mr. Hall stated, study sessions do not allow for conversation with citizens which the committee meetings allowed. Committee chairs had the leeway to allow discussion versus the three minute audience comment. The committee format allowed her to keep in touch with citizens who were interested in specific issues and she felt losing that was damaging to the process. She was ready to return to committees with one change, add parks issues the Personnel & Public Safety Committee. She recalled suggesting that to Ms. Hite who indicated that could potentially work. Councilmember Petso observed with the two Councilmembers who have spoken and two Councilmembers who did not support changing from committee meetings to study sessions, there will be enough Council support to restore committees. She was happy to change to committee meetings as soon as next week. She suggested redistributing the workload among committees as follows: Public Works Committee, Finance & Human Resources Committee, and Planning, Parks & Public Safety Committee. She suggested the Council take action next week. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas commented although there have been complaints about the number of touches the Council has on items, a three touch rule was never approved by the Council although she has Attachment 8 Packet Page 134 Packet Pg. 353 7.2.a pursued that with the assistance of Mr. James. She liked the transparency and accountability to citizens in a study session format. Having committee meetings in three different rooms means three groups of Councilmembers make decisions in individual areas that are then forwarded to Council and Councilmembers never hear how the decision to approve an item was formulated. Conversely when study sessions are televised, citizens can observe the discussion which is very transparent. Committee meetings were not televised although minutes were taken. She relayed citizens like to hear the Council discussions versus "behind the door decisions" made at committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas observed another issue seems to be Councilmembers' interest in creating an opportunity for citizen participation. In her early years on the Council, committee were intended for discussion between Council and staff. Committee meetings were then expanded to allow citizens three minutes to make comments and then later expanded to allow citizen participate in the meeting. She did not feel that was a Council committee but rather a work committee of Councilmembers and citizens. Unfortunately, only certain citizens feel welcome enough to participate in that process. Citizens can contact Councilmembers to discuss issues one-on-one or via email. Committees were intended to be an opportunity for Council to have discussion with staff. If citizens participate in the discussion, that is not a Council committee. Councilmember Buckshnis said in speaking to a lot of citizens, they hate the microphone issue at study sessions but do like the transparency. She agreed the Council never adopted a three touch rule. She noted some Councilmember assimilate things quicker than others; she liked the committee format because although she still skimmed and scanned the materials, she counted on other Councilmembers to review the items in detail. She recalled due to a lack of trust by some Councilmembers, some items were forwarded to the full Council or Councilmembers pulled items from the Consent Agenda. She recommended establishing some ground rules related to that. She liked getting home by 8:00 p.m. on one Tuesday of the month. She suggested two committees, Public Works, Parks & Planning Committee and Finance & Human Resources with three Councilmembers on each. She summarized it was cumbersome and burdensome to have meetings that last until 10:00 p.m. every Tuesday. Councilmember Mesaros commented committees can make the Council more efficient but they do require a lot of trust. If the Council returns to committees, Councilmembers have to trust that items scheduled on the Consent Agenda have been reviewed. He suggested establishing a written outline/framework for how committees operate but afford the committee chair the opportunity to create some their own rules based on the Councilmembers serving on the committee. Council President Pro Tern Johnson did not like the committee system other than Councilmembers were able to leave early one Tuesday per month. The study session is a more modern and efficient way for the staff and Council to do their homework. One of the advantages is everyone hears the same thing at the same time. In an effort to keep up with what the committees were doing, she read the minutes, etc. so it was actually more time consuming for her. If a topic is introduced/discussed at a study session and the decision made at a business meeting, Councilmembers have an opportunity for discussion and to ask questions a week in advance. Otherwise items are placed on the Consent Agenda that Councilmembers have not previously discussed or items are scheduled for immediate action at a business meeting. In her experience working in other jurisdiction, it was standard practice for the Council to meet around a conference table without cameras and without as much exposure as the current study sessions. She was comfortable with the study session format because it was important for people to see the whole process. However, she also receives a lot of complaints about the microphones which she recommended be improved. She summarized she liked the study session format and although there was room for improvement and the committee system was not very effective for her. The Council can always meet in subcommittees if necessary. Packet Page 134 Packet Pg. 354 7.2.a Councilmember Nelson said because of his short time on the Council, he had not participated in Council committee meetings. He was conflicted because the Council seemed to be just moving from the dais to the floor and sitting in the same way which did not enhance dialogue among Councilmembers. He was concerned with returning to a format that was not transparent. He suggested a hybrid format that fostered more dialogue but allowed citizens to see committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said action will be on the agenda at the Council's next meeting. To Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas' assertion that decisions were made behind closed doors, Councilmember Bloom clarified the only decisions made in committee meetings were whether put on an item on the Consent Agenda or bring it to full Council for discussion. Councilmembers had the opportunity to pull an item from the Consent Agenda for questions. At the Council retreat, a long list of items were identified; Councilmembers and staff met behind closed doors with no documentation or announcement to the public because there were a lot of issues that needed fuller exploration. She felt a good portion of those items could have been discussed within the committee format. Eliminating committees has made the process less transparent and resulted in the need for the subcommittees. She felt the loss of a connection to citizens who want an opportunity to discuss something that is important to them. Prior to eliminating committee meetings, the Council held a work session once a month where no decisions were made and there was more opportunity to discuss topics. She suggested dividing the Council into two committees and alternate filming them each month. Councilmember Petso suggested in addition to choosing a committee format and workload allocation, consideration also be given to the rules. There has been difficulty in the past with whether these are Council or citizen committees. It is important to her that they remain Council committees because Councilmembers are elected whereas no one voted for the citizens who are providing input. She suggested citizen be allowed to provide three minutes of public comment at the end of the committee meeting and committee members have the ability to suspend the rules on a particular issue if it was deemed profitable and relevant to have a greater level of citizen interaction. She did not want to return to the days when citizens were arguing with staff during committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said anytime citizens do not have the opportunity to view and hear the Council's discussion, that is behind closed doors. She objected to the assertion that the work groups formed as a result of the retreat met behind closed doors. The retreat was formatted differently this year and because so many issues were identified, the only way to reach a conclusion was to form work groups. The work groups were not secret meetings; they were subcommittees with a couple of Councilmembers and a couple staff to review issues. Council President Pro Tem Johnson said part of her opinion was based on participating on subcommittees that did not work and were not part of the overall public decision making process. She has served on all three with different Councilmembers. She experienced improper behavior her first year; people who disrupted the discussion between Councilmembers and staff, open discussion with citizens as part of the discussion group and lobbying from specific elected officials and staff who were not part the committee. She was very uncomfortable with that and it helped shape her opinion that study sessions were a better process. In response to Council President Johnson's observations, Councilmember Mesaros said that was structure problem not a committee problem, thus the need for a framework for how committees operate. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to her report re allinger/McAleer Work Group that is working with WRIA 8 on funding. Packet Page 134 Packet Pg. 355 7.2.b ORDINANCE NO.4004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. WHEREAS, the city council would like to formalize its practice of having work sessions with the full council rather than three different committees each comprised of two councilmembers; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that work sessions provide greater transparency by allowing the entire meeting to be broadcast on television and streamed online; and WHEREAS, work sessions afford an opportunity for the entire council to discuss most items before they are forwarded to the consent calendar for final action; and WHEREAS, in the course of making these amendments, the city council sees fit to make other housekeeping amendments to the code sections being amended below; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.04.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Regular public meeting time and days," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in ): Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on each Tuesday of every month throughout the year in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, at 7:00 p.m. The second and fourth Tuesdays of every month are hereby designated as work meetings, The city council does not meet on the fifth Tuesday of a month unless a special meeting is called. Packet Pg. 356 7.2.b Council meetings shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. doptiO14 Of €� Section 2. Section 1.02.031 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Council president," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in The council president shall be elected for a one-year term* by the city council at the first council meeting of each year and shall serve until his or her successor is elected at the first council meeting of the next year. A. At the same time, the city council shall elect a council president pro tempore who shall serve in the absence of the council president. In the event that both the council president and president pro tempore are unavailable, the council president shall appoint a member of the council to fulfill his/her duties while both are unavailable. B. In addition to any other duties assigned by the city council, the council president shall have the following responsibilities: Packet Pg. 357 7.2.b 1. Assign members of the city council as members and liaisons to boards. conunissions, and committees. , and otherwise supervise the committee system; 2. Formulate and prepare the agenda for city council meetings; and 3. Supervise and direct the activities of any staff whose }primary responsibility_is to support the city councils ems. C. In addition to the salary as a member of the city council, the council president shall be entitled to receive ._ . io 4w additional compensation sal not to exceed $200.00 per month. i Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CLERK, SCOTT P SEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Pg. 358 7.2.b OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. July 24, 2015 July 28, 2015 August 2, 2015 August 7, 2015 4004 Packet Pg. 359 7.2.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4004 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 28th day of July, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4004. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 29th day of July, 2015. CI RK, S1,-�0TTZ&S8ffY 5 Packet Pg. 360 7.2.b Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH648629 ORDINANCE 4002-4004 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/02/2015 and ending on 08/02/2015 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $46.44. and yysworn bef a me on t is f Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOTT PASSEY DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 RECEIVED AUG 07 HJ EDMONDS CITY CLERK Packet Pg. 361 7.2.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE S of In City of Edmonds, Washington On The 281h day 01 July, 2016, the Clly Council of the City of Edmonds, passed the fol[owl rig Ordinances. Summaries of the ccnierLt of said ordinances consisting of titles ara provided as follows: ORDINANCE NO.4002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3998 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE NO.4003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE 2015 UPDATE TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE NO.4004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS The full text of these Ordinances will be mailed upon request. DATED this 29th day of Ju , 2015. C Y CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY ublished: August 2, 2015. EDH64862I— Ct LIE a Packet Pg. 362 7.2.c EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT DRAFT MINUTES January 20 — 21, 2017 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 12:10 p.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017 by Council President Mesaros in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Friday, January 20 Friday, January 20 Dave Earling, Mayor Al Compaan, Police Chief Thomas Mesaros, Council President Phil Williams, Public Works Director Michael Nelson, Councilmember (arrived 12:31 p.m.) Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Shane Hope, Development Services Director Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Scott James, Finance Director Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Friday, January 20 Jeannie Dines, Recorder Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Friday, January 20 Bruce Witenberg 1. WELCOME, OPENING COMMENTS AND LUNCH Council President Mesaros advised Councilmember Johnson and Fraley-Monillas were both ill. He thanked those in attendance, explaining he wanted to hold the retreat in January rather than March as it has in previous years in order to get an early start on the year. 2. GOAL FOR THE RETREAT: SETTING OUR CALENDAR FOR 2017 Council President Mesaros the goal is setting the calendar for 2017, a high-level discussion, not resolving all the topics but identifying the processes to resolve as many as possible during 2017. 3. COUNCIL OPERATIONS DURING 2017 a. Discuss Weekly Meeting Format Council President Mesaros explained, by code, the Council holds a business meeting the first and third Tuesdays and study meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays. Recent practice has been to mix business and study topics. He proposed changing the code to follow practice as well as to consider how to incorporate committees into that practice. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 363 7.2.c b. Discuss Potential Council Committees Councilmembers and staff discussed the format of past committee meetings and options for committees and meeting times. • Past practice: Second Tuesday, 6:00 p.m., three committees meet at the same time in different locations in Public Safety building, no cameras, just Councilmembers, staff and occasionally members of the public, one Councilmember appointed chair, committee reports on Tuesday following committee meeting • Options: o Meet 2nd and fourth Tuesdays at 6:30 p.m. for an hour followed by regular Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. o Meet on a day other Tuesday, three Councilmembers on each committee, other Councilmembers able to attend when there is a compelling subject Council and staff comments/suggestions included: • Items proceed more rapidly at Council meetings when first vetted by a committee • Concern with blending business and study sessions • Favor committee meetings, assuming Councilmembers trust each other • Have to trust Councilmembers on committees • Support trying committees. Not sure how an hour meeting before Council meeting followed by Council meeting would work • Perception of a lack of transparency with no camera, need consistent, agreed -upon rules regarding how committee meetings run • In the past, the public attended committee meetings and were able to provide comment. • Favor holding committee meetings on different nights of the week. Past practice of committee meetings taking place at the same time made it difficult for Councilmembers to attend more than one • Like committee concept, biggest issue from staff perspective is potential delay caused by waiting to go to a committee meeting before getting on a Council agenda. Could be addressed by committees meeting twice a month or combined business/study session Council meeting • If meetings are not designated "business" or "study session," could schedule items on any agenda • Pros and cons to all ideas. Good thing about committee structure was informal, intimate setting, opportunity to get more information out, opportunity for public to participate. Disadvantage was once a month and requirement that items had to go to committee first which could result in significant delay. • Could identify items that do not need committee review before going to Council. No issue with all committees meeting on the same night, very efficient • Efficient to have committees on same night, in the past sometimes combined committees if topic of interest to all • Committees eliminated because, a) not working and many items that went to committee were followed by presentation to Council, and b) three touch rule. If committees work like they are intended, two Councilmembers vet an issue and it is scheduled on Consent, committee members request additional information, or occasionally items go to full Council • Some topics could go to all three committees to get a reaction/input from more Councilmember prior to presentation to full Council • 80% of items can go from committee agenda to consent agenda • Acknowledge some items require full Council presentation/discussion • Needs to be trust not just among Councilmembers but between Councilmembers and staff • The topics in Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee often overlap • Sensitive issues at Human Resources level, avoid getting into the weeds • Committees could potentially reduce the number and length of executive sessions • Do not support three touch rule Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 364 7.2.c • Maintain flexibility to schedule items on Council agenda without prior committee review (fast track) • Combine three committees into two, more thorough vetting with more Councilmembers • Level of trust between Councilmembers and between Councilmember and staff is much better now • Potential Committees: o Finance o Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee o Public Safety & Human Resources • Format and frequency of committee meetings o Once a month, retain ability to fast track items • Advantage of committees is can tackle longer range things and affords directors venue to vet things • Prefer to have all committee meetings on the same night • Do not want Council meeting to follow committee meeting • Maintain ability to form task forces and subcommittees as necessary Consensus: Committees are worthwhile. Form three committees (potentially Finance; Parks, Planning & Public Works & Public Safety & HR). Council President Mesaros work with Mayor Earling, Mr. Passey and Mr. Taraday to determine the necessary legislation. C. Utilization of Legislative Executive Assistant to City Council Council President Mesaros asked Council their expectation of the Legislative Assistant position: • Handle basic admin tasks • Legislative and legal research • Ensure agenda memo uploaded for meeting • Take complaints from citizens • Conduit of information • Drafting legislation • Customer service • Outreach and identify Council Student Representative • Establish tracking mechanism for individual Councilmember items and full Council items • Councilmembers' expectations versus job description (half admin/half legislative) • Legal research topics with critical mass can be shifted to City Attorney • Items that begin with a Councilmember and become full Council items, initial Councilmember should still be the lead Mr. Pierce relayed his expectations: • Standardized procedure for requests • Management of expectations regarding how long a task will take, what can be done in the time available • He offered to provide a legislative bulletin/newsletter to keep Councilmembers apprised d. Working Together as a Council How does Council work together as a group? Council comments included: • When campaigning, heard about need for more respect, trust and collaboration on Council • Observing Council last year and this year, it's better but have a way to go • Individually elected but are a team to make the City a better place to live, focus on that • This is a new era • Lack of communication, conflicts occurred • Elected have own constituents and can agree to disagree Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 365 7.2.c • If a Councilmember has an issue, go to the Council President • Shocked to learn how many rules there related to abiding by parliamentary procedures • Parliamentary procedures affect ability to ask questions, discuss • Be sensitive to and allow ample time to get Councilmembers' questions answered • Establish customary way for getting questions asked/answered and motion made • Respect is earned, trust can be lost and takes while to build it back, but always willing to collaborate • Boards and commissions have likeminded people, Councilmembers have differences • Roberts Rules provide structure when things get heated • Provide advance notice of items such as Safe City Resolution, avoid rushed, orchestrated processes • Respect the process • Good process is collaborative, encourages trust and respect • No surprises • Be careful how use emails to communicate with Councilmembers and staff. When have interpersonal problems, call or meet in person e. Potential Community Proiects Councilmember Tibbott recalled meeting several times with the Executive Director of the Foundation for Edmonds School District who talked about bringing together work parties to box up food for weekend meals. He thought something like that might be fun for the Council or there could be other things the Council could do together such as pulling invasive weeds at Edmonds Marsh. Council and staff suggestions for projects included: • Working with the homeless, gathering things they need • Tree Board Arbor Day celebration: Hutt Park Ivy Pull, April 22 • Mayor's Climate Control Committee, Taming Bigfoot (reduce carbon footprint) • Volunteer Picnic • Invite citizens and staff to participate • Cleaning headstones at the cemetery Consensus: Council President Mesaros and Councilmember Tibbott will develop a proposal and schedule a project 2-3 times/year. 4. PROJECTS WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND/OR RESOLVE DURING 2017 (IN RANDOM ORDER). DISCUSSION AND PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING TOPICS: a. Crumb Rubber Council President Mesaros Council relayed the moratorium the Council established expires July 11, 2017. Ms. Hite has provided information regarding an overseas study that was completed recently and an update on the federal process and Councilmember Teitzel distributed the Department of Health study. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested discussing whether to wait until the EPA releases their findings which will not happen by July 11, 2017. If the Council is interested in waiting until the EPA concludes its work, the moratorium could be extended. If the Council takes no action, the moratorium expires on July 11, 2017. Consensus: Existing Crumb Rubber Subcommittee report to Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee who will make recommendation to Council. b. Sign Code Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 366 7.2.c Development Services Director Shane Hope reported potential amendments are being developed for review and public hearing by the Planning Board who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The deadline for the 120-day suspension on pedestrian sign is March 7, 2017. She did not think a decision could be made by the Council by then. Conclusion: In progress, staff does not need further direction from Council regarding the sign code. C. Development Code Update Ms. Hope reported the process of updating the Development Code is proceeding; the sign code, the CAO, Hwy 99 Subarea Plan and roundabout area zoning are related to the Development Code update. Council and staff comments/suggestions included: • Needs to have flexibility in the code • Flexibility can lead to contention, slippery slope • The way the City has developed, annexations, etc. streets cannot be used to determine distances, need flexibility to recognize that • When began code update, held interviews with Councilmember and Planning Board Members — some want certainty and others want flexibility • Effects of flexibility last into the future • Flexibility at director level • It is a balance that incudes common sense and flexibility • Development Code requires constant finetuning • Several more parts can be completed this year but update will not be finished this year • Needs to be some discretion, but some sore spots/questionable issues • When make presentation on Development Code Update, identify sections that have been completed Conclusion: Parts of the development code update that can be accomplished in 2017 include: ➢ Process/procedures ➢ Sign code ➢ Critical area updates ➢ Subdivisions ➢ Multi family design standards d. TBD integration into Council Activities and Agendas Council President Mesaros relayed the Council agreed to take over the duties of the TBD Board. Mr. Williams explained the TBD fee is a local license fee collected by the City that can be spent on anything the RCW identifies as eligible transportation expenses. The State authorized cities/counties to increase the fee from $20 to $40 without a public vote. An increase from $20 to $40 would raise $680,000/year that could be used for capital preservation and/or improvements. Discussion followed regarding revenue opportunities, years the Council has not raised property taxes the allowable 1%/year, philosophy/policy regarding how to raise revenues for transportation projects, councilmanic increases versus increases that require a public vote, and revenue options under the TBD statute that require a public vote. Consensus: Council President Mesaros and Mr. James discuss and schedule presentation to Council possibly in April regarding revenue opportunities including ones the City has taken advantage of and ones it has not, etc. Discussion by Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and Finance Committee first to identify options. e. FD1 Agreement and Potential Regional Fire Authority Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 367 7.2.c Council President Mesaros relayed the Interlocal Agreement with FD 1 is on the extended agenda for next week. Mayor Earling reported he was briefed today by the Interim FD1/Lynnwood Fire Chief Brad Reading. Discussion followed regarding past discussions regarding the formation of an RFA, Lynnwood/FD1 RFA open house and options being considered for a future ballot, concern with relinquishing authority on taxpayer dollars to an RFA, whether an RFA would prevent Edmonds from considering a Metropolitan Park District, relinquishing control to the RFA also eliminates the need for the City to pay for fire services, fire services crossing jurisdictional lines, mostly likely partners for an Edmonds RFA, talking with cities who have formed an RFA such as Auburn and Kent about their experience, relocating fire stations as recommended by Fitch & Associates, getting the Interlocal Agreement approved first, and the difference between a fire district and an RFA. L 2018 Budget Process Council President Mesaros asked how to make the 2018 budget process smoother. Council and staff comments/suggestions included: • Finance committee work on policies to assist departments develop budgets • Concern with scheduling department presentations at end of meeting with no time for questions • Councilmembers submit amendments to budget earlier • Council President steer information from Councilmembers • Budget retreat or solicit Council input on the budget, nice for staff to hear Council desires • Provide budget information earlier in year • Finance Committee work with Finance Director to develop budget calendar • A lot of Council questions this year about where numbers came from (Mr. James distributed comparison of 2015 actual, 2016 budget and estimate, 2017 budget and percentage change) • Council discuss earlier in year regarding items they would like included in budget • Budget discussions early on the agenda • Staff share Council questions with all Councilmembers • If Councilmembers have particularly interest, helpful to know ahead of time so staff better prepared to address at the meeting. Have discussion offline so not surprised at open meeting • Special Council meeting dedicated to budget • Provide staff questions in advance g. Esperance Mayor Earling relayed GMA supports Edmonds annexing Esperance but he did not want to annex Esperance until it makes economic sense. Staff s recent revenue/expenditure analysis determined annexation of Esperance would be upside down $400,000. If legislation sponsored by Senator Maralyn Chase passes that provides an extra 0.1% sales tax rebate citywide to cover deficits from annexation, it would generate $800,000, making annexation of Esperance $400,000 to the positive. Discussion included infrastructure costs in unincorporated areas north of 168th that make annexation of that area infeasible, planning process to annex areas outside Edmonds' UGA, requirement for 80% of an area's boundary to be contiguous with a city to qualify for the rebate (met by Esperance), and process that allows annexation without a vote but is subject to referendum. Conclusion: Low probability annexation will happen in 2017, wait to see what happens with legislation. h. Sunset Avenue Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 368 7.2.c Mr. Williams relayed modifications the Council requested to the pilot project are underway. Painting and striping will be delayed until warmer weather warmer. Some engineering is required on Caspers and 2nd to reduce access to Sunset from the north. Signs have been installed changing the parking from 4 hours to 2 hours. As a great deal of utility work needs to be done on Sunset in the next 5-7 years, it does not make sense to do a lot of work and then tear it up to install a gravity sewer system or pump station. Options will be presented to Council later this year followed by development of a project and funding options. He estimated the cost of utility work on Sunset at $12-15 million. Another issue is the Waterfront Access Project where the best option is from Edmonds Street. Discussion followed regarding: • Pacific Beach trail in San Diego that includes neighborhoods and the waterfront • Designing Sunset like 6d` Avenue in the Civic Field Master Plan • Incorporating a boardwalk across the marsh • Incorporating the utility work, overpass, beautification into a comprehensive plan for Sunset, including the cost, and utilizing utility funds and funds for the overpass. Make it look like a destination rather than a patchwork • Railroad owns a great deal of the street north of the angle parking. The available width to the south is larger. There is some budget available to begin design. • BNSF is enthusiastic about the overpass project and willing to provide some funding • Suggestion to have newspaper article regarding Sunset regarding utility work, overpass, beautification, BNSF's ownership, etc. i. Civic Field Ms. Hite reported a final plan will be presented to Council in 1-2 months. Work will continue on SEPA, costing information, a naming process, design development and fund development. The stadium will be removed in the second half of the year and the area landscaped in the interim. Development will be $8-10 million with grants and private funding possibly providing $3-4 million and a bond or levy for the remainder. The Boys & Girls Club will be required to raise funds themselves for any improvements/replacement of their building. If Boys & Girls Club have plans, they will be encouraged to make proposal to the City for a long term land lease. j. SMP Ms. Hope advised next Tuesday is the first presentation/discussion regarding Ecology's recommendation. She expected discussion would continue at a couple more meetings. Ecology has requested a response from the City by March 30. Ecology's presentation will clarify the options. k. CAO Updates Ms. Hope said updates to incorporate Ecology's June 2106 guidance will be coming back to Council within the next several months. A brief discussion followed regarding what happens when Ecology releases new guidance and the ability for the City to do another update if desired. 1. Strategic Action Plan Council President Mesaros relayed Mr. Doherty's indication that approximately 80% of the SAP items are moving forward and 20% are stalled for a number of reasons including finances, priorities have changed, etc. Discussion followed regarding: • Reevaluating whether to pursue the 20% of items that are stalled • Staff providing an update to Council and identifying items can be removed Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 369 7.2.c • Including the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission in the update • Some items do not have dollar amounts associated with them which is needed in order to prioritize • Need to update the SAP at some point • In additional to missing pieces such as finances, also missing staff resources • No specifics about public safety • Too many goals Conclusion: Schedule update and discussion of priorities. Include Planning Board and EDC. M. Hwy 99 Subarea Plan Ms. Hope advised a public hearing is scheduled on February 21, followed by meetings to review and make a decision. The next step will be drafting development regulations (zoning, design standards) to implement the plan. n. Roundabout (Five Corners) Zoning Plan Ms. Hope recalled the UW Green Futures Lab did a great deal of study related to the Roundabout (Five Corners) area but a lot of things still need to be considered. She was concerned that "tweaking the code" would actually be a huge effort and it was unknown whether the changes would attract desired development. Before that was done, she recommended reviewing the UW study and having a feasibility analysis done regarding whether implementation would have the desired result. Staff ended up doing hundreds of hours of work to implement the UW's study of Westgate; the same would be true for Five Corners. Consensus: Small consultant contract to determine if the work done by the UW Green Futures Lab was still realistic. o. Parking Mr. Williams relayed Mr. Doherty is working with the BID (E fl; their suggestions will be shared with the City's internal committee. Options that have been considered include striping individual spaces versus block parking, and residential and employee permit programs. P. Public Disclosure and Public Access to City Council This item was postponed to Saturday. q. Waterfront Access This was addressed during the Sunset agenda item. Council President Mesaros commented there is a plan that everyone likes; now the funding needs to be identified. r. Veterans' Plaza Council President Mesaros reported the group is within $1000 of raising all the necessary funds. They would like raise an additional $40,000 to build a kiosk with an electronic link to the Veterans Center at Edmonds Community College. They are also still fundraising for a water fountain. S. Update on SNOCOM/SNOPAC Consolidation Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 370 7.2.c Chief Compaan relayed there have been ongoing conversations between SNOPAC and SNOCOM about consolidation. He is on the joint task force who earlier this week reviewed several proforma scenarios looking at budgets and service levels. The SNOCOM Executive Director Terry Peterson and the facilitator, Karen Reed, who has been assisting the task force will provide updates to the member cities' City Councils in February or March. This is a fabulous opportunity to improve the level of service via some type of consolidation between the two dispatch centers as well as save money via efficiencies. Governance is part of the discussion. The SNOPAC cities and Snohomish County are very supportive and there is strong support from most of the SNOCOM cities. There will be a vote by the member entities later this year. If consolidation of two centers occurs, consideration will also be given to consolidating SERS into same board. Chief Compaan relayed there are two reasons for consolidation, 1) call transfers (25-35% calls coming into SNOCOM are transferred to SNOPAC which causes delays), and 2) SNOCOM, a small center compared to SNOPAC, is easily overwhelmed with calls. Consolidation provides great capacity and addresses the call transfer issue. Conclusion: 30 minute update to City Council on February 7 or March 7 The first day of the retreat concluded at 3:59 p.m. and was followed by a social hour with spouses and guests. SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 2017 — CALL TO ORDER The second day of the Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 8:35 a.m. on Saturday, January 21, 2017 by Council President Mesaros in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Saturday, January 21 Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Saturday, January 21 Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Saturday, January 21 Bruce Witenberg STAFF PRESENT Saturday, January 21 Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jeannie Dines, Recorder 4. PROJECTS WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND/OR RESOLVE DURING 2017 (IN RANDOM ORDER). DISCUSSION AND PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING TOPICS: P. Public Disclosure and Public Access to City Council What's happening regarding this subject in the legislature? Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed the City's lobbyist indicated there are three bills in this session, one would allow cities to charge a fee for the cost to produce an electronic version of public records; the City is already allowed to charge a per page fee for hardcopy. The media lobby has recently softened on this and a Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 371 7.2.c modest fee may be acceptable to them. Mayor Earling recalled there is another bill regarding a mediation process. With regard to the cost, City Clerk Scott Passey relayed there is one FTE in the Clerk's Office assigned to responding to public records requests and he works on requests about 6 hours a week. The Police Department has at least one FTE who works on public records requests. Department staff also work on records request. Mayor Earling estimated the cost at $300,000; City Attorney Jeff Taraday estimated the addition of the time that the attorney in his office who works on public records requests, Patricia Taraday, increases the cost to $500,000/year. Mr. Passey said a small group of requesters take up disproportionate amount of the time spent responding to public records requests. The software module that the Council authorized in the 2017 budget will allow the public to make requests as well as seek records online. The software also allows the requester, records requested, time spent on the request, etc. to be visible to the public. Council President Mesaros said the public is unaware of the burden of public records requests; he questioned how to make the taxpayers aware of the $500,000 cost and that only a few make requests. Discussion followed regarding persuading requesters to narrow their requests, requests for emails that require extensive staff review to redact information, a recent request for emails that will take years to fulfill, other cities that make information available electronically in the public domain, looking at what is driving these requests, inability for the City to shift the burden by requiring citizens to do research themselves, difference in the volume of documents produced by a typewriter in the past versus thousands produced via computers and email today, producing a quarterly report of the top ten requesters and the costs and ability for the software to produce an online list on the City's website of public records requests, and other cities that display a list of public records requests online. Mr. Taraday suggested making information available online will help, but the majority of big requesters are doing it for political reasons or because they feel they were wronged by the City in some way. That pattern is unlikely to change by making information available online. Conclusion: Mr. Passey will inform when the software is operational. How well are we doing the Council available to the public? Councilmember Teitzel relayed he wrote a letter to the editor about ways Councilmembers can be contacted such as the Council website, personal cell phones, Town Halls, etc. He supported broaden the methods for input to ensure the Council was viewed as accessible. Council and staff comments included: • The public speaks when there is an issue they care about • General lack of civic engagement • Citizens rely on Councilmembers to do a good job • Availability of classes/seminars for engaging citizens • Councilmembers holding informal forums • Councilmembers attending existing meetings such as the Rotary to gather public input • No requirement for public comment at Council meetings • What is the purpose of committee meetings, flush out issue with staff or a town hall? Cannot do both. If it is for staff and Council to dialogue, citizens can attend and then have opportunity for public comment at next Council meeting • There is a difference between public comment and public dialogue. • Article in My Edmonds News about retreat said public invited but no opportunity for public comment • Retreat is a time for the Council to work • Ann Macfarlane (Jurassic Parliament) article about limiting public comment at Council meetings, establishing a total amount of time for comments like 20 minutes • Support not having public comment at committee meetings. It is a time for staff and council sort out issues Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 372 7.2.c • Provide forum for public to feel they have been heard • Cities that allow public comment often have maximum amount of time. If a lot of people or controversial issue, Council can amend agenda to extend. • If public comment is allowed at committee meetings, don't allow a dialogue • Other cities that limit public comment to no more than three people on a topic • In the past, public comment was allowed at the end of committee meetings if time allowed 5. OTHER KEY TOPICS FOR THE COUNCIL: a. Public Works — What are the key projects for 2017 and what projects will remain unfinished due to lack of funding? Mr. Williams explained projects in the CIP that are not funded in the 2017 budgeted likely are not fully funded. He reviewed: • Key 2017 projects 0 76t'/212v' from 220"' to 206th 0 236ffi walkway/stormwater project complete once weather allows and before Edmonds School District begins their project mid -year 0 238t' sidewalk o Normal utility replacements • Street Maintenance and Preservation Funding o Fund 111 - maintenance of everything in right-of-way including sidewalks, vegetation control, street lamps, curbs and gutters, pavement, striping, lights, signals, signage, etc. ■ Existing funding 2017 for street maintenance (Fund 111) Local license fee (TBD) $680,000 (dedicated) Fuel Tax $685,000 (dedicated) General Fund $412,000 Misc $7,000 Total $1,784,000 ■ Existing expense budget for Street Maintenance (Fund 111) Labor Cost $898,200 Supplies $350,000 Insurance $113,200 Electricity $270,200 Vehicles $178,700 Misc. $113,000 Total 1,923,300 Less Revenue (1,784,000) Deficit (139,300) o Fund 112 Streets (preservation) ■ Preservation (resurfacins) Droeram Annual need in current dollars $1,300,000 - $1,500,000 2017 Funding Sources REET 2 $186,000 REET 1 $886,000 Carry Forward $284,000 Subtotal $1,356,000 Grant (PSRC) 84t $900,000 (periodic) Grand Total $2,256,000 • Utility funds have their own funding sources Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 373 7.2.c Buildings Council approved additional funding for building in 2017 o The need is great, roofs, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, interior/exterior. Parks have own ongoing maintenance and capital preservation needs Other potential revenue sources o Additional $20 annual license fee (councilmanic decision) $680,000 ■ TBD legislation also includes sales tax option and property tax option (requires vote) o Levy Lid Lift (requires vote) o Adoption of MPD, RFA, FD 1 (frees up revenue sources) Council and staff discussion included: • Fuel tax declining due to increased fuel efficiency and electric/hybrid cars • Passing a levy on an issue that is popular with public would free up revenue in the General Fund • Intrigued with increasing license fee, but recognize that is not a popular idea • Support static regular, predictable amount for street preservation • See need for street maintenance, concern with doubling TBD, could support smaller increase. Citizens impacted by increases due to Sound Transit 3, utility rate increase, etc. • Regressive tax argument • Earlier levies had a lot of issues, set up to fail • Support levy lid lift for focused purpose • Review of all capital facilities revealed large deficit. Budgeted $1.5 million in 2017 for streets and $400,000 to begin catching up with building needs. City is running out of years to allocate $1-1.5 million to streets. Additional $20 license fee reduces General Fund contribution to street preservation • License fee generates revenue without the need for a campaign • Concern with levy for capital preservation; in public's perception City already taking care of roads • Balance between regressive nature of fee/tax and nexus to impact. Property tax may be less regressive but no nexus • State is considering alternate ways to pay for road maintenance instead of gas tax • Council's ability to increase the license fee less than $20. Conclusion: Staff make recommendation to Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee and forward to Council b. Parks — How are we progressing on the PROS Plan and what projects need attention and funding? Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite distributed, 1) Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Seven Key Goals (adopted February 2014 following robust public process) and accomplishments and/or in process and future projects that will need funding, and 2) Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services 2017 Work Plan. She highlighted major Park projects for 2017: • Meadowdale playfields o Partnering with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District o Go to bid late March, award of bid in late April/early May o Development Agreement and Operational Agreement will come to Council prior to bid • Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebbtide Walkway o RFQ for design services is out o Currently at schematic level design o Pursuing two grants, in a good position get $1 million o Will bring award of bid to Council to reach 90% design and environmental permitting • Veterans Plaza o Notice to proceed last week Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 374 7.2.c o Goal is to complete by Memorial Day o Contractor who won bid is currently working on the Frances Anderson Center bandshell Fishing pier o Complete in 2017 Ms. Hite reviewed smaller 2017 Park projects • Bandshell - additional issues have arisen o Coming to Council on February 7 for additional budget authority • Yost Spa replacement - award of bid by September • Civic Center o Come back to Council for adoption in February o Park naming process and demo stadium in first half of year of year, timing of demo depends on construction of storage shed in City Park. o Begin design development of Civic Field in 2017, funds available in REET 1 • Outdoor fitness zones - dependent on grant pending from Verdant (award in June) • Economic Impact Study o RFQ closed last week ■ Seven submittals ■ Award of bid to Council next month • Fish hatchery o Trout Unlimited operators are retiring o Staff studying pros and cons of fish hatcheries o Sound Salmon Stewards interested in taking over operations • Community garden - likely locate at Esperance Park Ms. Hite reviewed Park funding: • First $750,000 of REET programmed for parks capital o $200,0004250,000 of that is ongoing capital needs in existing parks o Remainder is programmed as match for grants for larger projects. ■ Examples of funds leveraged via match - Spray pad: $800,000 - Civic Field acquisition: $1.5 million - Interurban Trail - Woodway Fields - Hazel Miller Plaza - Fishing Pier: $1.8 million - Marsh restoration Ms. Hite highlighted: • Future projects that will require funding: o Civic Park development: $8-10 million o Waterfront Redevelopment, Ebbtide Walkway: $2-3 million o Edmonds Marsh Daylighting, Marina beach Development: $8-10 million o Athletic Field Development: Meadowdale, Woodway: $1-2 million • Funding for Parks Capital Needs o REET o Park Impact Fees o Grants: usually matching and need available local funds to compete o Exploration of Metropolitan Parks District, bonding capacity or levy for development, Parks Foundation Discussion followed regarding: Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 375 7.2.c • Seeking funding from WRIA 8 for Edmonds Marsh Daylighting, they gave Bothell $5 million for park acquisition • Status of the trail around marsh, likely will be part of marsh restoration project • Preliminary discussions with WSDOT about a collaborative project to bring daylighted channel, walkways, etc. through lower yard • When daylighting is done, any possibility have State Department of Fisheries taking over hatchery? o Fish and Wildlife getting out of hatchery business. State funds are used to create an environment for Chinook Salmon; the hatchery raises Coho Salmon, the two do not co -exist. o Tulalip Tribes are opposed to hatcheries due to limited survivability o Determine if way to continue hatchery for educational purposes and no cost to City to operate • No longer considering condemnation for the Ebbtide Walkway C. Finance - What are the city's operational challenges financially? What does the next three to five years look like and what solutions might we consider to meet any challenges? Mr. James commented the economy is currently in an upswing but downswings do occur. He reviewed: Reserve analysis Table as of 12/31/16 Fund Description Fund Policy Fund Comments In Balance Stipulated Balance Compliance Reserve Less with Reserve Reserve Policy? General $9,684,897 $0 $9,684,897 N/A Risk Mgmt Reserve $968,549 $800,899 $167,650 Reserve balance must equal or Yes exceed 2% or annual General Fund reserves General Fund $5,387,137 $6,407,190 ($1,020,053) Reserve balance must equal or 8% - Yes Contingency Reserve exceed a minimum of 8% of annual General Fund revenues 16% - No with a target of 16% $16,040,583 $7,208,089 $8,832,494 He displayed and reviewed the following graphs: • Reserve analysis • Economic cycles 1996 - 2016 • Reserve analysis outlook He described future considerations and potential: • Challenge o Taking care of what we have - Potential solution 1) Need to understand future liabilities of taking care of what we have ➢ Recent facility condition assessment identified maintenance needs ➢ Pavement condition assessment report funded in 2017 budget 2) Create a process to prioritize funds Discussion followed regarding the Long Range Finance Group discussing how to prioritize, plans that are done in silos, potential solutions such as budgeting by priorities, need for ongoing revenue for maintenance, funding sources such as the vehicle license fee and levy lid lift, and establishing a policy for the use of BEET. d. Public Safety - What are our key public safety issues? Chief Compaan reported on 2017 plans: • Hiring part-time parking enforcement, developing MOU with Police Guild on salary/benefits Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 376 7.2.c • Interviewing two animal enforcement positions Monday • With funding in 2017 budget for SRO, recruiting for additional officer. Following up with Edmonds School District regarding their funding • Hiring additional police staff assistant • Pedestrian safety funding • Street crimes unit has been an overwhelming success, very busy, 2 officers and a sergeant. • Expect Police Foundation to fund a police dog which will add a second K-9 • New World has had a few glitches but overall is an asset to public safety. Dispatch and records management are particularly good • Dispatch center consolidation — more information in the next few months • Police Department reaccreditation later this year o Contract negotiations underway. Hope to get commissioned officer contract resolved shortly and then begin on non -commission staff contract • Parking tickets: Watching Mukilteo's acquisition of automated ticketing hardware/software system. More on that in coming months. Would allow Police Department to be more efficient • Snohomish County 800 MHz system utilized by police/fire needs to be replaced in 2020 o Estimate for Snohomish County is $73 million o Considering funding options such as an increase in real estate tax on ballot which passed in King County o SERS will be informing councils, will need strong support to get that passed, no other options • Reconfirmed with Lynnwood they are hiring I FTE social worker under the Police Department and Community Services. Edmonds is interested in partnering with them. Discussion followed regarding opiate addiction trends in the U.S. that impacts criminal activity, jails, homelessness, etc. followed closely by mental illness, lack of services and lack interest of person afflicted in accepting services; assistance a social worker will provide, and what officers do when encounter panhandlers (not a crime, get involved if there is a concern, aggression, interfering with pedestrians or traffic or threatening behavior), and treatment centers versus jails. e. Housing and Homelessness — How can improved housing options in Edmonds to impact our homeless population? How can we partner with our neighboring jurisdictions to help the homeless? Councilmember Tibbott relayed a citizen group, Edmonds Housing Task Force, is interested in lobbying in Olympia and seeking resources in Snohomish County. He and Ms. Hope have suggested they can get more bang for their buck by seeking land not in Edmonds but in South Snohomish County where more housing could be constructed closer to transit and employment. One way to help with affordable housing is via zoning such as in Westgate and creating opportunity for it in other places. More important than what the City does is what they eliminate such as barriers to housing, additional costs and prohibitive regulations. There is a vacant parcel in Edmonds next to a church; the church is looking at how the parcel could be donated and developed under certain parameters. Discussion followed regarding increased numbers at the Senior Center's cold weather shelter this year, Rick Steves' donation of Trinity Place transitional housing complex to the YMCA, issues that will be addressed in the City's housing strategy, Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) efforts, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) in King County, the State's formula to allocate funding that favors King County, tiny homes as an affordable housing option and ensuring the City's code are amenable to that, simplifying the City's regulations to make it easier to establish attached/detached accessory dwelling units, and opportunities for affordable housing on Highway 99. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 377 7.2.c f. Regional approaches — How can we partner with other governmental entities to resolve regional issues like transportation, housing, public safety, community services, etc.? How can we maximize regional participation? Council and staff comments included: • The regional SWAT team now included Redmond and Kirkland. • Consideration is being given to consolidating the South Snohomish County Narcotic Unit with a larger group in North Snohomish County led primarily by Everett and Snohomish County. • The City has done a fabulous job enlarging its image; several staff members are regional influencers. Edmonds is on the radar screen which raises the level of recognition and also helps with grants. Important for Edmonds to remain an influence regionally. • If Edmonds can be a city that provides leadership, it will get more back. g. Legal — 9th Circuit Court "Culver Decision" on fish passages Mr. Taraday reported this decision came out in summer 2016. The State of Washington was sued by the Federal government asserting claims on behalf of several Tribes under their treaty rights. The treaty rights give the Tribes rights to continued supply of salmon and the culverts that the State has under various highways block access to salmon habitat. The Federal government sued and obtained an injunction requiring the State to remove and replace those culverts over the next 17 years. That was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court where the decision was upheld. This was a landmark case because while it was always recognized the treaties guaranteed the Tribes access to fishing rights, until this case that had not been extrapolated into fish habitat. In this decision, the treaty rights have been interpreted to also protect fish habitat. The court distinguished between high and low priority culverts. High priority culverts block a significant amount of fish habitat and low priority culverts do not block a significant amount of fish habitat. The court said low priority habitats can be replaced when their useful life expires or during road construction. Mr. Taraday explained the case does not directly apply to Edmonds but some have hypothesized that the same principles could apply to cities and private parties with infrastructure that blocks fish habitats. The case does not address railroads. When the State of Washington was sued, it bought a counter claim against the United States, stating if the State had to replace its culverts, the Federal culverts had to be replaced; the court ruled against that saying the United States has sovereign immunity. The culverts on SR104 are owned by the State; he was unsure if they were considered high or low priority. The most applicable in Edmonds would be the tide gate access to Edmonds Marsh; there are already plans to remove it. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS Council President Mesaros thanked everyone for investing time and energy into retreat. He summarized: • He will summarize the retreat at the February 7 or 14 Council meeting, establish a method for tracking and provide a periodic progress report • 40,000 people count on the directors and electeds to make good choices. With all information we have, are we making the best choices? It was his sense everyone was working for a common purpose. • His goal during the retreat was to set the course for 2017 with the resources that are available. He invited Councilmembers to commit to doing the best for the City Council and staff comments included: • Very collaborative retreat. Thanked Council President Mesaros and the Council. • Feels like we are a team Thanked Council President Mesaros for his leadership and creating that environment. Good to get off the dais and talk together. Thanked Council President Mesaros for his facilitation skills and getting through so much. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 378 7.2.c • Need to brief and follow-up with Mr. Doherty and Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Johnson who were not present • Great to get together in casual setting. Impressed with everyone, look forward to working together. • Great job facilitating • A lot of great things going on in community. Helps to stand back and talk about what still need to do, helps to see what we've done. • Respect trust collaboration and flexibility. Process important but need flexibility • The tradition has been one retreat/year. Suggest be open to having another one if a topic arises that is particularly difficult. • Retreat format works well. Provides for more dialogue, understanding, questions • Liked the reports from departments, good to see the bigger picture. The retreat was adjourned at 11:54 p.m. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes January 20-21, 2017 Page 17 Packet Pg. 379 7.2.d EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 7, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sean Conrad, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM, DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER. Councilmember Bloom explained the City received notification last week that there are three other bids for the Edmonds Conference Center. As the bids are public, she suggested it be discussed in a public session. Council President Fraley-Monillas added it as Agenda Item 10A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 8 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 1 Packet Pg. 380 7.2.d revert to a mixed use scheme. Before it could be developed mixed use, a declaration would need to be made that Edmonds Crossing was not going to happen. Councilmember Bloom asked if developing that property mixed use was consistent with the SMP. Mr. Chave did not recall the Shoreline designation but believed it was. He summarized the zoning is MP and 2 on the Unocal site, across the railroad tracks to the west on the Port property is zoned Commercial Waterfront. Councilmember Bloom observed the SMP is in process. She asked whether the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended if there were any changes such as in response to the Port's challenge of the setbacks from the Marsh. Mr. Chave answered the SMP is part of the Comprehensive Plan. After the SMP is ultimately approved, staff will review other regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and highlight any inconsistencies. Councilmember Bloom asked when the City's SMP will be approved. Mr. Chave answered Ecology's review is underway. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about mixed use and mix of uses in the hospital district, Councilmember Bloom suggested defining mixed use as mixed use within a building with residential and mix of uses as within an area. Mr. Chave answered that would be problematic as the terms are used interchangeably. The entire Land Use Element would need to be reviewed and a differentiation made between the two terms. He recalled in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, mixed use does not have to be a single building but it can be arranged in different buildings such as a campus. Downtown is different in that generally buildings are vertical mixed use although not exclusively. He feared defining terms in an exclusive way would result in unexpected results. He suggested descriptive language targeted for specific areas. Mayor Earling advised the Comprehensive Plan update will be scheduled on the July 21, 2015 Council agenda for action. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled there have been numerous discussions regarding this issue and numerous opinions. Councilmember Johnson relayed she contacted each director last week to determine their preference regarding study session versus committee. All the directors preferred the current study session, including Police Chief Compaan, Finance Director Scott James, Development Services Director Shane Hope, Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. She also contacted Mayor Earling and the City Clerk; they both prefer the study session format. The reasons given include the openness and transparency in the decision -making process, opportunity for twice a month study session instead of once a month, everyone hears the same information at the same time, and study sessions have a better success rate for Consent Agenda approval. She noted there were also a number of recommendations for improving study sessions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had many discussions with citizens. She displayed several folders of documents representing hundreds of hours she and the City have spent on legal issues, financial issues and Finance Directors. She noted the finance committee meetings were audio taped. She preferred to have study sessions because the meetings were videoed. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented on the openness and transparency of Councilmembers and citizens hearing things at the same time. She could not support returning to committees meeting in separate rooms and isolating Councilmembers from citizens. The past six months have made her a better Councilmember because she is able to hear what is happening in all areas. Previously, there were separate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 16 Packet Pg. 381 Finance, Public Services & Human Resources and Parks, Planning & Public Works committees and Councilmembers were only able to attend one. She acknowledged there were problems with study sessions; she agreed with Mr. Witenberg's suggested improvements such as returning to the dais due to difficulties with microphones, staff presentations at podium, grouping topics together, asking questions before the meeting, and round-robin questions. She commented in the current structure, often one Councilmember asks multiple questions which does not give other Councilmembers the ability to participate. She summarized the most important aspect of study sessions is transparency because they are televised. Councilmember Petso recognized it appeared the Council was not changing back to committees. She pointed out once committee meetings were recorded, they were fairly transparent, particularly since the recordings could have been posted on the City's website. If the Council continues with study sessions, she asked for a greater commitment to ensuring Council has lead time; that items are not scheduled on the Consent Agenda until they have been reviewed by Council. She observed there was a tendency by one department to decide an item is not important enough for a televised presentation and review by all Councilmembers and schedule it directly on the Consent Agenda. When that happens, it reduces the Council and public to 3-4 days' notice of an item. She requested Council be provided short presentations on the financial report, pointing out the financial report on tonight's Consent Agenda went straight to Consent which is less transparent because there was no committee or Council discussion. She said one of the benefits of committees was lead time. If things are not important enough for full Council and they are scheduled directly on the Consent Agenda, that lead time is eliminated. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion regarding lead time. She acknowledged it was difficult to track what has been presented in a study session and how long ago. She said that would require items always be presented at a study session before scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with losing one of the ways citizens who were not comfortable speaking at podium had to communicate with Councilmembers; the City does not have many ways for citizens to communicate. She suggested the Council consider how they can increase the ability to have a two-way conversations with citizens; that is the key to transparency, not being on camera. All the ways she has suggested to have two-way conversations with citizens, such as a Council blog, have been declined. Committees were the only way where on occasion there could be two-way conversation in a more intimate setting with people who were interested in a particular issue and may not be comfortable on camera speaking at the podium. Councilmember Bloom said Councilmembers have tried having Town Hall meetings. She did one on Westgate and the only support she had was from the Council's Executive Assistant. The Council does not have staff support for Town Hall meetings; Mayor Earling has staff support for his Town Hall meetings but it was her understanding those were not two-way conversations. Some Councilmembers are not comfortable with two-way conversation at committee meetings; she was very comfortable with it. She recalled in previous discussions about study sessions versus committee meetings, staff said it provided an opportunity for uncivil conversations and behavior. She recalled Councilmember Johnson referencing improper behavior. She said what one person feels is uncivil or improper, another may see as robust conversation. She planned to vote against changing to study sessions because of the loss of something very significant without anything to replace it. She felt framing it as more transparent was disingenuous because it ultimately eliminated a way to communicate with citizens. Council President Fraley-Monillas said committee meetings were set up to be meetings between two Councilmembers and staff, they were not intended to be an opportunity for involvement with citizens. With regard to Town Hall meetings, Councilmember Buckshnis and she organized and held five with no staff support. Councilmember have the option to hold a Town Hall meeting any time they want to. With Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 17 Packet Pg. 382 7.2.d regard to two-way conversations, she agreed it was difficult to get input from more than a handful of people. Citizens have many ways to interact with Councilmembers; she receives emails, phone calls, has coffee with citizens, attends functions where citizens ask her questions, and is invited to speak and answer questions. She assured there were opportunities for communication; committees were never intended to be a way for citizens to express their views. She summarize the ability to listen to a taped meeting was not as transparent as seeing the Council on television and hearing the debate. Councilmember Nelson preferred Councilmembers hear information at the same time. He was troubled there was a debate about what had occurred under the previous format. He agreed there was room for improvements with the study session format but having everyone in same room, hearing the same information and discussing it together was important. He agreed with asking questions round robin so that there could be more discussion. He suggested a quarterly joint Council Town Hall where Councilmembers could engage with citizens. Councilmember Buckshnis said she always answers her phone and she hears from citizens. She referred to the audio tape of a Finance Committee meeting two years ago where a $5.2 million receivable was removed from the City's books without the Council's knowledge; that would not have happened if it occurred at a videotaped Council meeting. She agreed with returning to study sessions. Councilmember Johnson summarized the recommendations for improvements from directors that had not been mentioned previously: • Shorter agendas and shorter meetings • Better equipment for visual presentation • Return to dais for better sound system • Routine items go straight to Consent with good written staff report but not an advance presentation Councilmember Johnson said she liked study sessions and would like to continue that format. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORMALLY MOVE STUDY SESSIONS TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there has been criticism in the past few months that the Council study sessions were against the code. She preferred to formalize the process by amending the code. Mr. Taraday asked whether the intent was to formalize study sessions by amending the code. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was the intent of her motion. Mr. Taraday asked whether all meetings would start at 7:00 p.m. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Councilmembers were nodding yes. If the motion passes, Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Councilmembers send her their issues so they can be addressed. With regard to routine items going straight to the Consent Agenda, Councihnember Petso recalled that has been a very dangerous practice in past. For example, a bond issue that was approved on the Consent Agenda has caused the City numerous troubles. She suggest developing some kind of pre -Consent process so that the public and Councilmembers have a week and a half notice of items that go straight to Consent such as a page on the website where the Consent Agenda is posted in advance. If a Councilmember did not view an item as appropriate for the Consent Agenda or would like a presentation, a presentation could be requested. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 18 Packet Pg. 383 7.2.d Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was not her intent for issues to go straight to Consent. The Council's preference has been to have issues discussed at a study session prior to a business meeting. She suggested she and Councilmembers Petso and Johnson flush the study session format out after she receives input from the rest of the Council. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso said she will participate on the committee Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested. However, this was exactly why committees were needed; instead of inventing committee on the fly, the matter could have gone to committee. 10A. EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER PURCHASE DISCUSSION Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that following the City's $300,000 bid, the State received a bid for $2.4 million from North Sound Church, a bid of $1.2 million from another church and another bid from a private individual. In her conversation with Stephanie Fuller, State Department of Enterprise Services, Ms. Fuller questioned why the State would sell the building to the City when the City's offer was only $300,000 and the City planned to tear the building down. Councilmember Bloom relayed to Ms. Fuller that the City was told the building was not worth anything and that the repairs exceeded the value of the building. Ms. Fuller said that was not accurate; the repairs were much lower than were estimated. Councilmember Bloom commented the Council based its bid on a repair estimate that apparently is much higher than is accurate. Her primary concern is Ms. Anttila brought this to the Council's attention in January and the Council finally made a bid in June. This property was known to be available by others in October. She was concerned the Council had not had a public process related to the purchase, no input from citizens regarding how the property could be used, and the bid was based on information that more than likely was inaccurate. The Council owes it to the public to increase its bid to $1 million to at least extend it enough for the State to consider it a viable bid and give the public an opportunity to comment and be involved in deciding whether it was a good public use. Councilmember Bloom said she has serious concern about a church purchasing the property; churches do not pay taxes and there will be no economic benefit of a church taking over this key property in the middle of downtown. A former Council had an opportunity to acquire the property for free. This is a valuable, key property in the Edmonds arts corridor but citizens have not been allowed to provide input regarding how it could be used. The Council has not held a public hearing, yet the property has been available since October 2014. Her primary concern was the lack of a public process. If the Council submits an offer of $1 million, obviously the City would not be able to purchase it for $1 million if the church is offering $2.4 million but it would extend the time to discuss offering more and the State has the offsets to consider. Councilmember Petso commented the Council generally discusses price in executive session. If the Council has that discussion now or next week, is it still an executive session matter or is it okay to discuss in open session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained property acquisition is discussed in executive session when public knowledge of the price the City is willing to pay was likely to result in an increased price. He did not know the Council's top number; that was the type of thing that should be discussed in executive session. Given that the bids of $2,4 million, $1.2 million and $1 million have been made public, the Council could have a general discussion about whether they are interested in that ballpark without settling on a specific number. It may be that that discussion will come to a quick resolution and there is no need for an executive session. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 19 Packet Pg. 384 7.2.e EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 14, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCWS 42.30.140(4)(a) AND 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining and pending or potential litigation per RCWs 42.30.140(4)(a) and 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Mesaros, Bloom and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:02 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:12 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 1 Packet Pg. 385 7.2.e G. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHING THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING NO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this is the ordinance the Council requested be drafted at its last meeting. He amended the code consistent with the motion adopted by the Council. The Council can make further amendments or direct him to return with amendments at a future meeting. Councilmember Petso recalled at the retreat she volunteered to work with Mr. Taraday to modify the regulations related to the duties and compensation of the Council President. Those matters have not been changed in the proposed draft. Rather than process this amendment, she suggested the Council provide her and Mr. Taraday direction to bring both sets of changes to Council at same time within a couple weeks. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with the committee of the whole issue. She did not understand the term and felt it was just a way to pretend the Council did not break its own ordinances by not having committee meetings. She preferred the Council admit it broke the ordinance by not having committee meetings. She recalled being told by Shane Hope that the ordinance needed to be changed, yet proposed changes were never presented to Council. She summarized this is a Council meeting, it is not a committee of the whole and calling it a committee of the whole is ludicrous. Mr. Taraday said the motion used the phrase "committee of whole" which is why he drafted the ordinance that way. It is not uncommon for local government councils including King County Council to call one of their committee meeting a committee of the whole. It did not matter to him whether it was called a committee of the whole or a study session. Councilmember Bloom requested committee of the whole be eliminated because she thought it was silly. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she suggested committee of the whole/study session. She was disturbed the Council already voted to return to study session, yet now Councilmembers who voted against it were objecting. She felt it was disrespectful for Councilmembers to continue to repeat the same objections once the Council had made a decision. She relayed the Council Executive Assistant advised Section 2.B.3 was being followed. She suggested adopting the ordinance and revising the Council President section later. Mr. Taraday said one of revisions made to subsection B.3 was not shown in underline/strikethrough; the reference to "council recourse person" was changed to "executive assistant to council." Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the language "work session" and offered to send a list of typos to Mr. Taraday. Councilmember Petso repeated her offer to work with Mr. Taraday to do some of the things the Council has discussed such as increasing the compensation for the Council President, simplifying the language for the Council President Pro Tern, etc. Councilmember Bloom asked to be involved in the discussion if there was intent to increase the Council President's salary and not increase the compensation for the rest of Council. She did not feel the Council President's salary should be increased without increasing all Council salaries. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council pass this ordinance, noting the salary discussion is an entirely different issue and is part of the budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 19 Packet Pg. 386 7.2.e Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that the changes to salary, etc. were a bigger conversation and said it behooves the Council to proceed with adopting this ordinance next week. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Buckshnis regarding calling the meetings a work session. Councilmember Petso said she was asked at the Council retreat to pursue those items with Mr. Taraday. Based on tonight's discussion tonight she will not pursue any changes with regard to the Council President. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the first concert in the parks last Sunday, Sedentary Sousa Band, was fabulous and included a sedentary baton twirler who is a library staff member. He reminded of the City's 125th Anniversary celebration on August 11, culminating in the afternoon with festivities on 5th between Bell and Main Streets. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK REGARDING THE ILA ON WOODWAY FIELDS. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the purpose of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso responded it was primarily to have a scheduled public hearing to discuss the Interlocal Agreement rather than an unscheduled public hearing such as occurred this evening. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out the City does not own the fields. As much as people would like the City to stop everything that is occurring, the City does now own the fields. The fields are owned by the School District. It is no different than the City telling Mr. Nelson he cannot put crumb rubber in his yard because it will runoff into the streams and damage the neighbors. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the motion because although they are not the City's fields, the City is being asked to enter into the ILA and contribute $500,000 to the fields. Given the significant number of concerns expressed by residents during Audience Comments regarding potential health impacts of crumb rubber, a public hearing will give stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on concerns related to crumb rubber infill that the School District intends to install and give the Council a chance to decide if they want to enter into the agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested she, Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling meet with the School District before the public hearing. She agreed the City does not own the fields. She was aware of alternatives such as Nike grind which is made from tennis shoes. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she will do whatever the Council asks. She felt a public hearing was giving false hope to citizens that the Council could actually make a difference on the ball fields and it was not fair to treat citizens in such a manner. She was sorry people feel they were not listened to by the School District but this was an area the City could not get into at this point. Councilmember Nelson offered to participate in a meeting with the School District. He agreed there was a lot of information, some of it misinformation. This has been a very frustrating process and he supported having an open dialogue with the public. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 20 Packet Pg. 387 7.2.f EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 28, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5 i Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(a) and real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson (joined executive session at 6:49 p.m.). Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:08 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the flag salute. STUDY SESSION 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 1 Packet Pg. 388 7.2.f 104. Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Hauss where the stops would be on SR 524. Mr. Hauss answered there needs to be further analysis by Community Transit. He referred to a map that highlights the Swift route on Highway 99 and suggested highlighting SR 104 and SR 524 as potential future routes; it is too early to identify proposed stops. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Johnson those were the logical stops on SR 104 and the Council likely could identify logical stops on SR 524. Mayor Earling suggested putting Councilmember Mesaros in touch with the Community Transit staff doing the analysis. There is no reason for a connector to Lynnwood until 2023 when the light rail station opens. Councilmember Johnson said it was appropriate to add language in the Comprehensive Plan to identify SR 524 as a transit priority corridor and possible extension of future BRT. Amendment #6A COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO HIGHLIGHT SR 524 AS A POTENTIAL SWIFT BRT ROUTE. Action on Amendment #6A MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment #6 as amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Chave, Ms. Hope and others for the extraordinary amount of work they have done on the Comprehensive Plan update. He asked to be advised of the next staff meeting so he could congratulate staff. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. B. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHING COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4004, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATION TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 2, B.1, related to Council President duties, finding the language, "Make assignments to any council committees, schedule committee hearings, and otherwise supervise the committee system, if one is used." confusing. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REVISE SECTION 2, BA TO READ, "ASSIGN COUNCILMEMBERS AS MEMBERS AND LIAISONS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES AND OTHERWISE SUPERVISE THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS." Action on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 13 Packet Pg. 389 7.2.f Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 2, B.3 which states, "supervise any staff member whose primary responsibility is to support council." The current support person is equally divided between the Council Executive Assistant and working under Shane Hope. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REVISED SECTION 2, B.3 TO READ, "SUPERVISE AND DIRECT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO COUNCIL." Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred the existing language. The Council President directs the activities of any staff whose primary responsibility is to support the Council such as the video camera operator, office assistant, etc. The position that provides support to Council may not always be an executive assistant, it may have another title. Councilmember Bloom said her concern was the current Executive Assistant's primary responsibility was not supporting Council because she works 20 hours for Council and 20 hours for Development Services. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified Ms. Spellman is a contract employee. Mr. Taraday explained while it is true the Executive Assistant currently holds two different positions in the City, in the position of Executive Assistant, her primary duty is to support the City Council. While she holds a second position in the City, this language would not apply to her position on the 2nd floor. Council President Fraley- Monillas said the Council also signs an annual contract with Ms. Spellman. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Council would always have an Executive Assistant. She preferred B.3 read, "supervise and direct the activities of the executive assistant to council and any other staff member whose primary responsibility is to support council." Councilmember Mesaros said the language "any staff' is fine as any staff could be the council assistant, a research assistant, a legislative assistant, etc. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CALLED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Action on Amendment #2 MOTION FAILED (0-7). Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION 2, ITEM C, TO READ, "IN ADDITION TO THE SALARY AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A SALARY RY OF $10000 PER MONTHS AND $25 00 PER COUNCIL MEETING r �T Y±in�r�IN.V�7.�\v5iv Y±INI��QY�TYLVYN�7±7 KV SSUNMIe]IiYY1K��Y±I[��r�1 YL\ f i Councilmember Buckshnis explained this clarified the additional $200/month paid to the Council President. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intent was to retain the last sentence in the paragraph, "When the council president is absent and council president pro tempore is serving in his or her place, the city council president pro tempore shall receive the $25.00 per meeting payment." Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that was her intent although she did not think it had ever been done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 14 Packet Pg. 390 7.2.f Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment because it would result in paying the Council President $200 month even if they did not attend every meetings and an additional $25 for the Council Pro Tem if he/she were filling that position. She preferred the current language where the Council President received $100/month plus $25/meeting. She also did not support the amendment without a commensurate increase for councilmembers. If anything was done to increase the Council President salary, the Council's salaries also needed to be increased. She said the Council President did not have that much responsibility compared to what all Councilmembers do; he/she was only responsible for three additional items. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Bloom follow her around and see the two days a week she spends in the office unpaid. She said the $25 per Council meeting originated when Councilmembers were paid for each meeting they attended and just was not removed from the code as it related to the Council President. She supported a flat $200/month additional salary for the Council President. She preferred to retain the language regarding compensating the Council President Pro Tem, noting he/she could choose to ask for the additional compensation. Amendment #3A COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE SENTENCE REGARDING $25 FOR THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. Council President Fraley-Monillas supported the amendment; she did not recall a Council President Pro Tem ever asking for the compensation. Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment because if the Council President Pro Tem assumed the duties, he/she should not have to ask to be paid. Action on Amendment #3A UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND MESAROS VOTING NO. Action on Amendment #3 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the changes will take place until next year. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Bloom said she will vote against the main motion because she does not support eliminating the committee system. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. 8. ACTION ITEMS A. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Earling said this is a rush so that work can continue. City Engineer Rob English recalled the change order was introduced to the Council a few weeks ago. The change order is in regard to 3 retaining walls on the 228th project, 2 on the east side that support the new Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 15 Packet Pg. 391 7.2.g DRAFT 1.04.010 Regular public meeting time and days. Formatted: Font: Bold A. Full council. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on eac-h-every Formatted: Font: Bold Tuesday of every month, except for the fifth Tuesday of a month, at 7:00 p.m. throughout the y^ Regular meetings of the city council shall be held in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds. Washington. at 7:00 p.m. The second anmod fourth Tuesdays ofevery month are hereby designated . rlam meetings. The city .-.,, nei Elees net meet ei; the Afth Tuesday of month unless a special meeting is called. Council meetings shall adjourn at -no later than 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. B. Council committees. Regular meetings of the city council committees Formatted: Font: Bold shall be held on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:15 pm. or immediately after the adjournment of the second Tuesday full council meeting, whichever comes last. Regular meetings of the city council committees shall be held concurrently in the following three rooms of the Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington: 1) the Council Chambers: 2) the Jury Meeting Room: and 31 the Police Training Room. Council committee meetings shall adjourn no later than 9:00 n.m. on the day initiated unless such adiournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee. Packet Pg. 392 7.2.h ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND AMENDING ECC 1.04.010. WHEREAS, the city council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs under RCW 35A.11.020; and WHEREAS, the city council discussed at its January 2017 retreat a desire to return to a committee system; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to establish regular meeting times and places for such committees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.04.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Regular public meeting time and days," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ): 1.04.010 Regular public meeting time and days. A. Full council. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on eaeh every Tuesday of every month, except for the fifth Tuesday of a month, at 7:00 p.m. fh�nUgbeut the ye Regular meetings of the city council shall be held in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. at 7:00 r seeend and feuAh Tuesdays of evei=y month are hereby designated as work meetings. The eity eetmeil does not meet on the fifth Tuesday of a month unless a speeial meeting is ^.,,� Council meetings shall adjourn ono later than 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. The city council may recess into committees duringits is regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of the month and resume business as a full council that same night following such committee meetings. Packet Pg. 393 7.2.h B. Council committees. The city council shall have the following standing committees: finance; parks, planning, and public works ("PPP"); public safety and personnel ("PSP"). Regular meetings of the city council committees shall be held on the first and third Tuesdays of every month at 7:00 p.m. while the regulary council meeting is in recess. Regular meetings of the city council committees shall be held concurrently in the following three rooms of the Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington: 1) the Council Chambers; 2) the Jury MeetingRoom; oom; and 3) the Police Training Room. Council committee meetings shall adjourn no later than 8:15 p.m. on the day initiated, PROVIDED that committee meetings may resume after the adjournment of the city council meeting as long as the resumption is announced by the council meetingchair to adjournment and as long as the committee meeting does not extend nast 10:00 D.M. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Packet Pg. 394 7.2.h C JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 395 7.2.h SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND AMENDING ECC 1.04.010. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 M CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 396 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Preliminary December 2016 Quarterly Financial Report (15 min.) Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative Preliminary December 2016 Quarterly Financial Report Attachments: Complete Preliminary December 2016 Quarterly Financial Report Packet Pg. 397 8.1.a AT A GLANCE: General Fund operating reve- nues are ahead of last year's revenues. 2016 sales tax reve- nue outperforms 2015 by $163K (page 18) and 2016 interest earnings are higher by $101K than 2015 (page 33). INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary Expenditures By Fund Summary General Fund Revenues Expenditures By Fund Details General Fund Expenditure Detail Investment Portfolio Fund Balance Overview 31 Summary of All Operating Funds: Revenue The Financial Management Report is a summary report of the City's 4th Quarter 2016 financial results with a comparison to 4th Quarter 2015 Notable Revenue Highlights: 2016 Investment earnings are $101,430 higher than 2015 2016 tax revenues are $606,626 higher than 2015. These increases are led by: *Property taxes $307,834 *Sales taxes $163,284 Specific Revenue Highlights by Fund: • General Fund fourth quarter reve- nue for 2016 is $712,310 or 5.6% higher than fourth quarter revenue for 2015. General Fund annual revenue for 2016 is $1.56 million 32 higher than 2015. These increases are largely due to increased prop- erty tax, sales tax and grant reve- nues. A more detailed breakdown of General Fund revenues can be Below: found beginning on page 3, with Christmas Ship sales tax performance displayed 3 on page 18. Special Revenue Funds 2016 year- to-date revenues are $775,785 or 6.0% lower than 2015. The 2016 revenue decrease is primarily due to a $1.45 million decrease in rev- enues in the Combined Street Construction/Improvement Fund. This decrease is largely due to the timing of grant receipts for various street projects. The decrease in revenue in this fund was offset somewhat by: 0 Parks Construction Fund revenues in- creased by $495,609 compared to 2015. REET revenues for 2016 increased by $153,370 compared to 2015. 0 Street Fund revenues increased by $148,645 compared to 2015. • Proprietary Fund annual revenues for 2016 are lower by $15.9 million com- pared to 2015, although the majority of this difference is due to the $18.74 million of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds issued in 2015 for various capi- tal projects. • Fun Fact: The amount of rainfall that Edmonds receives over the course of a year has a direct impact on Storm and Sewer revenues. More rainfall means more maintenance work with means more revenues. Edmonds received 40.97 inches of rain in 2016, which is slightly above an average year, but only 31.38 inches of rain in 2015. Financial Management Report as of December 31, 2016 Packet Pg. 398 8.1.a 0 Gove ra Finance Officers Assedation Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Edmonds Washington For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Y— Ended December 31, 2015 er d,, � a Above: Award for Financial Report- ing received by City of Edmonds Finance Depart- ment Below: City Coun- cil approved the 2017 budget on 12/6/2016 Summary of All Operating Funds: Expenditures ` 1 General Fund expenditures ended ings due to diversifying the City's in - the year with 96% of the budget expended, showing an increase in total expenditures of $3,631,156 or 9.9% over 2015. General Fund expense by catego- ries are on page 6 and departmental 1 expenses are on pages 13-16. More General Fund expenditures 1 information can be found on pages 1 23-31. 1 Special Revenue Fund expenditures 1 decreased $2.2 million in 2016 compared to 2015. The majority of 1 this decrease comes from a reduc- tion in construction outlays, with Combined Street Construction/ Improvement fund expenses being 1 $3.3 million lower than 2015. Ad- ditional Special Revenue Fund ex- penditure information can be found 1 on pages 6-8. City of Edmonds, Washington 2017 Budget Dave E—I-g, Mayor • The Proprietary Fund (the Water fund, Storm fund, and Sewer fund) expenses increased by $2,037,257 over 2015, primarily due to in- creased capital expenses for water line replacements. Additional Util- ity Fund expense information can be found on pages 9-10. • The City's overall ending fund balance (before tak- ing into account year-end adjustments) remained stable, with a small reduc- tion of $264,195, repre- senting 0.26% of ending fund balance. Investment Portfolio • The City's investment earnings increased $101,430 over 2015 earn - vestment portfolio. More investment information can be found on pages 32- 33. Other Notable 4th Quarter Highlights • During the fourth quarter of 2016 the City invested an additional $9.12 mil- lion in Federally backed bonds, bringing total investments to $27.1 million. • On December 6 the City Council unani- mously approved the 2017 City budget. • During the fourth quarter of 2016 the City substantially completed the con- struction of a new, long-awaited public restroom facility next to City Hall. • During the fourth quarter of 2016 the City of Edmonds Finance Department was notified that it had been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Ex- cellence in Financial Reporting for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Annual Fi- nancial Report. • Also during the fourth quarter of 2016 the City completed the final repairs and renovation of the fishing pier (photo below) Came Hite and the Mayorthromng the ceremonial cast. Financial Management Report as of December 31, 2016 i I I Packet Pg. 399 I 8.1.a I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Receivec 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,951,905 $ 38,531,773 $ 40,091,205 $ (139,300) 100� 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,770 278,903 279,902 (1,132) 100� 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,660 8,219 9,987 (3,327) 150� 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 723,146 42,045 712,465 10,681 991, 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 370 464 373 (3) 10V 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,000 16,192 5,057 (57) 101� 016 BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 1 2,505,000 176,666 1,979,437 525,563 791, 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 153,000 11,366 68,400 84,600 451. 111 STREET FUND 1,802,933 1,829,836 1,978,481 (175,548) 110� 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,160,017 7,041,038 5,587,932 2,572,085 681, 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 106,508 110,369 95,801 10,707 90� 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 147 182 (72) 165� 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,150 80,802 88,491 (6,341) 10K 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 21,390 25,626 26,039 (4,649) 122� 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5,550 2,954 1,048 4,502 19� 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 27,530 27,276 29,871 (2,341) 1091, 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,108,000 1,366,025 1,316,519 (208,519) 119� 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1,348,998 1,363,607 1,566,483 (217,485) 116� 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 46,900 53,806 36,995 9,905 79� 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 280 315 389 (109) 1391. 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,260 187,786 174,486 2,774 9K 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,357,240 870,501 1,366,110 (8,870) 101� 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 630 1,250 1,544 (914) 245', 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 19,880 23,501 24,034 (4,154) 12V 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,010 8,925 8,300 3,710 69� 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 687,421 601,316 81,184 881, 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 75,874 77,253 (77,253) 0C, 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 28,378 18,208 (3,808) 126� 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 14,400 28,567 - 14,400 0C, 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 667,192 676,867 513 100`. 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 949,540 925,309 936,429 13,111 99� 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 8,443,460 13,428,324 8,768,603 (325,143) 104c. 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,131,780 7,644,751 4,009,114 122,666 971, 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 12,645,240 19,798,487 11,468,352 1,176,889 9V 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,900 1,343,105 1,989,892 8 100� 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,579,570 1,677,788 1,679,382 (99,812) 106� 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 64,840 65,078 66,300 (1,460) 102� S 89,094,247 $ 98,429,665 $ 85,741,247 S 3,353,000 96° Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to grant invoicing for Fishing Pier Rehab and mid -year transfer from Fund 001 2 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to grant invoicing for various projects. 3 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to a SnoCo grant, parks donations, and park impact fees. 4 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is largely due to 2015 Revenue Bond Proceeds received in August of 2015. 1 Packet Pg. 400 1 8.1.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDTIURFS BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 5 $ 41,886,411 $ 36,677,011 $ 40,308,167 $ 1,578,244 960/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480 298,538 255,291 24,189 910/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 71,528 - - 00/( 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 6 800,000 3,810,370 - 800,000 00/( 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 56,860 - 56,860 - 1000/( 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 14,668 - 5,400 0°/ 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 7 2,395,000 203,043 2,202,297 192,703 920/( 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,030 47,394 61,833 14,197 810/( 111 STREET FUND 1,758,430 1,643,978 1,758,339 91 1000/( 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8 8,173,112 6,660,476 3,250,930 4,922,182 400/( 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 181,380 82,503 69,244 112,136 380/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 149,650 61,358 147,691 1,959 990/( 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 25,490 26,816 64 1000/( 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,937 1,585 1,415 530/( 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 51,500 20,503 29,996 21,504 580/( 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,162,840 1,289,977 659,788 1,503,052 310/( 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 9 3,029,908 313,656 1,687,231 1,342,677 560/( 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 44,950 35,767 38,434 6,516 860/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 210,370 158,773 164,289 46,081 780/( 132 PARKS CONSTRUCT ION FUND 9 1,580,770 963,668 1,078,379 502,391 680/( 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,500 6,843 5,669 6,831 450/c 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 715,356 601,316 81,184 880/( 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 55,488 93,858 (93,858) 00/( 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,000 28,567 7,600 14,400 3501( 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 105,136 - 105,135 1 1000/( 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 667,192 676,867 513 1000/( 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 949,540 925,309 936,429 13,111 99°/ 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,717,739 9,645,377 8,976,160 3,741,579 710/( 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 8,112,189 4,136,742 5,064,352 3,047,837 620/( 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,982,624 12,396,449 14,175,313 3,807,311 790/( 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 1,343,154 1,989,884 1,036 100°/ 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,971,820 1,538,147 1,530,984 440,836 780/c 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 59,610 50,849 44,705 14,905 750/( $ 108,155,929 $ 83,890,113 $ 86,005,441 $ 22,150,488 800% 5 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt. 6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to Interfund Loans to funds 112 and 014 in 2015. 7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. 8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to decreases in construction projects expenses in 2016. 9 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 Packet Pg. 401 8.1.a Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX to EMSPROPERTY TAX 11 VOTED PROPERTY TAX LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 12 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX GAS UT ILIT Y T AX SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX WATERUTILITY TAX SEWER UTILITY TAX STORMWATER UTILITY TAX T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PULLTABSTAX AMUSEMENT GAMES LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LIC INS ES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE POLICE - FINGERPRINTING PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS MISCELLANEOUS INT ERLOCAL REVENUE 13 INT ERLOCAL GRANTS VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS $ 10,068,020 $ 9,991,294 $ 10,010,270 $ 57,750 99% 3,688,090 3,393,581 3,664,210 23,880 99% 949,540 926,154 944,383 5,157 99% 6,144,400 6,741,838 6,905,122 (760,722) 112% 9,800 6,153 6,236 3,564 64% 626,700 635,699 679,138 (52,438) 108% 1,451,800 1,564,648 1,580,287 (128,487) 109% 647,900 613,090 574,714 73,186 89% 306,500 301,343 327,242 (20,742) 107% 1,229,110 1,132,900 1,217,914 11,196 99% 629,140 571,794 629,926 (786) 100% 330,430 314,351 328,981 1,449 100% 846,000 854,823 865,531 (19,531) 102% 1,349,100 1,306,017 1,212,526 136,574 90% 60,600 49,393 52,368 8,232 86% 40 - 141 (101) 351% 242,200 255,507 266,223 (24,023) 110% 28,579,370 28,658,587 29,265,213 (685,843) 102% 250 535 310 (60) 124% 300 717 465 (165) 155% 630 330 - 630 0% 4,740 4,325 - 4,740 0% 710,600 711,199 716,840 (6,240) 101% 44,900 44,630 42,216 2,684 94% 100,900 99,816 102,954 (2,054) 102% 18,400 16,827 17,672 728 96% 268,000 293,783 298,389 (30,389) 111% 116,000 125,757 131,778 (15,778) 114% 42,000 48,240 54,665 (12,665) 130% 70,400 54,350 68,650 1,750 98% 15,000 11,045 91,860 (76,860) 612% 525,000 632,904 708,865 (183,865) 135% 38,800 35,298 24,471 14,329 63% 42,100 35,347 48,022 (5,922) 114% 13,100 13,951 18,196 (5,096) 139% 2,011,120 2,129,053 2,325,353 (314,233) 116% 11,970 3,018 6,920 5,050 58% - 3,750 - - 0% 6,000 5,250 5,250 750 88% - - 992 (992) 0% 7,500 11,634 3,348 4,152 45% 3,000 618 4,675 (1,675) 156% - 492 614 (614) 0% 300 413 - 300 0% - 1,000 - - 0% - - 490,000 (490,000) 0% 192,500 194,479 197,399 (4,899) 103% 10,000 16,742 11,152 (1,152) 112% 13,000 16,423 17,677 (4,677) 136% 36,980 39,113 40,661 (3,681) 110% 7,240 6,052 6,313 927 87% 65,200 108,766 188,912 (123,712) 290% 357,800 350,054 348,792 9,008 97% - 156 77,153 (77,153) 0% 433,330 30,000 - 433,330 0% 6,506 7,754 (7,754) 0% 1,144,820 794,465 1,407,614 (262,794) 123% 10 2016 Real Personal/Property Taxrevenues are $18,977 higher than 2015 revenues. 11 2016 EMS Property Taxrevenues are $270,629 higher than 2015 revenues. 12 2016 Local Retail SalesiUse Taxrevenues are $163,284 higher than 2015 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19. 13 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016. 3 Packet Pg. 402 8.1.a Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F FAMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIC FILINGS $ - $ - $ 49 $ (49) 0% RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 2,000 1,934 2,572 (572) 129% ATM SURCHARGE FEES 250 475 408 (158) 163% D/M COURT REC SER 50 73 47 3 94% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 400 369 577 (177) 144% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 - 4 96 4% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS 25,100 25,086 25,090 10 100% BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 600 844 548 52 91% PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 1,780 1,009 991 50% POLICE DISCLOSURE REOUESTS 4,000 4,081 3,989 11 100% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 180,350 181,014 216,919 (36,569) 120% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES - 1,708 - - 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 60,986 74,184 (16,184) 128% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 15,000 17,410 19,609 (4,609) 131% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 31,852 24,653 31,852 0 100% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 12,300 14,130 13,689 (1,389) 111% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 43,350 42,290 61,411 (18,061) 142% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 1,500 3,038 (1,538) 203% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 - - 300 0% FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI - 10 63 (63) 0% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 46,928 48,748 (3,748) 108% LEGAL SERVICES - - 177 (177) 0% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 64,528 66,778 (6,778) 111% ELECTRONIC MONITORING - - 100 (100) 0% BOOKING FEES 6,000 5,824 3,663 2,337 61% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 21,379 23,806 (15,806) 298% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 15,000 10,949 6,923 8,077 46% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 14 822,100 817,211 900,604 (78,504) 110% FIBER SERVICES 9,200 9,180 10,780 (1,580) 117% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 7,200 7,200 - 100% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,800 2,043 2,274 (474) 126% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 2,731 404 5,597 7% ZONINGdSUBDIVISIONFEE 75,000 106,144 99,938 (24,938) 133% PLAN CHECKING FEES 440,000 466,908 510,697 (70,697) 116% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,000 10,215 11,520 (8,520) 384% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,250 939 2,294 (1,044) 184% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 7,000 8,765 6,710 290 96% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 17,670 20,435 (5,435) 136% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 9,493 11,119 (1,119) 111% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 9,421 12,923 (5,123) 166% LOCKERFEES - - 120 (120) 0% PROGRAM FEES 861,700 792,922 897,579 (35,879) 104% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 19,130 106,305 1,023 18,107 5% WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 5,000 2,175 5,400 (400) 108% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 1,244 916 34 96% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 2,939,600 2,216,145 2,260,922 678,678 77% 5,742,882 5,114,662 5,368,110 374,772 93% 14 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $83,394 higher than 2015 revenues. 4 Packet Pg. 403 I 8.1.a I Page 3 of 3 CITY OFEDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) CURRENT TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES PARK/INDDISZONE DWI PENALTIES DUI - DP ACCT CRIM CNV FEE DUI OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT CRIM CONV FEE CT OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN CRIM CONV FEE CN CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENT S PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT COURT INTERPRETER COSTS BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS PARKING SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS BRACKET ROOM RENTAL LEASES LONG-TERM VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION OT HER RENT S & USE CHARGES DONAT ION/CONT RIBUT ION PARKS DONATIONS BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS 46 or VOLUNTEER PICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE Ak SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES OTHER MISC REVENUES SMALL OVERPAYMENT NSF FEES - PARKS & REC NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES US BANK REBATE TRANSFERS -IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT INSURANCE RECOVERIES OPERATING TRANSFER -IN TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 %Received 8,000 5,908 6,564 1,436 82% 25,000 93,167 214,231 (189,231) 857% 260,000 203,183 53,275 206,725 20% 24,600 23,271 21,379 3,221 87% - - - - 0% 1,300 14,180 40,088 (38,788) 3084% 1,000 1,130 1,761 (761) 176% 43,000 38,996 42,657 343 99% 1,300 1,864 3,472 (2,172) 267% 6,000 5,813 19,626 (13,626) 327% 2,500 2,898 2,389 111 96% 300 483 437 (137) 146% - - 88 (88) 0% 33,000 29,783 30,951 2,049 94% 1,900 2,421 2,841 (941) 150% 2,300 1,712 1,584 716 69% 130 94 - 130 0% 9,000 12,397 8,352 648 93% 900 1,011 445 455 49% 1,900 1,548 1,687 213 89% 900 826 577 323 64% 60,000 50,922 23,870 36,130 40% 33,000 28,631 23,018 9,982 70% - - 7,532 (7,532) 0% 100 338 75 25 75% 5,000 12,810 13,585 (8,585) 272% 1,000 1,690 1,565 (565) 157% 522,130 535,078 522,051 79 100% 38,600 34,739 58,828 (20,228) 152% 5,700 3,680 6,412 (712) 112% 5,000 4,920 5,950 (950) 119% 14,000 15,590 16,475 (2,475) 118% 128,000 137,377 147,324 (19,324) 115% 5,000 4,680 4,800 200 96% 218,100 175,714 179,444 38,656 82% 50,000 50,048 50,490 (490) 101% 4,500 3,300 1,800 2,700 40% 10,000 - 1,500 8,500 15% 9,500 14,060 4,350 5,150 46% 950 1,950 2,142 (1,192) 225% - 3,700 - 0% - 500 1,701 (1,701) 0% 1,000 1,200 - 1,000 0% 150 - 304 (154) 203% 2,000 2,174 7,190 (5,190) 360% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 5,651 133 3,876 1,775 69% 200 40 296 (96) 148% - (711) 254 (254) 0% 1,000 17,366 12,336 (11,336) 1234% 50 20 26 24 52% 120 30 - 120 0% 330 326 178 153 54% 1,010 - - 1,010 0% 6,000 6,917 6,947 (947) 116% 508,861 477,753 512,622 (3,761) 101% 549,095 - 549,095 100% 10,927 58,451 (47,524) 535% 56,860 - 56,860 - 100% 800,000 800,000 - 800,000 0% 25,840 22,175 25,835 5 100% 1,442,722 822,175 690,241 752,481 48% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,951,905 $ 38,531,773 $ 40,091,205 $ (139,300) 100% 5 Packet Pg. 404 I 8.1.a I Page I of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 13,975,960 $ 12,881,397 $ 13,563,048 $ 412,912 97% OVERTIME 434,026 528,997 522,114 (88,088) 120% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 217,790 181,601 195,915 21,875 90% BENEFITS 5,364,396 4,839,097 5,188,028 176,368 97% UNIFORMS 89,290 69,450 80,392 8,898 90% SUPPLIES 412,557 331,071 379,291 33,266 92% SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,680 172,475 138,781 22,899 86% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,761,863 2,430,902 3,048,318 713,545 81% COMMUNICATIONS 211,890 183,138 190,775 21,115 90% TRAVEL 46,210 36,426 41,273 4,937 89% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 4,662 1,838 72% ADVERTISING - 4,809 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 916,390 921,503 934,810 (18,420) 102% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 463,140 489,902 (32,102) 107% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 435,760 360,494 322,314 113,446 74% MISCELLANEOUS 400,094 351,067 300,425 99,669 75% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 9,963,210 9,663,292 9,948,606 14,604 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 125,000 125,000 10,000 93% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,532,120 2,349,315 3,485,862 46,258 99% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 67,500 92,202 56,662 10,838 84% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 709,308 153,129 699,636 9,672 99% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 5,327 - 5,327 0 100% OTHER DEBT - 474 235 (235) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 47,300 54,366 48,058 (758) 102% $ 41,886,411 36,677,011 S 40,308,167 1,578,244 96% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012) INTERFUND LOAN INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (013) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND LOAN REPAYMENT INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES S 178,720 $ 184,991 $ 156,239 $ 22,481 87% 100,480 106,630 96,548 3,932 96% - 6,643 1,286 (1,286) 0% - - 447 (447) 0% 280 275 770 (490) 275% 279,480 298,538 255,291 24,189 91% 71,528 $ - $ 0% .D - .D / 1,000 .l - .D - V 70 $ - $ 3,010,370 $ $ - 0% 800,000 800,000 800,000 0% 800,000 3,810,370 800,000 0% $ 56,860 $ - $ 56,860 $ - 100% 56,860 - 56,860 - 100% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 8,232 200 0% - 6,431 - 0% - 5 - 0% 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 14,668 5,400 0% $ - $ 11,410 $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 162,459 110,453 391,031 (228,572) 241% 2,062,000 76,896 205,349 1,856,651 10% - 4,285 546 (546) 0% 33,000 - 191,821 (158,821) 581% 137,541 - 1,411,794 (1,274,253) 1026% $ 2,395,000 203,043 2,202,297 192,703 92% $ 3,000 $ 1,480 $ 1,350 $ 1,650 45% 5,000 800 5,768 (768) 115% 2,230 1,943 1,676 554 75% 800 - - 800 0% 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50% 45,000 33,170 43,039 1,961 96% 76,030 47,394 61,833 14,197 81% 6 Packet Pg. 405 I 8.1.a I Page 2 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREEI'FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 515,160 $ 538,207 $ 579,092 $ (63,932) 112% OVERTIME 18,400 22,358 25,395 (6,995) 138% BENEFITS 265,870 278,805 303,678 (37,808) 114% UNIFORMS 6,000 5,002 3,745 2,255 62% SUPPLIES 240,000 162,903 171,386 68,614 71% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,462 6,645 19,355 26% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 6,900 17,160 (3,110) 122% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 4,128 4,335 (835) 124% TRAVEL 1,000 300 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 190,950 191,534 191,086 (136) 100% INSURANCE 87,620 81,386 97,912 (10,292) 112% UTILITIES 270,170 273,798 268,000 2,170 99% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 50,766 26,585 18,415 59% MISCELLANEOUS 24,250 1,432 13,873 10,377 57% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 2,031 1,990 1,010 66% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 45,228 3,283 45,225 3 100% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 412 - 412 0 100% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERIVCE COST S - 6 1 (1) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,820 1,849 1,818 2 100% COMBINED STREErC0NST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS $ 1,758,430 $ 1,643,978 $ 1,758,339 $ 91 100% $ 1,747,910 $ 1,324,135 $ 777,467 $ 970,443 44% - - 546,495 (546,495) 0% 358,240 370,467 136,194 222,046 38% 438,000 469,974 208,554 229,446 48% 5,553,332 4,420,255 1,506,623 4,046,709 27% 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% 3,410 3,444 3,396 14 100% $ 8,173,112 $ 6,660,476 $ 3,250,930 $ 4,922,182 40% $ 4,400 $ 3,202 $ 5,032 $ (632) 114% 1,500 815 685 815 46% 166,500 75,228 58,248 108,252 35% 80 12 11 70 13% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 300 140 - 300 0% 6,600 3,106 5,268 1,332 80% $ 181,380 $ 82,503 $ 69,244 $ 112,136 38% $ 77,500 $ 56,776 $ 82,696 $ (5,196) 107% 8,150 582 994 7,156 12% 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 100% 60,000 - 60,000 - 100% $ 149,650 $ 61,358 $ 147,691 $ 1,959 99% $ 1,790 $ 404 $ 1,726 $ 64 96% 25,090 25,086 25,090 - 100% $ 26,880 $ 25,490 $ 26,816 $ 64 100% $ 3,000 $ 1,937 $ 1,585 $ 1,415 53% $ 3,000 $ 1,937 $ 1,585 $ 1,415 53% $ 48,300 $ 18,846 $ 26,793 $ 21,507 55% 3,200 1,658 3,203 (3) 100% $ 51,500 $ 20,503 $ 29,996 $ 21,504 58% 7 Packet Pg. 406 I 8.1.a I Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 35,848 $ 48,756 $ (27,756) 232% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,788 223,515 180,169 6,619 96% RENTAL/LEASE - - 2,790 (2,790) 0% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 140,000 15,423 113,591 26,409 81% MISCELLANEOUS - - 181 (181) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,815,052 1,015,191 314,302 1,500,750 17% $ 2,162,840 $ 1,289,977 $ 659,788 $ 1,503,052 31% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126) SALARIES AND WAGES SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER DEBT & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CEMETERY MAINTENANCFIIlVIPRO VEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SALARIES AND WAGES BENEFITS SUPPLIES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFITDISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ - $ - $ 14,404 $ (14,404) 0% - - 4,623 (4,623) 0% 314,560 45,563 254,584 59,976 81% - - 487,868 (487,868) 0% - 1,200 - - 0% 139,430 141,525 139,425 5 100% 692,180 12,000 436,864 255,316 63% 1,607,507 83,360 73,154 1,534,353 5% 263,250 19,110 263,250 - 100% 2,397 - 2,396 1 100% - 133 79 (79) 0% 10,584 10,764 10,584 (0) 100% $ 3,029,908 $ 313,656 $ 1,687,231 $ 1,342,677 56% $ 13,110 $ 10,905 $ 6,156 $ 6,954 47% 6,000 2,688 6,443 (443) 107% 25,840 22,175 25,835 5 100% $ 44,950 $ 35,767 $ 38,434 $ 6,516 86% $ 108,410 $ 81,387 $ 81,638 $ 26,772 75% 3,500 2,535 1,671 1,829 48% 44,500 34,398 35,115 9,385 79% 1,000 197 - 1,000 0% 7,000 4,486 4,764 2,236 68% 20,000 13,123 19,285 715 96% 4,200 7,375 3,896 304 93% 1,410 1,225 999 411 71% 500 - - 500 0% 11,550 9,984 11,550 - 100% 3,800 733 1,999 1,801 53% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 3,331 3,371 629 84% $ 210,370 $ 158,773 $ 164,289 $ 46,081 78% $ - $ 25 $ 25 $ (25) 0% 225,000 161,467 47,017 177,983 21% 500,000 - 515,490 (15,490) 103% 855,770 797,976 515,848 339,922 60% - 4,200 - - 0% $ 1,580,770 $ 963,668 $ 1,078,379 $ 502,391 68% $ - $ - $ 45 $ (45) 0% - - 5 (5) 0% 2,000 778 255 1,745 13% 4,500 3,359 2,515 1,985 56% 6,000 2,706 2,850 3,151 47% $ 12,500 $ 6,843 $ 5,669 $ 6,831 45% $ - $ 3,828 $ - $ - 0% 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100% 680,000 709,028 598,816 81,184 88% $ 682,500 $ 715,356 $ 601,316 $ 81,184 88% Packet Pg. 407 I 8.1.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS IMPROVENIINTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES $ - $ 15,825 $ 21,192 $ (21,192) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 35,297 61,293 (61,293) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 4,367 11,373 (11,373) 0% - 55,488 93,858 (93,858) 0% LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LID GUARANTY FUND (213) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 2014 DEBTSERVICEFUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 22,000 $ 28,567 $ 7,600 $ 14,400 35% $ 22,000 $ 28,567 $ 7,600 $ 14,400 35% $ 105,136 $ - $ 105,135 $ 1 100% $ 105,136 $ - $ 105,135 $ 1 100% $ 536,270 $ 516,265 $ 536,265 $ 5 100% 140,610 150,927 140,602 8 100% 500 - - 500 0% $ 677,380 $ 667,192 $ 676,867 $ 513 100% $ 933,210 $ 906,908 $ 933,208 $ 2 100% 16,330 18,401 3,221 13,109 20% $ 949,540 $ 925,309 $ 936,429 $ 13,111 99% $ 795,220 $ 736,062 $ 776,424 $ 18,796 98% 24,000 19,062 25,018 (1,018) 104% 372,550 337,368 359,325 13,225 96% 4,000 3,078 3,000 1,000 75% 151,000 146,397 120,616 30,384 80% 1,600,000 1,612,415 1,598,912 1,088 100% 143,000 115,633 124,923 18,077 87% 11,000 13,586 10,087 913 92% 1,793,286 1,158,828 1,120,773 672,513 62% 30,000 31,085 29,597 403 99% 200 149 - 200 0% 340,000 367,651 420,933 (80,933) 124% 100,750 95,069 97,858 2,892 97% 58,920 70,904 52,335 6,585 89% 40,000 25,368 25,839 14,161 65% 17,000 20,338 52,961 (35,961) 312% 70,450 64,460 75,183 (4,733) 107% 30,000 30,693 32,496 (2,496) 108% 1,229,110 1,132,900 1,217,914 11,196 99% 731,220 447,301 639,215 92,005 87% 15,000 15,960 15,065 (65) 100% 4,551,921 2,474,077 1,568,656 2,983,265 34% 2,300 2,205 2,295 5 100% 323,870 315,277 323,868 3 100% 25,840 45,839 25,839 1 100% 256,825 266,414 256,375 450 100% 277 96,726 276 1 100% - 533 378 (378) 0% $ 12,717,739 $ 9,645,377 $ 8,976,160 $ 3,741,579 71% 9 Packet Pg. 408 I 8.1.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 640,470 $ 475,326 $ 521,872 $ 118,598 81% OVERTIME 6,000 15,474 14,335 (8,335) 239% BENEFITS 313,950 237,582 265,373 48,577 85% UNIFORMS 6,500 5,950 5,756 744 89% SUPPLIES 46,500 42,855 34,047 12,453 73% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 1,625 1,823 2,177 46% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,729,930 1,335,306 1,524,981 1,204,949 56% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 3,284 3,652 (452) 114% TRAVEL 4,300 - 300 4,000 7% EXCISE TAXES 55,000 61,094 54,350 650 99% RENTAL/LEASE 252,990 212,654 248,248 4,742 98% INSURANCE 64,120 39,269 63,187 933 99% UTILITES 10,500 8,724 9,421 1,079 90% REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 13,000 11,587 14,183 (1,183) 109% MISCELLANEOUS 94,950 67,022 73,919 21,031 78% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 91,695 139,029 (54,029) 164% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 314,351 328,981 1,449 100% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 413,678 151,628 290,752 122,926 70% LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,563,330 546,628 1,017,870 1,545,460 40% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 83,800 80,507 83,793 7 100% REVENUE BONDS 158,300 154,054 158,297 3 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% INTEREST 165,076 174,008 167,835 (2,759) 102% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 63,866 - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 10,095 364 10,287 (192) 102% $ 8,112,189 $ 4,136,742 $ 5,064,352 $ 3,047,837 62% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONST RUCT ION P ROJECT S GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 1,721,530 $ 1,676,646 $ 1,710,519 $ 11,011 99% 100,000 102,978 91,465 8,535 91% 771,920 745,845 766,178 5,742 99% 9,500 6,120 6,538 2,962 69% 420,200 244,084 281,380 138,820 67% 90,000 58,227 47,744 42,256 53% 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 46,000 30,878 26,850 19,150 58% 2,005,696 2,091,644 2,360,580 (354,884) 118% 43,000 43,420 39,853 3,147 93% 5,000 - 3,122 1,878 62% 150,000 159,721 194,744 (44,744) 130% 182,670 200,097 179,111 3,559 98% 96,630 140,834 106,915 (10,285) 111% 1,056,660 880,306 1,135,718 (79,058) 107% 325,000 305,761 450,352 (125,352) 139% 105,450 65,286 86,901 18,549 82% 150,000 130,022 162,276 (12,276) 108% 629,140 571,794 629,926 (786) 100% 2,563,949 1,735,536 2,222,004 341,945 87% - 132,066 94,337 (94,337) 0% 6,999,825 2,419,725 3,091,547 3,908,278 44% 130,140 126,147 130,123 17 100% 72,840 70,669 72,836 4 100% 170,620 169,990 170,603 17 100% 120,638 123,148 95,235 25,403 79% 12,216 158,765 12,214 2 100% - 6,742 6,242 (6,242) 0% $ 17,982,624 $ 12,396,449 $ 14,175,313 $ 3,807,311 79% $ 655,010 $ 375,000 $ 655,000 $ 10 100% 1,334,910 968,100 1,334,884 26 100% 1,000 54 - 1,000 0% $ 1,990,920 $ 1,343,154 $ 1,989,884 $ 1,036 100% 10 Packet Pg. 409 8.1.a Page 6 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 224,880 $ 212,497 $ 224,287 $ 594 100% OVERTIME 2,000 949 488 1,512 24% BENEFITS 105,050 96,066 98,024 7,026 93% UNIFORMS 1,000 1,181 952 48 95% SUPPLIES 110,000 102,787 84,861 25,139 77% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 106 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 308,200 156,480 134,869 173,331 44% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 23,540 11,048 46,952 19% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 15,957 1,399 42,601 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,400 2,418 582 81% TRAVEL 1,000 2,935 1,000 - 100% RENTAL/LEASE 19,440 14,761 19,157 283 99% INSURANCE 29,560 40,605 29,967 (407) 101% UTILITIES 14,000 11,358 11,891 2,109 85% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 60,000 42,436 51,980 8,020 87% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 17,336 7,266 (76) 101% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,195 1,455 1,045 58% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 981,000 795,557 849,924 131,076 87% $ 1,971,820 $ 1,538,147 $ 1,530,984 $ 440,836 78% FIRIMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 30,940 $ 23,567 $ 16,555 $ 14,385 54% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 27,470 26,175 27,936 (466) 102% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,107 214 986 18% $ 59,610 $ 50,849 $ 44,705 $ 14,905 75% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 108,155,929 $ 83,890,113 $86,005,441 $22,150,488 80% 11 Packet Pg. 410 8.1.a Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 214,501 $ 243,590 $ 51,910 820/c OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 251,288 255,933 4,317 980/c HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 372,227 366,117 95,927 790/c MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 861,801 878,809 30,461 970/c CITY CLERK 593,410 572,964 571,620 21,790 960/c ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,848,860 1,624,960 1,594,043 254,817 860/c CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 667,843 726,741 14,819 980/c NON -DEPARTMENTAL 15,719,783 13,359,282 15,391,798 327,985 980/c POLICE SERVICES 9,675,414 9,009,589 9,489,990 185,424 980/c COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. 540,580 437,823 511,942 28,638 950/c DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,703,352 2,176,717 2,386,294 317,058 880/c PARKS & RECREATION 3,785,468 3,479,393 3,648,633 136,835 960/c PUBLIC WORKS 2,867,120 2,202,010 2,782,287 84,833 970/c FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 1,446,614 1,460,372 23,428 980/c $ 41,886,411 $ 36,677,011 $ 40,308,167 $ 1,578,244 960/( C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2016 Amended Budget 12/31/2015 Expenditures 12/31/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,717,739 $ 9,645,377 $ 8,976,160 $ 3,741,579 710/ STORM UTILITY FUND 8,112,189 4,136,742 5,064,352 3,047,837 620/ SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,982,624 12,396,449 14,175,313 3,807,311 790/ BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 1,343,154 1,989,884 1,036 1000/c $ 40,803,472 $ 27,521,722 $ 30,205,709 $ 10,597,763 740/c 12 Packet Pg. 411 8.1.a Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 119,100 $ 126,193 $ 129,449 $ (10,349) 109% OVERTIME 1,000 - 140 861 14% BENEFITS 88,550 73,673 92,845 (4,295) 105% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,199 1,747 253 87% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 1,522 2,980 (2,980) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,160 5,871 1,432 45,728 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 3,601 3,611 (611) 120% TRAVEL 6,700 1,019 1,572 5,128 23% RENTAL/LEASE 490 554 278 212 57% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - 15 485 3% MISCELLANEOUS 27,000 869 9,522 17,478 35% $ 295,500 $ 214,501 $ 243,590 $ 5L910 82% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 197,160 $ 197,135 $ 197,482 $ (322) 100% BENEFITS 48,190 45,793 48,114 76 100% SUPPLIES 1,500 1,192 1,069 431 71% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 281 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 1,908 1,311 689 66% COMMUNICATION 1,400 502 1,322 78 94% TRAVEL 3,000 188 1,488 1,512 50% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 2,134 1,381 1,019 58% MISCELLANEOUS 4,600 2,154 3,764 836 82% $ 260,250 $ 251,288 $ 255,933 $ 4,317 98% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 226,880 $ 210,144 $ 216,664 $ 10,216 95% OVERTIME - - 43 (43) 0% BENEFITS 73,380 70,260 74,675 (1,295) 102% SUPPLIES 2,300 3,745 4,984 (2,684) 217% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 107 1,322 (1,022) 441% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,000 80,437 61,512 52,488 54% COMMUNICATIONS 700 1,145 1,197 (497) 171% TRAVEL 1,000 757 1,058 (58) 106% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,979 2,369 (169) 108% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,793 - 7,850 0% MISCELLANEOUS 33,434 (4,140) 2,294 31340 7% $ 462,044 $ 372,227 $ 366,117 $ 95,927 79% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 566,190 $ 548,275 $ 564,264 $ 1,926 100% OVERTIME 600 2,678 2,067 (1,467) 344% BENEFITS 222,750 195,540 205,470 17,280 92% SUPPLIES 9,930 12,563 7,809 2,121 79% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 2,167 326 2,474 12% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 78,835 76,126 (12,126) 119% COMMUNICATIONS 1,800 2,125 2,800 (1,000) 156% TRAVEL 2,500 3,239 3,188 (688) 128% RENTAL/LEASE 800 612 735 65 92% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,700 1,009 1,024 676 60% MISCELLANEOUS 36,200 14,760 15,001 21,199 41 % $ 909,270 $ 861,801 $ 878,809 $ 30,461 97% 13 Packet Pg. 412 I 8.1.a I Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 327,913 $ 329,148 $ 330,742 $ (2,829) 101% OVERTIME - 1,692 1,978 (1,978) 0% BENEFITS 129,987 120,973 131,842 (1,855) 101% SUPPLIES 10,240 9,023 6,846 3,394 67% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 602 1,416 (1,416) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 25,687 27,789 521 98% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 41,771 19,750 30,250 39% TRAVEL 1,000 423 38 962 4% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 21,357 16,326 3,674 82% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 21,960 18,188 28,384 (6,424) 129% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 4,100 6,509 (2,509) 163% $ 593,410 $ 572,964 $ 571,620 $ 2L790 96% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 887,390 $ 793,630 $ 875,019 $ 12,371 99% OVERTIME 6,670 1,466 1,810 4,960 27% BENEFITS 305,800 266,331 290,051 15,749 95% SUPPLIES 50,730 10,444 32,078 18,652 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT 110,650 88,733 69,236 41,414 63% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,400 70,280 32,845 78,555 29% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 50,497 64,676 (3,176) 105% TRAVEL 2,900 1,738 2,141 759 74% RENTAL/LEASE 8,200 10,031 11,259 (3,059) 137% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 248,930 172,189 152,028 96,902 61% MISCELLANEOUS 14,690 80,782 33,685 (18,995) 229% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 78,838 29,213 10,787 73% $ 1,848,860 $ 1,624,960 $ 1,594,043 $ 254,817 86% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 741,560 $ 667,843 $ 724,604 $ 16,956 98% MISCELLANEOUS - - 2,137 (2,137) 0% $ 741,560 $ 667,843 $ 726,741 $ 14,819 98% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 67,338 $ - $ - $ 67,338 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 34,500 5,981 3,090 31,410 9% SUPPLIES 3,000 4,537 2,870 130 96% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 690,380 521,443 545,648 144,732 79% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 4,809 4,662 1,838 72% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% MISCELLANEOUS 69,010 66,910 69,889 (879) 101% INTERGOVT SERVICES 9,881,960 9,586,053 9,859,189 22,771 100% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 135,000 125,000 125,000 10,000 93% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,532,120 2,349,315 3,485,862 46,258 99% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 709,308 153,129 699,636 9,672 99% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 47,300 54,366 48,058 (758) 102% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,327 - 5,327 0 100% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 474 235 (235) 0% $ 15,719,783 $ 13,359,282 $ 15,391,798 $ 327,985 98% 14 Packet Pg. 413 I 8.1.a I Page 3 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 5,802,929 $ 5,293,985 $ 5,633,389 $ 169,540 97% OVERTIME 406,756 505,364 481,745 (74,989) 118% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 217,790 181,601 195,915 21,875 90% BENEFITS 2,228,189 2,066,103 2,215,297 12,892 99% UNIFORMS 80,310 60,045 69,632 10,678 87% SUPPLIES 86,730 79,480 79,499 7,231 92% SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,900 41,391 34,269 (9,369) 138% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,170 104,802 90,895 26,275 78% COMMUNICATIONS 26,210 25,827 33,453 (7,243) 128% TRAVEL 17,310 23,862 17,492 (182) 101% RENTAL/LEASE 595,100 572,729 590,296 4,804 99% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 14,620 12,747 9,172 5,448 63% MISCELLANEOUS 46,850 31,108 28,275 18,575 60% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 10,546 10,660 (110) 101% $ 9,675,414 $ 9,009,589 $ 9,489,990 $ 185,424 98% COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES $ 224,960 $ 221,360 $ 225,939 $ (979) 100% BENEFITS 67,430 63,814 67,272 158 100% SUPPLIES 7,000 3,216 6,711 289 96% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 326 376 424 47% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 227,400 140,141 204,196 23,204 90% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 1,081 1,161 329 78% TRAVEL 2,000 646 2,053 (53) 103% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,979 1,455 545 73% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 7,000 5,259 2,778 4,222 40% $ 540,580 $ 437,823 $ 511,942 $ 28,638 95% DEVELO PMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,444,230 $ 1,356,149 $ 1,418,261 $ 25,969 98% OVERTIME 1,300 566 6,228 (4,928) 479% BENEFITS 534,670 483,568 522,042 12,628 98% UNIFORMS 500 120 598 (98) 120% SUPPLIES 16,100 14,141 17,413 (1,313) 108% SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,950 7,337 8,844 (1,894) 127% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 588,942 200,603 304,112 284,830 52% COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 5,248 7,279 1,221 86% TRAVEL 4,250 2,823 7,734 (3,484) 182% RENTAL/LEASE 24,750 36,446 21,455 3,295 87% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 6,800 7,615 8,973 (2,173) 132% MISCELLANEOUS 38,860 62,100 35,907 2,953 92% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 27,500 27,449 51 100% $ 2,703352 $ 2,176,717 $ 2386,294 $ 317,058 88% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,348,500 $ 1,235,848 $ 1,303,402 $ 45,098 97% OVERTIME 5,000 2,763 4,777 223 96% BENEFITS 561,900 491,916 519,524 42,376 92% UNIFORMS 360 - 926 (566) 257% SUPPLIES - 20 79 (79) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 2,262 2,072 128 94% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 515,000 90,316 532,790 (17,790) 103% COMMUNICATIONS 11,800 8,899 11,956 (156) 101% TRAVEL 600 21 1,311 (711) 219% RENTAL/LEASE 26,370 14,880 24,194 2,176 92% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - 346 2,254 13% MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 14,449 22,700 (1,700) 108% $ 2,495,330 $ 1,861,373 $ 2,424,076 $ 71,254 97% 15 Packet Pg. 414 I 8.1.a I Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,830,090 $ 1,703,378 $ 1,749,408 $ 80,682 96% OVERTIME 10,000 10,634 16,106 (6,106) 161% BENEFITS 695,310 628,074 667,163 28,147 96% UNIFORMS 5,370 6,113 5,347 23 100% SUPPLIES 128,427 113,709 128,620 (193) 100% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,080 12,625 11,430 (2,350) 126% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 514,341 391,269 441,375 72,967 86% COMMUNICATIONS 30,140 27,264 26,217 3,923 87% TRAVEL 4,450 1,709 2,357 2,093 53% RENTAL/LEASE 170,310 196,462 201,967 (31,657) 119% PUBLICUTILITY 175,000 194,336 212,117 (37,117) 121% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,800 47,292 45,297 5,503 89% MISCELLANEOUS 91,450 66,471 62,473 28,977 68% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 13,364 - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 66,694 78,758 (8,058) 111% $ 3,785,468 $ 3,479,393 $ 3,648,633 $ 136,835 96% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 263,850 $ 248,507 $ 261,802 $ 2,048 99% 200 - - 200 0% 81,750 72,955 80,718 1,032 99% 7,600 5,309 4,718 2,882 62% 1,000 1,594 108 892 11% 200 2,096 87 113 44% 1,350 637 696 654 52% 500 - 828 (328) 166% 7,640 5,905 6,321 1,319 83% 2,800 2,296 2,479 321 89% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 3,900 1,338 454 3,446 12% $ 371,790 $ 340,637 $ 358,210 $ 13,580 96% 669,430 617,647 657,227 12,203 98% 2,500 3,835 7,220 (4,720) 289% 291,990 254,115 269,925 22,065 92% 2,750 3,172 3,889 (1,139) 141% 87,000 72,494 84,849 2,151 98% 3,000 13,530 6,402 (3,402) 213% - 49,372 3,595 (3,595) 0% 14,000 14,541 16,657 (2,657) 119% - - 12 (12) 0% 52,530 52,834 53,175 (645) 101% 280,000 266,508 275,306 4,694 98% 78,500 93,660 77,076 1,424 98% 2,100 4,907 5,039 (2,939) 240% $ 1A83,800 $ 1,446,614 $ 1,460,372 $ 23,428 98% $ 41,886,411 $ 36,677,011 $ 40,308,167 $ 1,578,244 96% 16 Packet Pg. 415 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 1,949,391 $ February 4,708,591 March 7,003,995 April 10,723,687 May 18,744,983 June 20,754,185 July 22,909,325 August 25,132,797 September 27,171,171 October 30,443,614 November 37,901,725 December 39,951,905 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 1,949,391 $ 2,112,632 2,759,199 4,307,339 2,295,404 6,797,209 3,719,692 10,797,010 8,021,296 18,037,636 2,009,202 20,334,355 2,155,141 22,256,068 2,223,472 24,759,102 2,038,374 26,733,249 3,272,443 29,407,186 7,458,111 37,923,359 2,050,180 40,091,205 8.37 % -8.52 % -2.95 % 0.68 % -3.77 % -2.02 % -2.85 % -1.49 % -1.61 % -3.40 % 0.06 % 0.35 % General Fund 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget —>~ Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 189,874 $ 189,874 $ 216,395 13.97% February 316,058 126,183 447,070 41.45% March 479,194 163,136 551,728 15.14% April 640,872 161,679 768,326 19.89% May 800,918 160,046 977,560 22.05% June 986,094 185,176 1,234,188 25.16% July 1,276,157 290,062 1,436,215 12.54% August 1,480,830 204,673 1,708,460 15.37% September 1,690,614 209,784 1,974,089 16.77% October 1,875,616 185,002 2,208,049 17.72% November 2,069,074 193,458 2,432,807 17.58% December 2,200,000 130,926 2,589,551 17.71% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 416 1 8.1.a Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: December 2016 Year -to -Date Total $6,905,122 Wholesale Trade 297,410 Cotrnnunications 251,836 Contractors 1,149,280 Misc Retail Trade 717,112 Health & Personal Care r 97,637 1/ Retail Eating & Drinking 877,396 Gasoline Stations 34,466 Automotive Repair 172,8731 Retail Automotive 1,769,983 Clothing and Accessories 219,142 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: December 2016 compared to December 2015 Total Retail Automotive Retail Eating & Drinking Misc Retail Trade Business Services Others Retail Food Stores Wholesale Trade Clothing and Accessories Amusement & Recreation Accommodation Health & Personal Care Gasoline Stations Communications Automotive Repair Contractors Accommodation 48,201 Business Services 486,643 Amusement & Recreation 70,136 Retail Food Stores 266,308 Others 376,798 ($280,000) ($230,000) ($180,000) ($130,000) ($80,000) ($30,000) $20,000 $70,000 $120,000 $170,000 18 Packet Pg. 417 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2016 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 471,315 $ 471,315 $ 539,867 14.54% February 1,055,135 583,820 1,204,754 14.18% March 1,506,759 451,624 1,693,551 12.40% April 1,936,463 429,704 2,173,926 12.26% May 2,478,856 542,394 2,754,132 11.10% June 2,960,731 481,875 3,295,015 11.29% July 3,457,813 497,082 3,843,359 11.15% August 3,998,806 540,993 4,487,881 12.23% September 4,517,576 518,770 5,077,167 12.39% October 5,055,818 538,242 5,725,300 13.24% November 5,626,862 571,044 6,345,551 12.77% December 6,144,400 517,538 6,905,122 12.38% Sales and Use Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget mar Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2016 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 90,678 $ 90,678 $ 85,977 -5.18% February 190,868 100,190 176,574 -7.49% March 272,706 81,838 249,556 -8.49% April 346,987 74,281 311,852 -10.13% May 405,847 58,860 352,987 -13.02% June 445,893 40,046 385,669 -13.51% July 477,342 31,449 415,562 -12.94% August 501,633 24,291 440,093 -12.27% September 523,862 22,229 462,329 -11.75% October 548,406 24,545 487,637 -11.08% November 586,112 37,705 526,086 -10.24% December 647,900 61,788 574,714 -11.30% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 418 1 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2016 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 125,356 $ 125,356 $ 91,384 -27.10% February 226,461 101,105 230,098 1.61% March 344,917 118,456 328,246 -4.83% April 457,974 113,057 432,105 -5.65% May 577,752 119,778 532,012 -7.92% June 685,900 108,148 633,125 -7.69% July 794,692 108,792 732,953 -7.77% August 904,737 110,045 829,228 -8.35% September 1,019,063 114,326 926,754 -9,06% October 1,131,491 112,428 1,023,923 -9.51% November 1,235,975 104,484 1,118,248 -9.53% December 1,349,100 113,125 1,212,526 -10.12% Telephone Utility Tax 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 r_ 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2016 Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 155,396 $ 311,244 463,906 612,759 749,676 854,497 956,312 1,049,934 1,145,581 1,239,871 1,346,584 1,451,800 155,396 $ 177,383 155,848 348,280 152,662 509,702 148,854 674,873 136,917 801,429 104,821 913,790 101,815 1,025,239 93,622 1,131,516 95,647 1,238,582 94,290 1,347,152 106,712 1,459,492 105,216 1,580,287 14.15% 11.90% 9.87% 10.14% 6.90% 6.94% 7.21% 7.77% 8.12% 8.65% 8.38% 8.85% Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -IF- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 419 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2016 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 573,717 $ 573,717 $ 553,882 -3.46% February 969,279 395,562 943,114 -2.70% March 1,534,923 565,644 1,529,160 -0.38% April 1,915,226 380,303 1,904,819 -0.54% May 2,481,868 566,642 2,446,538 -1.42% June 2,912,390 430,522 2,888,880 -0.81% July 3,586,469 674,079 3,581,142 -0.15% August 4,157,711 571,242 4,155,904 -0.04% September 4,946,125 788,414 4,932,273 -0,28% October 5,503,014 556,889 5,481,021 -0.40% November 6,162,012 658,998 6,124,728 -0.61% December 6,572,750 410,738 6,512,542 -0.92% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2016 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 238,091 $ 238,091 $ 238,442 14.15% February 750,139 512,049 750,909 11.90% March 988,469 238,330 988,089 9.87% April 1,200,403 211,933 1,195,226 10.14% May 1,439,120 238,718 1,432,240 6.90% June 1,651,173 212,053 1,642,773 6.94% July 1,891,010 239,837 1,880,842 -0.54% August 2,403,804 512,795 2,395,020 -0.37% September 2,641,727 237,923 2,632,203 -0.36% October 2,853,622 211,895 2,842,595 -0.39% November 3,092,120 238,497 3,079,527 -0.41% December 3,304,340 212,220 3,289,613 -0.45% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 420 1 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2016 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 571,975 $ 571,975 $ 566,825 -0.90% February 1,033,695 461,721 1,035,133 0.14% March 1,603,598 569,903 1,607,616 0.25% April 2,066,627 463,029 2,078,557 0.58% May 2,641,462 574,835 2,642,003 0.02% June 3,110,919 469,457 3,115,575 0.15% July 3,697,613 586,694 3,712,853 0.41% August 4,168,968 471,356 4,182,788 0.33% September 4,762,598 593,630 4,778,740 0.34% October 5,236,709 474,111 5,254,663 0.34% November 5,819,454 582,746 5,831,151 0.20% December 6,291,410 471,956 6,300,505 0.14% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 421 1 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 4,646,252 $ 4,646,252 $ 4,953,956 6.62% February 7,215,866 2,569,613 7,893,221 9.39% March 10,446,142 3,230,277 10,217,655 -2.19% April 14,547,656 4,101,513 14,305,106 -1.67% May 16,777,198 2,229,542 16,509,045 -1.60% June 20,636,863 3,859,665 19,669,418 -4.69% July 23,950,439 3,313,575 23,796,385 -0.64% August 27,626,893 3,676,454 28,202,529 2.08% September 31,316,877 3,689,985 30,670,999 -2,06% October 33,972,066 2,655,189 32,924,906 -3.08% November 37,656,347 3,684,281 36,098,102 -4.14% December 41,886,411 4,230,064 40,308,167 -3.77% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2016 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 2,774,902 $ 2,774,902 $ 3,074,199 February 3,252,190 477,288 4,065,136 March 4,395,833 1,143,643 4,389,675 April 6,435,344 2,039,511 6,454,134 May 6,604,609 169,265 6,679,708 June 8,330,750 1,726,141 7,828,525 July 9,452,388 1,121,638 9,839,305 August 10,817,036 1,364,648 11,927,542 September 12,420,871 1,603,834 12,314,850 October 12,874,594 453,723 12,515,126 November 14,096,592 1,221,998 13,396,051 December 15,719,783 1,623,191 15,391,798 10.79% 25.00% -0.14% 0.29% 1.14% -6.03% 4.09% 10.27% -0.85% -2.79% -4.97% -2.09% Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget —dr— Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 422 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2016 City Council Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 19,588 $ 19,588 $ 13,340 -31.90% February 43,238 23,650 27,668 -36.01% March 68,617 25,379 44,120 -35.70% April 91,002 22,385 58,113 -36.14% May 115,388 24,386 71,981 -37.62% June 142,957 27,568 98,095 -31.38% July 169,613 26,656 120,390 -29.02% August 194,018 24,404 143,459 -26.06% September 218,163 24,145 183,494 -15,89% October 242,646 24,484 191,442 -21.10% November 268,263 25,616 216,202 -19.41% December 295,500 27,237 243,590 -17.57% City Council 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2016 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 22,161 $ 22,161 $ 21,296 -3.90% February 44,020 21,859 43,294 -1.65% March 65,603 21,583 64,319 -1.96% April 86,693 21,090 85,409 -1.48% May 108,016 21,323 106,249 -1.64% June 129,368 21,352 127,277 -1.62% July 151,400 22,032 148,207 -2.11% August 172,781 21,380 171,288 -0.86% September 193,702 20,921 192,059 -0.85% October 217,172 23,470 213,048 -1.90% November 239,237 22,065 234,054 -2.17% December 260,250 21,013 255,933 -1.66% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 423 1 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2016 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December City Clerk 31,331 $ 72,877 113,765 170,111 211,474 249,424 295,430 339,029 386,859 433,930 479,977 540,580 31,331 $ 41,546 40,888 56,347 41,362 37,951 46,006 43,599 47,830 47,072 46,047 60,603 25,054-20.04% 61,145-16.10% 101,724-10.58% 146,484-13.89% 183,771-13.10% 232,729 -6.69% 274,304 -7.15% 325,051 -4.12% 362,099 -6.40% 399,626 -7.91% 453,901 -5.43% 511,942 -5.30% Community Services/Economic Development 600,000 500,000 400,000 lot 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 51,188 $ 51,188 $ 44,524 -13.02% February 97,455 46,267 87,838 -9.87% March 147,214 49,758 142,107 -3.47% April 192,573 45,359 188,255 -2.24% May 237,266 44,693 234,593 -1.13% June 285,472 48,207 281,026 -1.56% July 333,827 48,355 323,638 -3.05% August 384,426 50,599 371,081 -3.47% September 434,146 49,719 416,998 -3.95% October 492,658 58,512 461,588 -6.31% November 542,727 50,069 519,788 -4.23% December 593,410 50,683 571,620 -3.67% City Clerk 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget ter~ Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 424 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2016 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 34,273 $ 71,193 115,298 150,430 189,556 227,772 266,108 302,589 344,265 381,533 414,723 462,044 34,273 $ 36,920 44,105 35,132 39,126 38,216 38,336 36,480 41,676 37,268 33,190 47,321 28,007-18.28% 58,708-17.54% 90,412-21.58% 115,675-23.10% 146,734-22.59% 175,479-22.96% 206,637-22.35% 235,942-22.03% 265,413-22,90% 291,175-23.68% 314,853-24.08% 366,117-20.76% Human Resources 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2016 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 67,768 $ 67,768 $ 67,346 -0.62% February 140,999 73,231 145,300 3.05% March 219,268 78,269 219,191 -0.04% April 293,243 73,975 290,918 -0.79% May 365,511 72,268 366,411 0.25% June 440,872 75,361 435,326 -1.26% July 515,865 74,993 503,006 -2.49% August 594,541 78,676 577,433 -2.88% September 669,574 75,033 654,546 -2.24% October 750,559 80,985 730,805 -2.63% November 828,307 77,748 803,618 -2.98% December 909,270 80,963 878,809 -3.35% Municipal Court 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 425 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2016 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December Finance 87,929 $ 165,241 227,026 284,411 335,037 385,255 452,964 526,861 596,668 654,598 742,775 909,040 87,929 $ 77,312 61,786 57,384 50,626 50,218 67,709 73,897 69,807 57,929 88,177 166,265 55,507-36.87% 158,620 -4.01% 205,381 -9.53% 242,036-14.90% 283,871-15.27% 325,732-15.45% 370,139-18.29% 421,240-20.05% 466,969-21.74% 536,200-18.09% 577,005-22.32% 704,824-22.47% Information Services 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 97,947 $ 174,402 249,528 330,097 403,825 478,183 551,010 624,240 699,491 782,345 857,044 939,820 97,947 $ 76,455 75,126 80,569 73,728 74,359 72,826 73,230 75,251 82,854 74,699 82,776 62,994-35.69% 130,335-25.27% 197,850-20.71% 265,012-19.72% 330,595-18.13% 391,632-18.10% 459,737-16.56% 535,500-14.22% 649,770 -7.11% 725,646 -7.25% 805,311 -6.04% 889,219 -5.38% Finance 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 426 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2016 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 61,797 $ 61,797 $ 60,070 -2.79% February 123,593 61,797 120,220 -2.73% March 185,390 61,797 162,968 -12.09% April 247,187 61,797 224,651 -9.12% May 308,983 61,797 286,857 -7.16% June 370,780 61,797 347,078 -6.39% July 432,576 61,797 425,065 -1.74% August 494,373 61,797 467,705 -5.39% September 556,170 61,797 527,900 -5,08% October 617,966 61,797 606,406 -1.87% November 679,763 61,797 666,581 -1.94% December 741,560 61,797 726,741 -2.00% Police 800,000 City Attorney 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 746,052 $ 746,052 $ 771,955 February 1,508,131 762,079 1,527,193 March 2,281,616 773,484 2,295,467 April 3,039,356 757,740 3,078,848 May 3,796,864 757,508 3,832,659 June 4,618,545 821,680 4,596,670 July 5,387,395 768,850 5,342,881 August 6,163,917 776,522 6,111,444 September 6,932,670 768,753 6,866,786 October 7,732,559 799,889 7,636,411 November 8,807,522 1,074,963 8,711,208 December 9,675,414 867,892 9,489,990 3.47 % 1.26% 0.61 % 1.30% 0.94 % -0.47 % -0.83 % -0.85 % -0.95 % -1.24 % -1.09% -1.92% 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -dr,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 28 Packet Pg. 427 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2016 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 205,383 $ 205,383 $ 170,060 -17.20% February 418,243 212,861 361,353 -13.60% March 652,268 234,024 565,548 -13.30% April 864,610 212,342 764,404 -11.59% May 1,083,969 219,359 985,455 -9.09% June 1,293,357 209,388 1,183,128 -8.52% July 1,517,185 223,828 1,381,541 -8.94% August 1,744,832 227,646 1,616,477 -7.36% September 1,970,309 225,477 1,811,147 -8.08% October 2,220,519 250,210 2,016,828 -9.17% November 2,449,661 229,142 2,198,794 -10.24% December 2,703,352 253,691 2,386,294 -11.73% Parks & Recreation Development Services 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 244,297 $ 506,849 783,356 1,061,970 1,363,517 1,682,088 2,114,482 2,574,718 2,897,470 3,192,463 3,447,976 3,785,468 244,297 $ 252,899 262,552 502,972 276,507 770,996 278,614 1,041,241 301,548 1,333,112 318,570 1,609,632 432,394 2,007,609 460,236 2,491,385 322,752 2,779,501 294,993 3,056,852 255,513 3,318,587 337,492 3,648,648 3.52% -0.76% -1.58% -1.95% -2.23% -4.31% -5.05% -3.24% -4.07% -4.25% -3.75% -3.61% Parks & Recreation 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 428 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2016 Public Works Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 31,230 $ 31,230 $ 29,570 -5.31% February 62,130 30,900 59,034 -4.98% March 92,810 30,680 89,046 -4.05% April 123,243 30,434 118,682 -3.70% May 154,320 31,076 148,411 -3.83% June 185,380 31,060 178,420 -3.75% July 216,622 31,243 208,906 -3.56% August 246,986 30,363 238,996 -3.24% September 276,279 29,293 269,015 -2,63% October 308,266 31,987 297,453 -3.51% November 337,169 28,904 326,930 -3.04% December 371,790 34,621 358,210 -3.65% Facilities Maintenance Public Works 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 115,588 $ 236,621 365,554 487,500 604,005 723,757 857,071 967,719 1,099,287 1,211,418 1,335,849 1,483,800 115,588 $ 116,661 121,033 240,595 128,934 357,601 121,946 468,138 116,504 595,677 119,752 697,556 133,314 822,642 110,648 939,588 131,567 1,067,573 112,132 1,185,401 124,431 1,330,476 147,951 1,460,372 0.93% 1.68% -2.18% -3.97% -1.38% -3.62% -4.02% -2.91% -2.88% -2.15% -0.40% -1.58% 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Facilities Maintenance [AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 429 1 I 8.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2016 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 200,059 $ 200,059 $ 160,475 -19.79% February 400,435 200,376 303,810 -24.13% March 603,326 202,891 521,251 -13.60% April 804,218 200,892 763,107 -5.11% May 1,011,134 206,916 922,959 -8.72% June 1,214,128 202,994 1,161,113 -4.37% July 1,415,855 201,727 1,362,376 -3.78% August 1,619,841 203,986 1,628,399 0.53% September 1,826,248 206,407 1,842,877 0.91% October 2,043,947 217,700 2,060,898 0.83% November 2,254,898 210,951 2,224,759 -1.34% December 2,495,330 240,432 2,424,076 -2.86% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 430 1 I 8.1.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of December 31, 2016 Years to Purchase Maturity Yield to / Issuer Investment Tvoe Maturitv Price Date Maturity FICO Bonds 0.4 $ 1,027,000 06/06/17 0.96% FHLMC Bonds 1.0 1,000,000 12/28/17 0.90% FFCB Bonds 2.0 2,000,000 12/28/18 1.42% FFCB Bonds 2.1 2,000,000 01/25/19 1.23% FHLMC Bonds 2.8 1,000,000 10/02/19 1.25% FNMA Bonds 2.8 2,000,000 10/28/19 1.35% FNMA Bonds 3.2 1,000,000 03/30/20 1.38% FHLB Bonds 3.2 2,000,000 03/30/20 1.45% FHLMC Bonds 3.3 2,000,000 04/28/20 1.35% FNMA Bonds 3.5 1,000,000 06/30/20 1.38% FNMA Bonds 3.5 1,000,000 06/30/20 1.38% FHLB Bonds 3.5 3,000,000 07/13/20 1.20% RFCS Bonds 3.5 2,120,000 07/15/20 1.60% FNMA Bonds 3.7 1,000,000 08/28/20 1.40% FNMA Bonds 3.7 1,000,000 08/28/20 1.40% FHLMC Bonds 4.0 1,000,000 12/30/20 1.75% FNMA Bonds 4.1 2,000,000 01/19/21 1.50% FHLMC Bonds 5.0 1,000,000 12/30/21 2.00% TOTAL SECURITIES 27,147,000 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 13,163,709 Demand 0.51% Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 20,635,478 Demand 0.88% TOTAL PORTFOLIO $ 60,946,187 Issuer Diversification FICO, 5% rall- RFCS, 10% FNMA, 28% FHLMC, 140Y FHLB, 24% FFCB, 19% Cash and Investment Balances (in $ Millions) Checking, $3.1 State LGIP, $13.2 Bonds, $27.1 County LGIP, $20.6 32 Packet Pg. 431 1 I 8.1.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income Adw $500,000 $437,356 $400,000 $335,926 $300,000 $$163 214 200,000 $100,000 60 633 $57,334 $74,830 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 1.1 % 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.8% 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.0 % Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark, Jan - Dec 2016 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return $10,000,000 2.50% $8,000,000 2.00% $6,000,000 1.50% $4,000,000 1.00% • 0.00% 0-6 Mo 6-12 M o 12-18 M o 18-24 M o 24-30 M o 30-36 M o 36-42 M o 42-48 M o 48-54 M o 54-60 M o 33 Packet Pg. 432 1 8.1.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW E L 0 Q N� .0 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES L GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES & S UBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 9/30/2016 12/31 /2016 Q4 3 YTDCY 001-General Fund $ 9,359,437 $ 5,421,687 $ 9,142,475 $ 3,720,788 $ (216,96, m 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 519,409 476,976 544,021 67,045 24,61, N 011-Risk Management Fund 961,512 968,764 971,499 2,735 9,98- `m 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 4,677,030 4,689,616 5,389,495 699,879 712,46! E 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,487 56,899 0 (56,899) a� (56,48- m 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 2,589 5,132 7,646 2,515 5,05- 016-Building Maintenance 118,085 118,689 (104,774) (223,463) (222,85f ra c Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 11,737,762 $ 15,950,361 $ 4,212,600 $ 255,81: 'E L With Grant Invoice Accrual in an amount of $187,287 for the Fishing Pier Rehab, Fund 016 will not have a negative Fund Balance for 2016 M W 00 0 a a� General Fund & Subfunds U c� c 20 - e_ 21 $15.69 $15.95 a� 16 0 $11.74 0 CY 12 r H � O_ O N 8 L E 4 U a� - 0 c Dec 2015 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 L a m m 0. E 0 U *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. E U This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. a 34 Packet Pg. 433 8.1.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW E L 0 Q N� CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ca ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- u_ 12/31 /2015 9/30/2016 12/31 /2016 Q4 YTD >, L General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 11,737,762 $ 15,950,361 $ 4,212,600 $ 255,81, Special Revenue 7,711,345 11,174,980 11,085,621 (89,359) 3,374,27, CY Debt Service 114,789 126,931 20,261 (106,669) (94,52 0 Total Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 23,039,672 $ 27,056,244 $ 4,016,572 $ 3,535,56 N L E V Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund E Balances - Combined L 20 30 M 00 $27.06 V_ 0 16 15.69 $15.95 General $23.52 23.04 Q- Fund & Subfunds to v c c� 012 :74 $11.09"Special 2 18 0 ii Revenue 8 7.71 12 R CY Debt m Service r 0 N 4 6 aa) U a� - $0.11 $0.13 $0.02 �+ Dec 2015 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 Dec 2015 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 E L a m m a E 0 U *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. as This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 0 r Q 35 Packet Pg. 434 8.1.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE: ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2015 9/30/2016 12/31/2016 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q4 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 68,732 $ 87,611 $ 75,299 $ (12,312) $ 6,561 111 - Street Fund 514,447 538,951 734,589 195,638 220,14,' 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 9,340 1,884,073 2,346,342 462,269 2,337,00,' 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 468,471 458,062 495,028 36,966 26,551 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,919 18,050 18,101 51 18, 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 153,885 175,929 94,685 (81,244) (59,20( 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,481 72,256 63,704 (8,552) (771 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,468 14,378 14,931 553 (531 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 84,568 88,102 84,444 (3,658) (12z 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,629,534 2,281,406 2,286,265 4,859 656,73' 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,239,006 2,688,714 2,118,258 (570,457) (120,74£ 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,925 265,872 264,486 (1,386) (1,434 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,393 38,673 38,782 109 38� 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 137,256 145,876 147,453 1,577 10,19d 132 - Parks Construction Fund 897,414 1,266,766 1,185,145 (81,621) 287,73' 136 - Parks Trust Fund 152,249 153,360 153,793 433 1,54z 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 883,729 902,601 907,763 5,162 24,03z 138 - Sister City Commission 3,785 3,965 6,416 2,450 2,63' 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 66,743 90,335 50,137 (40,197) (16,60( Total Special Revenue $ 7,711,345 $ 11,174, 980 $ 11, 085, 621 $ (89, 359) $ 3,374,27E 15 12 c 9 0 6 3 Special Revenue Funds $1 1 17 $11.09 ■ Special Revenue Dec 2015 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 435 I 8.1.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2015 9/30/2016 12/31 /2016 Q4 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 16,489,530 $ 16,726,157 $ 16,281,974 $ (444,184) $ (207,55E 422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,589,898 9,782,939 8,534,660 (1,248,280) (1,055,23£ 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 42,657,767 42,907,413 39,950,805 (2,956,608) (2,706,96,- 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,960 843,966 843,968 2 £ 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 131,139 - (131,139) Total Enterprise Funds $ 69,581,155 $ 70,391,615 $ 65,611,407 $ (4,780,209) $ (3,969,74£ Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of December 31, 2016 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000, 000 0 $ Combined Utility $16,281,9 Water Storm $39,950,805 597 — Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Equipment Pension Fund Rental Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 37 Packet Pg. 436 8.1.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW E L 0 Q N� FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES c CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- c 12/31 /2015 9/30/2016 12/31 /2016 Q4 YTD LL Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 23,039,672 $ 27,056,244 $ 4,016,572 $ 2111 3,535,56- Enterprise Funds 69,581,155 70,391,615 65,61 1,407 (4,780,209) (3,969,74E Internal Services Fund 7,650,499 7,732,280 7,798,897 66,617 3 148,39E (y Agency Funds 203,102 231,425 224,697 (6,728) 21,59f 0 Total City-wide Total $100,955,439 $101,394,993 $100,691,245 $ (703,748) $ (264,19, N 0 E 0 0 Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of December 31, 2016 c E Drug Enforcement Fund $75,299 Street Fund $734,589 d Combined Street Const/Improve Fund $2 346,342 00 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund $495,028 Memorial Street Fund $18,101 0 0 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $94,685 0. Employee Parking Permit Fund $63,704 R Youth Scholarship Fund $14,931 v c Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $84,444LL c Real Estate Excise Tax 2 $2,2 36,265 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq a) Gifts Catalog Fund $264 486 $2,11 ,258 Special Projects Fund $38,782 CY Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement $147,45 0 Parks Construction Fund $1,185, 45 N Parks Trust Fund $153,79 0 = Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 907,763 0 v Sister City Commission $6,416 00 Business Improvement District 1 $50,137 L.I.D. Fund Control $20,262 E $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 a. 0 0 Q. E 0 U N *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. E U This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. a 38 Packet Pg. 437 8.1.a INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW E L 0 NN0 .0 0 LL FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND 21 INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- - ACTUAL ---- FUNDS CY 12/31 /2015 9/30/2016 12/31 /2016 Q4 YTD 0 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,650,499 $ 7,732,280 $ 7,798,897 $ 66,617 $ 148,39E ci aD Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,650,499 $ 7,732,280 $ 7,798,897 $ 66,617 $ 148,39E E a� aD 0 �a c E L Internal Service Fund Balances d c� 0 10 77 57.65 $7.73 $7.80 L 0 8 c 6 c 511- Equipment Rental Fund ii L 4 L CY 2 0 0 N L 0 M _ E Dec 2015 Sept 2016 Dec 2016 0 aD L E L 0 r 0 Q E 0 U *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. c E This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Q 39 Packet Pg. 438 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (10 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History Westgate Chapel and one other property owner have submitted a petition to vacate that portion of 92nd Avenue W lying south of 228th Street SW. The City Council considered the street vacation request in a public hearing on November 1, 2016. Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Vacate (Exhibit 2) stating certain conditions that must be met within 90 days prior to the City completing the vacation. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Council adopt the Ordinance in Exhibit 1 vacating that portion of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 228th Street SW. Narrative An application and petition has been filed with the City of Edmonds to vacate that portion of 92nd Avenue W that extends south of 228th Street SW for approximately 375 feet. The width of the right-of- way varies from 30 feet at the southerly terminus to 60 feet over the northerly 290 feet. The City of Edmonds has a storm water drainage conveyance system within the westerly half of the roadway and Olympic View Water and Sewer District has sanitary sewer and water lines within the right-of-way. Westgate Chapel owns the majority of the property along this portion of 92nd Avenue W with the only other property owner addressed at 9126 228th Street SW (in the southwest corner of the intersection of 92nd Ave. W and 228th St. SW) also signing the petition for this street vacation. Following a public hearing on November 1, 2016, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to vacate in Resolution No. 1375. The resolution identified a number of conditions to be met within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution before the City would complete the vacation. These conditions and the Exhibit documenting compliance with the stated condition are provided below. 1. The legal description of the vacation area and map of the vacation area must be adjusted to recognize the City retaining the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 228t" Street SW. (Exhibit A and B). 2. The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall acknowledge in writing that upon vacation it shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these Packet Pg. 439 8.2 facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. (Exhibit 3) 3. The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilities through the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly from the underlying fee owner. (Exhibit 4) 4. Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of- way. Easements shall be provided to all entities from the underlying fee owner as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. (Exhibits 5 & 6) 5. The petitioners shall pay the City of Edmonds $92,610 which is one-half the appraised value of the vacation property. (Exhibit 7) 6. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the area of vacation or the three vacant lots on the east side of 92nd Avenue W are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required if necessary to satisfy the city's fire code. (Exhibit 3) 7. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the to -be -vacated right-of-way becomes unusable, blocked, or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92nd Ave W, mid -block between 228th Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees, at the sole cost of the then -owner, so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west. (Exhibit 3) Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Resolution of Intent No. 1375 Exhibit 2 - Ordinance Vacating a portion of 92nd Ave W Exhibit A - Vacation Area Legal Description Exhibit B - Vacation Area Map Exhibit 3 - Applicant Response Letter Exhibit 4 - Olympic View Water & Sewer District Easement Exhibit 5 - Puget Sound Energy Easement Exhibit 6 - Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Easement Exhibit 7 - Receipt for $92,610 Exhibit 8 - November 1, 2016 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 9 - November 15, 2016 Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 440 8.2.a RESOLUTION NO. 1375 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONTIONS. WHEREAS, on October 4, 2016, the Edmonds City Council adopted resolution No. 1371 establishing a public hearing on a proposed street vacation, File No. PLN20160032; and WHERES, a public hearing on the proposed street vacation was held on November 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the vacation is in the public interest, and that no property will be denied access as a result of the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to retain 300 square feet of the proposed vacation area for a future project identified in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, Olympic View Water and Sewer District has request easement be reserved for utilities in the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at that public hearing, the record contained a market data appraisal showing the value of the proposed vacation area to be $203,000; and WHEREAS, the assessed value of the proposed vacation area, minus the 300 square feet being removed from the vacation area, and the depreciated value of the existing asphalt is $185,220; and WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way was originally acquired pursuant to dedication and not at public expense; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a and RCW 35.79.030 the City may be compensated up to an amount equal to one-half of the fair market value of the right-of-way prior to vacation by ordinance; and 1 Packet Pg. 441 8.2.a WHEREAS, the City Council finds $92,610 (half of $185,220) is reasonable compensation when determined in accordance with the fair market value of the parcel to be vacated, the restrictions placed upon said property by the reservation of utility easements for third -parties and the limitations on compensation which the City may require as contained in state statute and City ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby states its intent to vacate by ordinance that portion of 92nd Avenue West laying south of 228t" Street Southwest and north of State Route 104 as shown on the attached Exhibit A and further described in File No. PLN20160032, which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth as long as the following conditions are met within ninety (90) days, and PROVIDED THAT the City of Edmonds will retain, and will not vacate, the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 228th Street SW.: 1. The legal description of the vacation area and map of the vacation area must be adjusted to recognize the above -referenced change in the vacation area. 2. The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall acknowledge in writing that upon vacation it shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. 3. The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilities through the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly from the underlying fee owner. 4. Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities from the underlying fee owner as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. Packet Pg. 442 8.2.a 5. The petitioners shall pay the City of Edmonds $92,610 which is one-half the appraised value of the vacation property. 6. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the area of vacation or the three vacant lots on the east side of 92nd Avenue W are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required if necessary to satisfy the city's fire code. 7. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the to -be -vacated right-of-way becomes unusable, blocked, or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92nd Ave W, mid -block between 228th Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees, at the sole cost of the then -owner, so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west. RESOLVED THIS 15ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016: ATTEST: C LER , SCOT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. C� MAYOR DAVE EARLING November 10, 2016 November 15, 2016 1375 3 J Packet Pg. 443 8.2.a 1 31 } -T 01 I ' 1 rr= 1 00,t , AF NCO. 982137 I I � ROE; CEIVED JUN 2 0 2016 ,- - --� - - !_(PMENtr I42 I 41 40 I _ r_L_ 02 I I I II E. TN0. 14 30' AF NO. 1214687 34 33 343 44 I 45 I 2287H STREET S.W. N 25 3o M 10.00' N S013109"E 20.0]` 3s 31 a 1 I I 73eC.01' O.8 ' � ..�. T S88'22'55"ETIFO' I II 4 I 30'8'41'25"E � 30.02' I TAX 06 04 I 05 I 03 "WESTGATE CHAPEL I "05553002-1 LOT 1, BiX 2, RIDGE ACRES D0106 AF NO. 262998 / TAX #0054620000100 #0054520000101 I J Y � AREA OF YACATTO J� / PARCEL A. CITY OF o 20,323 SF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJT. TAX $ 3 N0, LL 2006-026 �w 0391000000800 e / GAF NO, 200703025001 / z �-- — - TAX 9 z 30' 1 #04391000000900 C3 TAX #00391000001000 400 v� 561i9'47-iN 10 / 33.96' Ir/ 5 / N NO'13'09'W / 91.85' L _ ljN "•88'42'29"W 30.01' \ I SEQUOCONDOMINIUM �s AF NO.. 200704125001 ISHEETJOF STREET VACATION GROUP FOURln. 1 ESTGATE CHAPEL nd-ACITY OF EDMONDS P.°.BOX 14g)#0841� AK(W6M134f'wwwGRP�mwnsez5a Attachml Packet Pg. 444 8.2.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1375, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on November 1, 2016 the Edmond City Council adopted Resolution No. 1375 stating its intent to vacate a portion of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 228th Street Southwest; and, WHEREAS, certain conditions were set forth therein for the vacation; including 1) assumption of ownership of stormwater facilities located within the vacated 92nd Avenue West and Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way, 2) reservation of easements for public utilities within the vacated 92nd Avenue West, 3) payment of $92,610 for one-half the appraised value of the vacated 92nd Avenue West, and 4) acknowledgment of certain fire access and safety measures on future development. WHEREAS, the staff has report to the City Council that all such conditions have been met within the ninety (90) day period set in the resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -1- Packet Pg. 445 8.2.b Section 1. That portion of 92" d Avenue West lying south of 228t" Street Southwest described in the attached Exhibit A and shown on the attached Exhibit B, is hereby vacated. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM �. ism MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. -2- Packet Pg. 446 8.2.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 21 st day of February, 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228' STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1375, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of February, 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY -3- Packet Pg. 447 8.2.c EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS STREET VACATION: THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228TH STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92ND AVENUE W., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY OF SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704125001; THENCE NORTH 88042'29" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A" OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL 2006-026, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61049'47" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 300.45 FEET TO A POINT LYING 30.00 FEET SOUTHERLY WHEN MEASEURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF 228TH STREET S.W.; THENCE SOUTH 88022'55" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT LYING SOUTH 0013'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 88041'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF RFCTNNTNC, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 20,023 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 1 OF 1 Packet Pg. 448 8.2.d 31 I I /\ III' N — —�? I 39 T— Z I 42 I 41 I 40 \ PINECREST 01 I I ROBERT E. THOMAS NO. 14 0' 1 "-120'120' AF iNO. 982137 I Q I AF NO. 121468L 7 — 33 2 0 34 32 130' 130' I 43 I 44 I 45 I 46 35 _ C4 — 228TH STREET S.W. 0CD 25 30 _ S88'41'25"E 1-4 so13'os"E 30.01' 3s 3� — 0 228TH STREET S.W. T S88'22'S5"E �' I POINT OF BEGINNING S88'22'55"E 30'130' S88'41'25"E 30.02' 06 0.01 ' 04 I 05 I 03 I 01 L — — "WESTGATE CHAPEL" ( 6 1 ' I LOT 1, BLK. 2, RIDGE ACRES oui AF NO. 262998 TAX #0054620000100 M M I — — / #0054620000101 AREA OF VACATION / \ ) I w 92nd AVE W (20,023 SF) \ 9 TAX 8 3 2 PARCEL A, CITY OF I 00391000000800�� EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJT. / z — z LO / NO. LL 2006-026 / N o \ / AF NO. 200703025001 I TAX 9 I a 7 #00391000000900 0 _ �z4 30' — — m a �— y 0, ��<Fo9y S61'49'47"W 30 TAX 10 33.96' #00391000001000 I 5 6 F��1C ooj�6, FO � NO'13'09"W �L — \ , 91.85' O N88'42'29"W i I 30.01' i R TpJ, SEQUOYAH CONDOMINIUM �` PHASES 1 - 5, J,.o / / AF NO. 200704125001 � 2 L LAB / / 12-21-IG \ �J i/ I N SHEET of STREET VACATION WESTGATE CHAPEL GROUP FOC1eling a Land Surveying /I Civil Engineering a Land Use Planning 71 Project Management CITYOF E D M O N D S P.O. BOX 105911911 VERNON ROAD SUITE A; LAKESTEVENS, WA 98258 z 04-4032 (425)408-1152 ' FAX(425)677--1341' www.GRP4.com SNOHOMISH CO. WASHINGTON Packet Pg. 449 8.2.e JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES 425-388-1698 Land Use Planning ♦ Project Management ♦ Development Analysis ♦ Agency Representation February 9, 2017 Development Services Department / Planning Division RECIF" TED City of Edmonds, Washington 121 5th Ave. N. Q 9 2017 Edmonds, WA 98020 JEVELOPME, =RMES Attn: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner COU'N,'a64 Re: Street Vacation — 92"d Ave. W. Dear Mr. Lien, The attached documents are herewith submitted for final approval in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 1375. • Easements — in favor of the following entities: Puget Sound Energy; Public Utility District No. 1; and Olympic View Water & Sewer District. • Letter of acknowledgement of certain conditions contained in Resolution No. 1375 (signed by Westgate Chapel, Inc.). • Check #84380 in the amount of $92,610.00 in compensation for vacation of a portion of 92"d Ave. W., as described in Resolution No. 1375 and associated exhibits under city file no. PLN20160032. We understand that the final vacation action will be taken by the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 21, 2017. We would assume that the city will hold the above referenced items pending Council's final action. Please let me know if there are remaining issues which need our attention prior to the meeting on the 21st. Thank you. Sincerely, (7, - 4�-- Jim Egge, Project Planner JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES ENCL. Cc Westgate Chapel, Inc. (attn: Brent McAtee, Executive Pastor) 10807 25th Street SE ♦ Lake Stevens, Washington 98258 ♦ jamese-a@msn.com Packet Pg. 450 8.2.f EASEMENT FOR SEWER LINES Project Name: 92"° AVENUE W ROADWAY VACATION Recording Requested By And When Recorded Mail To: Olympic View Water and Sewer District 8128 SW 228th Street Edmonds, WA 98026 DOCUMENT TITLE: EASEMENT FOR SEWER LINES REFERENCE NUMBER OF RELAestTED DOCUMENT: Not Applicable GRANTOR(S): ClaudiatMarie Walters and Lary Wayne Walters GRANTEE(S): Olympic View Water and Sewer District ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the NW 114, NW 1/4, of Section 31, Township 27 N, Range 4 E. W.M., and the NE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 27 N, Range 3 E. W M,. ASSESSOR'S TAX! PARCEL NUMBER($):. 00546200000100, 00555300200106, 00391000000800, 00391000000900, and 00391000001000. The undersigned,_ _Westgate Chanel, Inca a Washington State Non-profit Corporation, Claudia Marie Walters and Larry Wayne Walters, wife and husband ("Grantor"), for and in consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, conveys and warrants to Olympic View Water and Sewer District, a municipal corporation in Snohomish County, Washington ("Grantee"), and its successors and assigns, a permanent easement for sewer lines including sewer lines and appurtenances thereto ("Easement") as follows: 1. future aml Location of Easement. Grantor owns that certain real property legally described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Real Property"). The Easement granted by Grantor herein shall be a permanent easement for the benefit of Grantee over, upon, across, through and under a portion of the Real Property, such Easement as legally described on Exhibit "e" and as described and depicted on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the purposes of installing, laying, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, repairing, removing, replacing, renewing, using and operating sewer lines, together with all facilities, connectors and appurtenances ("Sewer Lines"), including the right of ingress and egress thereto for said purposes. 2. Rlctlit of Envy. Grantee shall have the right, without notice and without prior institution of any suit or proceeding at law or equity, at all times as may be necessary to enter upon the Real Property to install, lay, construct, maintain, protect, Inspect, repair, remove, replace, renew, use and operate the Sewer Lines for the purposes of serving the Packet Pg. 451 8.2.f Real Property and other properties with utility service. Grantee agrees to restore the Easement as nearly as reasonably possible to its condition prior to any material disturbance from construction, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the Sewer Lines. 3. Encroachment/Construction Activity. Grantor shall not undertake, authorize, permit or consent to any construction or excavation including, without limitation, digging, tunneling, or other forms of construction activity on or near the Easement which might in any fashion unearth, undermine, or damage the Sewer Lines or endanger the lateral or other support of the Sewer Lines without Grantee's prior written approval. Grantor further agrees that no structure or obstruction including, without limitation, fences, retaining walls and rockeries shall be erected over, upon or within the Easement, and no trees, bushes or other shrubbery shall be planted or maintained within the Easement, provided Grantor may use the surface of the Real Property within the Easement so long as Such use does not interfere with the Easement or the Sewer Lines. 4. Binding Effect/ Warranty of Title. The Easement and the covenants, terms and conditions contained heroin are intended to and shall run with the Real Property and shall be binding upon Grantee and Grantor and their respective 'successors, heirs 'and assigns. Grantor warrants that Grantor has fee title to the Real Property and warrants the Grantee title to and quiet enjoyment of the Easement. 5. Recording. Upon its execution, the Easement shall be recorded with the Auditor of Snohomish County, Washington. DATED this Z day of M1 _ , 20 1! GRANTOR(S) By LAiL,111 4-/ WaAU Claudia Marie Walters 0 By itsBmsl r (Print or type position held) Packet Pg. 452 8.2.f STATE OF /712 r Zv 4 A ) ss. COUNTY OF On this 2— day of : aC 201 ? , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared rM,�) rte c,v �, �� , to be known to be the individual or individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (she or they) signed the same as his (her or their) free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. OAN 1. DAMS Notary Public - Arizona Pima counly My Comm. Expires Jun 4, 2018 STATE OF fq!2QcJ /-V ) ) ss. COUNTY OF lot �f1 ) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the ,Q /z, z u ,,j A State of Wash4tgW, residing At r U « y , v. A �-'- My Commission expires 6 - Lc - 7 cJ I On this —Z— day of i;FU k,r2017 , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Al. —le- L-} P-r s' to be known to be the individual or individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (she or they) signed the same as his (her or their) free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. BAN L DAVIS Notary public - Arid OTAR$ State PUBLIC IC in and for the ,� t z a, L,-. Pima County l�lf�g, reng y My comm. Expires Jun 4. 2016 At v C .l 0-,i '"r My Commission expires ko :--r - 2y f Packet Pg. 453 8.2.f STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )SS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I rr��eer" that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jo /T. LZR P is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the 7- of.Westgate Chapel. Inc, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such entity, for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this % day of 6'2uAe 20 1 `✓. r4 2a-sr'dwn 46 (Printed Name) I�r� NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of �� m f Washington, y - My Commission Expires da ►,0AP, WA,H�t� Packet Pg. 454 8.2.f EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS STREET VACATIONS THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP-27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 2287 STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92"o AVENUE W., SAID POINT ALSO BRING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN -OF 92" AVENUE W., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY OF SI:OZH}YAR, A CONDOMINIUM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704125001; THENCE NORTH 88042129" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE'.. OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE.OF PARCEL "A" OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL 2006-026, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; . THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61049'47" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 300.45 FEET TO A POINT LYING 30.00 FEET SOUTHERLY WHEN MEASEURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF 228TH STREET S.W.; THENCE SOUTH 88022'55" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT LYING SOUTH 0°13'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 88041'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 20,023 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 1 OF 1 Packet Pg. 455 8.2.f EXHIBIT B EASEMENT FOR SEWER LINES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A 15.00 FOOT EASEMENT OVER THAT PORTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, - TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH 1S DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 200704125001, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 88°42'29" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF 7.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 0"13'09" WEST 104.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6r49'47" WEST 3.29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°13'09" WEST 272.33 FEETTO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERLY 30.00 FEET OF AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 36 AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 5,698 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. Packet Pg. 456 8.2.f EXHIBIT "C" I& SEWER LINE EASEMENT I 30' 130' ^N 25 30 228TH ST SW cv y� e�36 31 ' o ' 0054620000100 PROPOSED VACATION W 30, � T T 60.0' A C003910pQg00906 I V, I� (003910000001000 ) NW CORNER SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM. 11255 Kirkland Way, Suite 300 Kirkland, WA 98033 p. 425.827.20141 f. 425.827,5043 (iP;A=E...................................................... Civil I Structural I Planning Survey An Englneedng SeMws Company paceengrs.com SCALE: 1" = 80' ' FILE:\V16490.DWG DATE: 12/12/2016 DRS PROJ. NO.: 16090.10 Packet Pg. 457 8.2.g RETURN ADDRESS: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Attn: Right-of-Way/Real Estate 1660 Park Lane Burlington, WA 98233 PUGET SOUND ENERGY EASEMENT REFERENCE #: GRANTOR (Owner): WESTGATE CHAPEL, INC CLAUDIA MARIE WALTERS and LARRY WAYNE WALTERS GRANTEE (PSE): PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. SHORT LEGAL: PTN 92"d Ave W R/W (NW'/4 NW'/4 31-27N-04E & NE Y4 NE % 36-27N-03E) ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: PTN's 005462-000-001-00, 005462-000-001-01, 005553-002-001-06, 003910-000-008-00, 003910-000-009-00, & 003910-000-010-00 For and in consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, WESTGATE CHAPEL. INC, a Washington non-profit corporation, and CLAUDIA MARIE WALTERS and LARRY WAYNE WALTERS, wife and husband ("Grantor" herein), insofar as Grantor has rights or title, or any hereafter acquired rights or title, hereby conveys and grants to PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., a Washington Corporation ("Grantee" herein), for the purposes hereinafter set forth, a nonexclusive perpetual easement over, under, along, across, and through the following described real property ("Property" herein) in Snohomish County, Washington: SEE EXHIBIT "A' ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. Except as may be otherwise set forth herein PSE's rights shall be exercised upon that portion of the Property ("Easement Area" herein) described as follows: A RIGHT OF WAY TEN (10) FEET IN WIDTH WITH FIVE (5) FEET ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE CENTERLINE OF GRANTEE'S FACILITIES AS NOW CONSTRUCTED, TO BE CONSTRUCTED, EXTENDED OR RELOCATED LYING WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY; 1. Purpose. PSE shall have the right to use the Easement Area to construct, operate, maintain, repair, replace, improve, remove, upgrade and extend one or more utility systems for purposes of transmission, distribution and sale of gas. Such systems may include, but are not limited to: Underground facilities. Pipes, pipelines, mains, laterals, conduits, regulators, gauges and rectifiers for gas; fiber optic cable and other lines, cables and facilities for communications; semi - buried or ground -mounted facilities and pads, manholes, meters, fixtures, attachments and any and all other facilities or appurtenances necessary or convenient to any or all of the foregoing. Following the initial construction of all or a portion of its systems, PSE may, from time to time, construct such additional facilities as it may require for such systems. PSE shall have the right of access to the Easement Area over and across the Property to enable PSE to exercise its rights granted In this easement. City of Edmonds Vacate — 92"d Ave W RW-098481 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 458 8.2.g 2. Easement Area Clearing and Maintenance. PSE shall have the right, but not the obligation to cut, remove and dispose of any and all brush, trees or other vegetation in the Easement Area. PSE shall also have the right, but not the obligation, to control, on a continuing basis and by any prudent and reasonable means, the establishment and growth of brush, trees or other vegetation in the Easement Area. 3. Restoration. Following initial installation, repair or extension of its facilities, PSE shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, restore landscaping and surfaces and portions of the Property affected by PSE's work to the condition existing immediately prior to such work, unless said work was done at the request of Owner, in which case Owner shall be responsible for such restoration. All restoration which is the responsibility of PSE shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible after the completion of PSE's work and shall be coordinated with Owner so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to Owner's use of the Property. 4. Owner's Use of Easement Area. Owner reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted, provided, however, Owner shall not excavate within or otherwise change the grade of the Easement Area or construct or maintain any buildings or structures on the Easement Area and Owner shall do no blasting within 300 feet of PSE's facilities without PSE's prior written consent. 5. Indemnity. PSE agrees to indemnify Owner from and against liability incurred by Owner as a result of the negligence of PSE or its contractors in the exercise of the rights herein granted to PSE, but nothing herein shall require PSE to indemnify Owner for that portion of any such liability attributable to the negligence of Owner or the negligence of others. 6. Termination. The rights herein granted shall continue until such time as PSE terminates such right by written instrument. If terminated, any improvements remaining in the Easement Area shall become the property of Owner. No termination shall be deemed to have occurred by PSE's failure to install its systems on the Easement Area. 7. Successors and Assigns. PSE shall have the right to assign, apportion or otherwise transfer any or all of its rights, benefits, privileges and interests arising in and under this easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. DATED this _ day of r (`C) J_ �, �� .20 l OWNER: To that portion adjoining Snohomish County parcels: 005462-000-001-00, 005462-000-001-01, 003910-000-008-00, 003910-000-009-00, & 003910-000-010-00 WESTGATE CRAPE INC By: J A. Murp y, Presi o ESTGATE CHAPEL OWNER: To that portion adjoining Snohomish County parcels: 005553-002-001-06 By: �i'4uddA2 /i'li��d�,di CLAUDIA MARIE WAITERS By: LARRYWAYAE WAITERS City of Edmonds Vacate — 92'b Ave W RW-098481 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 459 8.2.g STATE OF WASHWI: TON } P, -^ a- ) SS COUNTY OF SNOWON!" ) On this c- ? - day of �0& r , 20/ 7 , before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sWo-eh, personally appeared CLAUDIA MARIE WALTERS and IIARRY WA E KALTERS, to me known to be the individual(s) 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. GIVEN UNDER my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above written. 4Ati t. pANB aF � �,i.'L — '►.gyp itlatvrli p�1tc P1s11� t;auMY (Signature of Notary) c My Comm, EXPiteB fun 4.2016 (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ,1,%/2t1f*JA Wa9Nn9tef,,residing at-TWGfy('. A My Appointment Expires: 6= 41- Notary seal, te)d and all notatlons must not be placed wlthln 1" margins City of Edmonds Vacate - 92od Ave W RW-098481 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 460 8.2.g STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day 204—Ir , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for the State of Washington, duly commiss' ned and swam, personally appeared John A Murphy, to me known to be the person(s) who signed as presid t, of WESTGATE CHAPEL, INC, the non-profit corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed and the free and voluntary act and deed of said WESTGATE CHAPEL, INC, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument on behalf of said WESTGATE CHAPEL INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have oil dW r imp z li 01 FbtoX to u� C9 Z '�', E OF WP I11 , _ Notary seal, text and all notations must be inside V margins City of Edmonds Vacate - 92nd Ave W RW-098481 Page 3 of 8 hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. (Signal re of hoary) F4ral , .4I° (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY U LIC in and f the State of Washington, residing at [ems My Appointment Expires: W le 00 a+ C N E d N ft3 W L W O N r a. X W r E V r a Packet Pg. 461 8.2.g EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS STREET VACATION: THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228T" STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92ND AVENUE.'W., SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92ND AVENUE W., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY OF SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704125001; THENCE NORTH 88042129" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A" OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL 2006-026, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61049'47" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 300.45 FEET TO A POINT LYING 30.00 FEET SOUTHERLY WHEN MEASEURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF 228TH STREET S.W.; THENCE SOUTH 88022'55" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT LYING SOUTH 0013'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 88041'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 20,023 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 1 OF 1 Packet Pg. 462 8.2.g — I 31 1 3 I _ I --\ T —I j 39 42 41 I 40 \ AF PINECR.NO.E98 01 I + I I ROBE41 E. THOMAS N0. 14 1 =1 2�1 AF iNO. 982137 I AF NO. 1214$11 1 0' 33 02 I cZV � � IL__ I I cr, . I 34 32 I30130I 43 J 44 I 45 46 35 / � I N _ _ _._ �. — L L 228TH STREET $.{IV. N _ 25 30 esi _ 586'41'25"E _ _ SO'13'09"E 3p.01' 3fi 31 228Tii STREET S.W. T S88'22'55"E L 1 !NST OF BEGfNNING —T — SW22'55'E 30'130' S98"41'25"E I 30.02' 30.01' 06 I 04 I 05 03 01 L — — J "WESTGAT CHAPEL" +Q i - LOT 1, BLK. 2, RIDGE ACRES f I AF NO. 262998 / TAX #0054620000100 l / #0054620000101 l AREA VACATION I 92nd AVE W (20.023 SF) . z $ TAX - 3 2 PARCEL A. CITY OF - � 0391000000800 EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJT. b `j NO. LL 2006--026 AF NO. 200703025001 ° TAX 9 \/ #00391000000900 I w 2 4 _ II �� .� 30' — — 1 m`� -- G?r9f I � % y S61'49 t7"W 3U' 10 TAX �po. v% 33.9fi' #00391000001000 I 5 6 • tnO�►� J�� ,D 14013'0971V �. Ilk, NB8'42'29'W 30.01' yam\ f R 1►p ri�� SEQUOYAH CONDOMINIUM PHASES 1 - 5, 47 , �' I AF NO. 200704125001 12- - 16 \ PSHEEU OF STREET VACATION GWUpUR WESTGATE CHAPEL 1LcMr1� Lord Umrmg CITY OF EDMONDS P.O. BOX105B/1011VFRMRaWSU/1E ,LAKESMVEl11S,Wi1B� 9 032 (.25)�-1152 . F,X,5, ?71N„ • *w.WFf.wm SNOHOMISH CO. WASHINGTON Packet Pg. 463 8.2.h AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN TO: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Attn; C. Biggs Real Estate Services P.O. Box 1107 Everett, Washington 98206-1107 E- DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT Grantor ("Owner"): Westgate Chapel, Inc., as to current and any after -acquired title Claudia Marie Walters and Larry Wayne Walters, wife and husband as to current and any after -acquired title Grantee: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc. Short Legal Description: Portion of 92nd Ave. W (NW 1/4 NW 1/4 31-27N-04E & NE 1/4 NE 1/4 36-27N-03E) Tax Parcel No: Ptn. 00546200000100; 00546200000101; 00555300200106; 00391000000800;00391000000900;00391000001000 THIS DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT ("Easement") is made this day of 2017, by and between West ate Chapel, Inc. a Washington non-profit corporation and Claudia Marie Walters and: Larry Wayne Waiters ("Owners"), and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, a Washington State municipal corporation ("District") and Frontier Communications Northwest Inc. The Owner, District and Frontier are sometimes referred to individually herein as "Party' and collectively as "Parties". The District and Frontier are collectively referred to as "Grantee". WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain lands and premises situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, legally described as follows (hereinafter "Property'): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. Situate in the County of Snohomish_, State of Washington WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring certain rights and privileges across, over, under, upon and through the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: Distribution Easement. Owner, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is c m E as w Packet Pg. 464 8.2.h hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its agents, contractors, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for the perpetual right, privilege, and authority to patrol, construct, erect, reconstruct, alter, improve, extend, repair, operate, and maintain overhead and/or underground electric distribution lines and facilities, Grantee -owned communication wires and cables, and other necessary or convenient appurtenances, across, over, under, through and upon the following portion of Owner's Property (hereinafter "Easement Area"): That portion of the above -described property being a strip of land 10 feet (10') in width having five feet (5') of such width on each side of the centerline of the electrical facilities as constructed, to be constructed, extended or relocated within the above described real property. The exterior boundaries of said easement being widened accordingly to provide Grantee 8 feet of easement area adjoining all sides of Grantee's ground mounted transformers, switch cabinets, and/or vaults. 2. Access To and Across Proper . Grantee has the right of ingress to and egress from the Easement Area across the adjacent Property of Owner where same is reasonably necessary for the purpose of exercising its easement rights described in Section 1. 3. Owner's Reservation of Rights and Use of Easement Area. Owner reserves the right to use the Easement Area in a manner that does not interfere with the Grantee's use of the Easement Area, and/or present a hazard to Grantee's electric distribution lines and facilities, communication wires and cables, and other appurtenances. The Owner shall not construct or permit to be constructed any structures of any kind in the Easement Area without prior approval of the Grantee. 4. Clearing of Power Line Right of WaY. Grantee has the right at all times to clear said r Easement Area and keep the same clear of all brush, debris and trees. as 5. Trimming or Removal of Hazardous/Danger Trees. Grantee has the right at all times to cut, slash, or trim and remove brush, timber or trees from the Property which in the opinion of Grantee w constitute a hazard to said lines and facilities, communication wires and cables, and other appurtenances or the Grantee's access thereto. Trees, brush or other growth shall be deemed hazardous to the lines or Z facilities or access of the Grantee when they are of such a height that they could, upon falling, strike the o nearest edge of the Easement Area at a height of more than fifteen feet (16). Except in emergencies, a. Grantee shall, prior to the exercise of such right, identify such trees and make a reasonable effort to give Owner prior notice that such trees will be trimmed or removed. 6. Title to Removed Trees Vegetation and Structures. The title to all brush, debris, trees and structures removed from the Easement Area and the Property pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 shall be vested in the Grantee, and the consideration paid for this Easement and rights herein described is accepted by Owner as full compensation for said removed brush, debris, trees and structures. Owner shall be entitled to request fallen timber be set aside for Owner's personal use. Grantee shall make reasonable effort to set aside said fallen timber provided doing the same is safe in Grantee's sole opinion. Title to any fallen timber set aside in this manner shall revert to the Owner. 7. Restoration Provision. To the extent that Owner's Property is disturbed and/or damaged by Grantee's exercise of its rights hereunder, Grantee shall restore the condition of the Property as nearly as reasonably possible to its existing condition prior to said exercise of its rights. 8. Title to Propert . The Owner represents and warrants having the lawful right and power to sell and convey this Easement to Grantee. 9. Binding Effect. This Easement and the rights and obligations under this Easement are intended to and shall run with the Property and shall benefit and bind the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. Packet Pg. 465 8.2.h OWNER(S): (To that portion adjoining parcel 00555300200106) B v .0By:ZAIL'& Claudia Marie Walters LarWayne Walters State of WasM;Won,4n 0 County of P, rr`i P- I, a notary Public in and for the State of Washington, certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Claudia Marie Walters and Larry Wayne Walters _ (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument on oath stated that (he/she/they) (are/is) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it to be (his, her, their) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this 2 day of L r,.1ur-,:S,, , 2017- bi W v 00 Signature of (Seal or Stamp) Notary Publi Print Name: 4-J i a ►.S E Residing at, T_`y C J 0. ,/ DANLt009 w Notary Public . Anton My appointment expires �._ 4 — 2-©l dj Pima Couhty ,.� n^, comm. Expires Jun 4, 2018 z Packet Pg. 466 8.2.h 10. Governing Law and Venue. This Easement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Easement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County, Washington. 11. Authority. Each party signing this Easement, if on behalf of an entity, represents that they have full authority to sign this Easement on behalf of such entity. 12. Grantee Acceptance. By recording this Easement, Grantee hereby accepts all provisions set forth under this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written OWNER(S): (To that portion adjoining parcels 00546200000100, 00546200000101; 00391000000800; 00391000000900, 00391000001000) We.,; By: (REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John A. Murphy_ signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of Westgate Chal2al, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this _ day of 2017. ;r��■��t Signature of Notary PublicJL+� E h►� Title Notary Public _ [ My appointment expires a r"�■�.■ya Boa AZ Packet Pg. 467 (uoi;eoen;aaaIS IsaM anuanV PuZ6 : 91b80 00'M aol;dmeN - L j!ggxg :}uGwt43e14V 00 N a EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Building & Planning 2ND Floor - City Hall a 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Ph: 425.771.0220 FAX: 452.771.0221 -------------- ________.___--_-_...---------------------- Permit Permit Number: pin201600320.00 0.00 SEPA Review Ix -610.00-610.00 Permit Number: PLN20160032 SEPA Review Ix 610.00 610.00 Permit Number: PLN20160032 Street Vacation 1x 92,610.00 92,610.00 Permit Number: PLN20160032 Payer Name: Westgate Chapel SubTotal: 92,610.00 Total: 92,610.00 Check 92,610.00 2/9/2017 13:11 *0***/DUPLICATE #001**** 2/9/2017 13:11 Business Hours-8 am to 4:30 pm Mon. Tues., Thurs. & Fri., 8:3�1 am to noon Wednesday Switchboard open from 8 am to 4:30 pm. Please arrive at 4:15 to ensure service. Thank you! 8.2.j Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, was glad to see the additional of a School Resource Officer (SRO) as a decision package in the Police Department's budget. When he was at Edmonds-Woodway High School, the SRO was fantastic resource for students. The position was lost during the economic downturn and it was time bring it back as resource for the City's younger residents. Next, regarding Council and Mayor salaries, he recommended forming an independent salary commission. He did not support a system where the City Council could choose to alter their own salaries and have it activated at different times, resulting in Councilmembers being compensated differently; forming an independent body avoids that. Bea Wilson, Edmonds, relayed she attended last night's Port Commission meeting where she learned marina revenues were substantially decreased to reduced salmon runs and less fishing activity which affects moorage revenues. After the meeting she discussed the potential of marine education opportunities with Port Commission Chair Faires and Executive Director McChesney as a way of stimulating activity and revenue. She shared with them how the salmon ,journey on the Cedar River brought 3,000 visitors; an annual marine program using citizen educators to provide community education and activities. Mr. McChesney asked for another meeting to investigate how to collaborate on expanding the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek as a year-round learning center. Both Mr. Faires and Mr. McChesney stated they supported collaboration to engage Edmonds residents to learn about the Port Commission and contribute ideas for activities that would mutually beneficial for the Edmonds Marsh and the Port. Current research indicates an urgent need for outdoor schools which provides an enhanced appreciation for all life, making way for civility. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR 92ND AVENUE WEST STREET VACATION Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained: • ECDC 20.70.050.B — Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or alley to be vacated o Two property owners abut the property: Westgate Chapel and the Walters. ■ Resolution No. 1371 set public hearing for tonight Mr. Lien displayed and reviewed a map of the area, identifying the area of 92°d Avenue West requested to be vacated. He reviewed: • ECDC 20.70.020 Criteria for Vacation o The vacation is in the public interest = Primarily the removal of maintenance responsibilities and cost for the City o No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation ■ All parcels have access to 228th • ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision o Following the public hearing, the city council shall: 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent where specific conditions must be met within 90 days (staff's recommendation) a. Either i. Monetary compensation up to one-half fair market value ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way iii. Any combination of a.i or a.ii Or b. Grant of an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated Utilities and easements o Stormwater facilities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 469 8.2.j ■ Snohomish County Comments ■ Transfer ownership to Westgate Chapel ■ May require easements o Olympic View Water and Sewer ■ Requested easements o Other utilities ■ PUD, cable, gas? Property borders Edmonds and Esperance (unincorporated Snohomish County) o Property on east side of 92nd Avenue West in Esperance o Property on west side of 92"d Avenue West and all right-of-way in Edmonds Monetary compensation o City may receive up to '/z of the value of the vacated area o Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use o Pre -vacation ■ 171,191 square feet • 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised value of $2,166,000 o Post Vacation • 191,514 square feet 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised Value $2,355,000 o Difference in appraised value of $189,000 228th Street alignment o Transportation plan identifies street improvements along 228th St SW between SR 99 and 95th PI W 0 228th Street right-of-way does not align at 92nd Avenue W o Public Works recommends not vacating the 10' by 30' to ensure smooth transition for 228th St SW street improvements Adjusted monetary compensation o Post vacation ■ 191,214 square feet ■ 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised Value $2,355,000 • Adjust for removing 300 square feet from vacation • $12.60 per square foot X 300 sq. ft. = $3,780 Adjusted appraised value $2,351,000 o Difference in appraised value of $185,220 o One-half of appraised value = $92,610 Mr. Lien relayed staff s recommendation: • Direct staff to prepare- Resolution of Intent to Vacate • Proposed conditions in staff report Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the appraised value of the property. Mr. Lien explained the difference in the pre -vacation and post -vacation of the Westgate Chapel property is $185,220; the City can ask for up to one-half of the appraised value, $92,610. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the trap that illustrates the jog in 2281h. He asked what was gained by not granting vacation of that small area into 228th. Mr. Williams answered the C1P and the transportation impact fee project list include improvement of228`h to SR104. There is currently 60 feet of right -of --way east and west of 92nd Avenue West but they do not line up, resulting in the jog. The City could either Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 470 8.2.j retain that area now or buy it later. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the lots to the west of the jog that extend into 2281". Mr. Williams said the roadway would be transitioned to that alignment. Mr. Lien introduced Jim Egge, land use consultant representing Westgate Chapel. Mr. Egge introduced Westgate Chapel Executive Pastor Brent McAtee and Westgate Chapel Board Chair John Murphy. Mr. Egge commented the City has no plans to extend 92nd Avenue West to the south and the 1919 dedication of 92nd Avenue West it was partially vacated north of the area proposed to be vacated somewhere between 1965 and 1969 prior to when the apartments (now Sequoyah Condominiums) were constructed, essentially eliminating the ability to extend 92°d Avenue West to the south. All properties directly affected by the vacation have signed the petition, the Walters and Westgate Chapel. If the vacation is approved, Westgate Chapel will obtain easements with each utility purveyor to allow them to maintain their facilities and the church is amicable to taking over maintenance of the City's stormwater system and granting the City any privileges. There have been no written objections to the vacation. Mr. Egge recognized the City has the authority to require up to one-half of the appraised value for compensation. The right-of-way in this area was dedicated in 2 parts while in Snohomish County in 1919 and in 1955 at no cost to the City. He was unsure who constructed the road although it is quite poor condition now. Some reduction in compensation is justified as the City acquired the property at no cost and the appraiser stated the roadway had only three years of life remaining. Mr. Lien stated in addition to the adjustment in the appraisal for the 30 square feet, the appraisal also included a value of the existing asphalt on 92"d Avenue West of $14,000. Staff did not include that in the valuation and recommendation as the property was annexed in 1995 and the City has not put any money into the street. Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation that no residents living near the vacation had expressed any concern. Mr. Lien agreed, advising the only comment received was an email from Ken Reidy that all Councilmembers received. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed the City's code states that an applicant may apply for a street vacation. Included in the list of required submittals is Item G, two copies of an appraisal. Requiring an appraisal with an application seemed premature; per the Supreme Court, the authority to require compensation is permissive which means allowed but it is not the Council's obligation to require compensation for street vacation. He questioned why an applicant had to acquire and pay for an appraisal with the application prior to City Council's discussion whether to grant the petition and/or require compensation and suggested the applicant be reimbursed for this expense. He referred Item 2 on page 98of the Council packet which states the City may require either/both/neither monetary compensation or require a grant of an easement to the City. History has shown the City has required both monetary compensation and a grant of an easement at times. He referred to the last sentence of Item 2, the City of Edmonds is not requiring an easement thus the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. The fact that the City is not requiring an easement does not mean that the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. He supported not charging the applicant $92,610 for the street vacation when the property owner dedicated the easement and the City was not charged for the easement rights. He cited past instances when City has not required compensation including over 4,000 square feet in his neighborhood that was subject to a vacation and no compensation was required. This vacation is already in the public interest which is plenty without the need for $92,610 in compensation. He referred to Items 3 and 4 on page 100 of the packet, conditions that include the provision of easements to OVWSD as well as other vague unidentified entities. He preferred to follow State law whereby the City retained the easement or right to grant easements in the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and surfaces. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 471 8.2.j Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about staffs recommendation. Mr. Lien referred to the recommendation on page 100 of the packet, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of intent to vacate with several conditions: 1. City will retain the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West 2. City releases all ownership of the stormwater facility to Westgate Chapel 3. OVWSD easements be provided for their utilities in that area 4. Easements be provided to the other dry utilities in that area 5. The petitioners pay the City $92,610, one-half of the appraised value 6. If the area of vacation or the three vacant lots to the east side of 92"d Avenue West are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required 7. If the current road surface becomes unusable, blocked or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92°d Avenue W, mid -block between 228"' Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE STREET VACATION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST. Although she appreciated the Council's desire to move forward, Council President Johnson observed the Council had three public hearings tonight and it has been the Council's practice this year not to take action the same night as the public hearing. She felt that was a good practice that gives Council time to listen and weigh the information and comments. She requested the Council continue that practice. Councilmember Buckshnis said this year the Council has been wishy-washy about making motions following public hearings, recalling she and Council President Johnson voted against a motion made following a public hearing due to past practice. Since the practice had been so wish -washy, she was satisfied with moving forward. She agreed with requiring compensation because it enhances the property and could eventually lead to development. She asked whether that was a reason for requiring compensation. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City has the authority under State law and City code to require payment in exchange for a street vacation. In his experience, that was a common practice but it is permissive; the City is not required to require compensation but may require compensation. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the example Mr. Reidy provided that occurred 15 years ago. Mr. Taraday said he was not familiar with that example, but agreed with Mr. Reidy that monetary compensation was permissive, the City is not required to require compensation but may require compensation. From his perspective, one of the primary public interests in vacating the public street is the compensation. Mayor Earling clarified this is not a final decision, it is to direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval by the Council. Mr. Taraday explained under State law, because the property has been dedicated to the public for 25 years or more, the City can require full compensation. He was not suggesting that because City code suggests one-half the appraised value, but that is already more lenient toward the property owner than State law. Councilmember Teitzel said the vacation is in the interest of the private property owner for the purpose of development of the property; therefore, the City should be compensated for the benefit to the property owner. He asked if there was a precedent in Edmonds for requiring/not requiring compensation for a street vacation. Mr. Taraday answered he was not certain. Mr. Lien said he believed so, if the Council approves the motion, he will provide that information along with the resolution. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 472 8.2.j Councilmember Buckshnis supported staff s recommendation to require compensation of $92,610, COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE QEUSTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Johnson recalled during the SRI04 study there was discussion about realigning the intersection on the other side of the church to align with 92nd Avenue West because it is a major north - south road to Bowdoin Way and provides an east -west connection to 228th. Public Works Director Phil Williams said there is an opportunity to realign the way that 2281h comes into SR104, straightening the 90-degree jog and treating the other cross streets differently. No concept has been developed or designed. He doubted that would occur along the 92"d Avenue West alignment but likely would occur on the 95th Avenue West alignment to match the other side of the intersection. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6- year capital projects with funding sources. Mr. English Provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department manaaine each fund: Fund Description Department 016 Building Maintenance Public Works 112 Transportation Public Works 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/Public Works 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/Public Works 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 132 Parks -Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 421 Water Projects Public Works 422 Storm Projects Public Works 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 423 I Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works Mr. English highlighted projects in the 2016 CFP/CIP: • 228th Corridor project — completed • 238th walkway from 100th to 104th Avenues — will complete in 2016 ■ Pavement preservation program ■ 236th Street Walkway — began last week • 76th Avenue & 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project — rebid in 2017 He displayed a graph of the City's Capital Program 2008-2017, highlighting 2017 totals: • Fund 423 Sewer: $ 5,135,070 • Fund 422 Storm: $ 4,058,099 • Fund 421 Water: $ 5,517,640 • Fund 112 Streets: $ 7,062,022 • Parks: $ 3,595,000 ■ General Fund Total: $25,637,830 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 473 8.2.k October 13, 2016. The play area serves the preschool as well as the local neighborhood. It has been in place for 24 years; the City issued the same variance in 1993 for this same location. There is no other suitable location on the site. Replacement of the play structure is in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan as well as in this year's CIP. The playground provides opportunity for youth to be active, creative, work as a team, cooperate, have fund and build life skills. She requested the Council accept the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and approve the variance. Councilmember Teitzel asked about siting the play structure west of the club house. Mr. Lien answered that is a critical area, the slopes are approximately 20%. Siting the play structure in that area would require clearing trees and leveling the space. The trees provide a buffer to the surrounding neighborhood, making that location more detrimental. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the materials used for padding below the play structure. Ms. Hite answered it is a product called EverLawn and contains no crumb rubber. It is a new playground padding specifically for preschoolers that is softer and more aesthetic and adds fall protection in fall zones. It is a pervious surface. Councilmember Tibbott observed the dead-end street to the north provides additional buffer north of the property line. Mr. Lien said there are no residences at the terminus of 164`h Place. He identified the houses closest to the play structure. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1374, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE PLAY STRUCTURE SETBACK VARIANCE (PLN20160043) AND ADOPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S OWN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION 92ND AVENUE WEST STREET VACATION Senior Planner Kernen Lien recalled the Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2016 and requested he return for further discussion regard compensation for properties being vacated. He reviewed: • ECDC 20.70.140 and RCW 35.79.030 allow the City to seek compensation up to one-half of the appraised value of the area to be vacated. • Series of vacations initiated by the City n 1998 (Ordinances 3197-3208) noted that the public interest outweighed the necessity to require compensation • 10 vacations since 1998 were identified 0 8 required compensation ■ 5 half the assessed value ■ 3 less than half value due to other site restricts 0 2 did not require compensation ■ Civic Field right-of-way ■ Between 81h & 9th Avenues He provided the following examples: • Ordinance 3565 - $67,731 o Area of 219`h St SW Street vacation o City required half of assessed value Ordinance 3551 - $62,500 o Daley Street and 8th, subdivided after vacation and residence constructed o City required half of assessed value Ordinance No. 3647 - $7,500 o 8ch & Sprague street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 15, 2016 Page 24 Packet Pg. 474 8.2.k o City required less than half as property largely undevelopable due to critical area The resolution of intent in the Council packet includes monetary compensation for half the assessed value. Councilmember Mesaros asked the fee the applicant paid for City review. Mr. Lien answered it was $6,355 which included a SEPA fee of $610 which was refunded as it was exempt from SEPA. Councilmember Mesaros asked if the fee was ever incorporated in the compensation. Mr. Lien said that was not specifically identified in the ordinances he researched. Council President Johnson requested Mr. Taraday comment on the testimony provided by Mr. Reidy regarding street vacations in Washington. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said during public comment Mr. Reidy referenced a case, Puget Alumni of Kappa Sigma v. City of Seattle which criticized the City of Seattle for requiring compensation to offset a street vacation. That case was decided in January 1967 and at the time RCW 35.79.030 did not provide the express authority it currently does for cities to take compensation for street vacations. Later in 1967, shortly after that case was decided, RCW 35.79.030 was amended by the State legislature to expressly provide the authority to require compensation. Cities clearly have the authority in Washington state to require compensation. From a public policy standpoint, he pointed out if cities did not have the authority to require compensation, most cities would likely never vacate streets because there would be very little incentive to do so as well as concern about possibly needing it in the future. This is the bargaining the legislature has provided, cities are allowed to request compensation which keeps properties being used efficient because cities no longer have the incentive to hold onto unused streets. Council President Johnson said she was concerned the City may need that street in the future. She asked the church's intended use of the property. The applicant, Westgate Chapel's consultant. Jim Egge, said the church has no current plans for the right-of-way. The church has been accumulating properties around its perimeter for a number of years, some of which was converted into additional parking. As the appraisal indicates there are a number of utilities in the right-of-way so physically nothing can be done with the property unless the utilities, including a City storm drain system, are moved. The only thing the church could do would be to accumulate that area into the value and density allowed by ordinance to increase the yield allowed on the site. If the intent for the property was to expand parking, Council President Johnson asked if there was any other arrangement the City could make for parking that would not require vacating the street. Mr. Lien commented the church expanded parking on the north side some years ago. An analysis of the church's parking requirements or whether they are meeting the requirements has not been done. Generally parking is required to be within 500 feet of the use. The church obtained a CUP or variance in the past when they expanded the parking to 228th. He was not aware of the church's plans for the street proposed to be vacation. He identified parcels the church owns and a parcel for which they have a first right of refusal. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding there were 12 vacations in 1998 for which the City required no compensation because the public interest outweighed the necessity to require compensation. Mr. Lien agreed there were 12 as well as 2 before those 12 that were initiated by the City Engineer, one for right-of-way adjacent to the Edmonds Cemetery and the other for 237th Street where Edmonds abuts Woodway where the right-of-way was vacated but easements were retained for a stormwater facility. No compensation was required for those two vacations. Of the 10 vacations since 1998, 3 were City initiated, compensation was required on 1 City -initiated vacation. Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was any public interest with regard to the proposed vacation such as the property owner maintaining the stormwater system once the vacation is complete. Mr. Lien said the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 15, 2016 Page 25 Packet Pg. 475 8.2.k public interest supporting the vacation is the ongoing maintenance responsibilities with the church assuming ownership of the stormwater facilities and the right-of-way. The appraisal also included a valuation of the existing pavement on 92°d Avenue and that was not included in staff s recommendation for compensation. State law would allow the City to seek compensation for the utilities. Mr. Taraday said State law would also allow the City to recover full value of the property, not just half. Staffs recommendation is half the appraised value. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the value of the property. packet which considered the number of units based on the described the monetary compensation: • Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use • Pre -vacation 0 171,191 square feet 0 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) o Appraised value of $2,166,000 • Post Vacation 0 191,514 square feet 0 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) o Appraised Value $2,355,000 • Staff recommends not vacating the north 1000 area • Difference in appraised value is $185,000 Mr. Lien referred to the appraisal in the RM 1.5 zoning pre and post vacation. He If Westgate chose to build housing, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the street could be used as a driveway. Mr. Lien answered one of the criteria for vacation is that no property will be denied direct access. He identified a property that has access from 92nd Avenue as well as properties owned by the church that have access from 92nd Avenue as well as through the church parking lot. If the area were redeveloped in the future, access easements may need to be established and the vacated area could be used as a driveway. One of the conditions in the staff report and the resolution is related to fire access which would be reviewed with any future development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported staffs recommendation as the public policy appeared to treat everyone in same manner. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1375, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. 11. STUDY ITEMS 1. DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2017 Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the existing fees were determined several years ago based on a study of the typical times that review of permits took and recognizing some things for which the Council wanted to provide a lower fee as a public policy. The proposed changes to the fee schedule considered increases in costs, primarily salaries and benefits and did not include a study of the time required to process the permit. She highlighted the primary changes: • Organizational changes to make the fee schedule clearer • Hourly rate changed from $90 to $100 o Puts Edmonds about in the middle of other cities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 15, 2016 Page 26 Packet Pg. 476 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/21/2017 Shoreline Master Program (30 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) revising its SMP consistent with updated state guidelines. The City's review of the SMP update included ten meetings before the Planning Board from October 2011 - November 2012 and eleven meetings before the City Council from December 2012 through November 2014, culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an update to the Shoreline Master Program. The Department of Ecology is responsible for ensuring statewide policies are upheld and implemented when local SMPs are adopted and must approve local SMPs before they become effective. Following the adoption of Resolution 1326, the City's updated SMP and supporting documentation was sent to Ecology for review in December 2014. Ecology issued a conditional approval of the City's SMP on June 27, 2016. The Conditional Approval included eight required changes to the City's SMP and one recommended change. Five of the required changes relate to incorporating the recently adopted critical area ordinance into the SMP. The three remaining required changes and the one recommended change are in regards to the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment around the Edmonds Marsh. (The one recommended change was to allow residential development within the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.) The Council has reviewed each of the required changes proposed by Ecology and taken preliminary votes on each of the changes to provide direction to staff in preparing a response to Ecology. The City of Edmonds responded to Ecology's conditional approval on October 19, 2016 accepting some of Ecology's required changes and proposing alternatives to others (Exhibit 2). The alternatives proposed by the City of Edmonds largely represented providing buffers and setbacks in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001). Department of Ecology responded to the City's proposed alternatives on January 10, 2017 (Exhibit 1). Staff Recommendation Discuss options for the Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setbacks. Narrative Below is a summary of three options for the Council's consideration regarding the setback/buffer for the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment. The Department of Ecology presented its two potential Packet Pg. 477 8.3 options to the Council on January 24, 2017. Staff developed a third option for Council consideration which was introduced to the Council at the February 7, 2017 Council meeting. The February 21 meeting will continue discussion on potential options for the UMU IV Shoreline Environment. Ecology Proposed Buffer/Setback Options Exhibit 1 contains Department of Ecology's January 10, 2017 response to the City of Edmonds proposed alternatives to Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Ecology formally accepts the City's actions and alternatives on Ecology's required changes 1 - 6 (incorporation of the critical area regulations and dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment). However, Ecology has offered two options for the City of Edmonds to consider regarding the buffer and setbacks for the UMU IV shoreline environment. Ecology staff presented the two Options at the January 24, 2017 Council meeting. Ecology's two options (Option A and Options B) are summarized below. Option A: 110-foot buffer/125-foot setback with clarification This option would keep the Council's proposed alternative of applying the 110-buffer with a 15-foot building setback that is consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001), but allow for an alternative buffer width through applying the Interrupted Buffer provision in ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 through a shoreline conditional use permit process. A shoreline conditional use permit is decided by the hearing examiner in a public hearing and the hearing examiner's decision is forwarded to the Department of Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Option A 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 1 n� 125 11018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 100/50 12511018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 1 n� 125 110" Covered Parking Shore Setback 100j 50 125 11018 All Other Development 1 n� 125 11018 Packet Pg. 478 8.3 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is I-W 15 feet from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established with approval of a CUP and when consistent with 23.40.220.C.4.The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. New deve'epmeRt ,^tivities i.vithilm. the Wr-h.,,, IV Option B: Minimum 50-foot buffer/65-foot setback, after confirming through site specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU IV shoreline environment This option would establish a buffer between 110 feet and 50 feet with a 15-foot building setback. In this option, the appropriate buffer would be established through a master planned development and a shoreline conditional use permit process and a site specific assessment. Ecology proposes the following criteria for establishing the buffer: "The assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the potential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment." Option B 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and light Industrial Development Shore Setback � n� 125 110 to 65 5018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback l n� 125 110 to 65 5018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 4490j 50 125 110 to 65 5018 Covered Parking Shore Setback l n� 125 110 to Packet Pg. 479 8.3 All Other Development 100/0 125 110 to 65 5018 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 1-0015 feet from the edde of a vegetative buffer. A 4444ee-t-vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh based on approval of a CUP and site -specific assessment. The assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site redevelopment, this stud v shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the potential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment. The buffer width shall not be less than 50 feet. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. New development aetivities Staff -Prepared Option C for Council Consideration Staff has developed an Option C that combines portions of Option A and Option B for Council consideration. Option C keeps the Council's 125/110 buffer as a baseline and, as with Options A & B, allows an alternative buffer with a shoreline conditional use permit and site specific study. The study criteria uses the criteria in the interrupted buffer provision as proposed by Option A, but the analysis uses the criteria to establish the existing conditions and in the evaluation of a proposed development to ensure no net loss of shoreline functions and values as proposed by Option B. Option C 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 100/50 125 11018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 125 11018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 1 n� 125 110" Packet Pg. 480 8.3 Covered Parking Shore Setback 1 n� 125 110" All Other Development 1 n� 125 11018 Footnote: 18. The default setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is I89 125 feet. A default 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh with a 15 foot setback from the edge of the vegetative buffer for a total default setback of 125 feet. An alternative buffer width may be established after site specific environmental study and approval through the shoreline conditional use permit process. The alternative buffer must result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. Existing conditions shall be used as the baseline for assessing no net loss and the site specific environmental study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. The alternative buffer shall be no less than 50 feet plus the 15 foot setback. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-201(21(el. the default buffer maybe increased if the analysis of environmental impacts indicates that an increase in necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. "IeW , eVeI^PMe t a6ti,,;ties y4ithli., the I IrbaR Mixed Use IV . Rt . e the P-Stahlosh.,,P,nr .,F Cn f.,.,r Option C appears consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, particularly WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(ii)(A) which notes, "Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the act." By requiring a site assessment of conditions prior to a development and evaluating the proposed development using the same criteria, the City can assure that the proposed development will result in no net loss of shoreline functions and values. The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum addressing the no net loss criteria which is included as Exhibit 3. Next Steps The Department of Ecology has requested the City make a final decision on the buffer/setback issue by March 30, 2017. The SMP is currently on the Council's agenda for continued discussion during the February 21St and March 7t" Council meetings. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Department of Ecology's Response to City of Edmonds' October 19, 2016 Proposed SMP Alternatives Exhibit 2 - City of Edmonds October 19, 2016 Response to Ecology's Conditional Approval Exhibit 3 - City Attorney Memorandum Exhibit 4 - January 24, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 481 8.3 Exhibit 5 - February 7, 2017 Draft Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 482 sTArE. o E LY O @ ati Cf t�jf� 1869 boy •� L O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 00 PO Box 47600 ® Olympia, WA 98504-7600 V 360-407-6000 00 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 January 10, 2017 The Honorable Kristiana Johnson, President City of Edmonds Council 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: City of Edmonds Response to Department of Ecology's .Dine 27, 2016, Conditional SMP Approval. Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for your October 19, 2016, letter in response to the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) conditional approval of the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. For required changes one through six, the City has either accepted Ecology's required changes or offered alternatives that Ecology finds are consistent with .the SMA and Ecology guidelines, and are consistent with the original intent of the required changes. This letter formally accepts the City's final determination on Ecology's required changes one through six. The amended text provided by the City in Attachment E — Revised (10/19/2016) will become part of the approved SMP amendment through Ecology's final action. We have only one remaining issue. The City has proposed alternatives to Ecology's required change seven and eight concerning Edmonds Marsh buffers and setbacks. We recognize the intense community interest and engagement surrounding the marsh. Over the past few months, Ecology staff have attended many Council meetings and engaged in robust discussions among citizens and Councilmembers. I have met personally with representatives of Friends of the Marsh and the Port of Edmonds to hear their perspectives. Ecology understands the importance of preserving and improving the Edmonds Marsh. We believe this is a common interest among all involved parties. However, Ecology is concerned the City's proposed alternatives must be clarified for consistency with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original change.l The difficulty remains how to achieve this objective given the surrounding land uses, and the near absence of a marsh buffer within the Urban Mixed IV shoreline environment. ' WAC 173-26-120(7)(b)(ii). ®t`,a Packet Pg. 483 The Honorable Kristiana Johnson January 10, 2017 Page 2 L O L Cn To that end, Ecology proposes two options for clarifying the SMP that would address our 00 concerns, as well as the interests of the community. Please review the attached "Ecology co Response to City Alternatives." The attached document responds to the City's thoughtful W Evaluation ofScientifrc and Regulatory Consideration Related to Ecology's Required Changes 7 r and 8. 1° Each of these options clarify how appropriate mitigation would be established during redevelopment of the Urban Mixed Use IV environment through site specific assessments that acknowledge existing conditions. These suggested change are consistent with RCW 90,58.100 (use of scientific information) and WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) & (e) (protection of ecological functions and environmental impact mitigation). We appreciate the City's continued work on the SMP. There are many positive aspects to the SMP update that will benefit the City's Puget Sound and Lake Ballinger shorelines. The Edmonds Marsh issue is the last remaining issue related to the Edmonds SMP update process. I believe all parties interested in the outcome of the SMP have a common interest in protecting and improving the quality of Edmonds Marsh for future generations, We hope the options we have provided will help us reach a final resolution. We would like the opportunity to present these options to Council, answer questions you may have, and conclude the SMP update process. Please contact Joe Burcar of our Northwest Regional Office at (425) 649-7096 or ioe.burcar2ecy.wa,go_v. Sincerely, Maia D. Bellon Director cc: Dave Earling, Mayor, City of Edmonds. Shane Hope, Edmonds City Development Services Friends of the Edmonds Marsh Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds Packet Pg. 484 8.3.a Attachment G Options for addressing City of Edmonds Alternatives to Ecology's Required L Changes addressing Edmonds Marsh Buffers and Setbacks. This document presents Ecology's response to the City of Edmonds alternatives addressing the Edmonds 00 V Marsh Buffers and Setbacks. The City's response, dated October 19, 2016, provides an alternative to Ecology's Required Changes (Row Numbers 7 and 8) issued during the June 27, 2016 Conditional SMP Approval. Under WAC 173-26-120(7), Ecology may approve the City's alternatives if they comply with the SMA and substantive guidelines and are "consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by [Ecology]." The purpose and intent of Ecology's original proposed amendments are found in Ecology's Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A, p. 11), and Required Changes (Attachment B, p. 4), dated June 27, 2016. The City's alternatives would establish a fixed requirement for a 110' vegetated buffer upon redevelopment within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation. Ecology finds the City's alternatives could be consistent with applicable laws, rules and the intent of Required Changes, provided they are clarified to acknowledge legally existing uses and site conditions on the landward side of the levee that rings the Marsh. The 110-foot area the City's regulations would require to be revegetated is historic fill, and includes paved areas, tennis courts, a Health Club, other existing structures, and a brownfields clean-up site at the southern boundary of the Marsh. This document outlines the background of this issue, reviews the city alternatives and rationale, and provides two different options for addressing our common interest in establishing a legally defensible framework for protecting and restoring the Marsh. The City's rationale for their alternatives are provided in a memo prepared by Attorney Jeff Taraday of Lighthouse Law Group titled "Evaluation of scientific and regulatory considerations related to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8," dated September 23, 2016. The Memo is described by the City as Attachment B. To reduce confusion with Ecology's Attachment B (Required Changes), this Evaluation memo is hereafter referred to as the "Lighthouse Memo." Background on Ecology's ConditionalApproval Required Changes to Rows land 8 Buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation for Edmonds Marsh have been discussed extensively during the SMP update. The City Planning Commission had proposed a 50' buffer based on an evaluation of applicable scientific information and existing conditions. A 50-foot buffer is generally consistent with existing conditions on the intensely developed north side of the Marsh. The Planning Commission acknowledged the presence of the levee limits the water quality benefits that a larger buffer would provide. Requiring a vegetative buffer larger than 50' would require significant removal of historic fill and removal of existing paved areas and structures. In adopting the final SMP the City Council retained the 50' buffer but increased the building setback to 50' for a total buffer/setback of 100.' Ecology's Required Changes (Rows 7 and 8) did not reduce the 50' buffer width, but amended the City's 50' setback to incorporate a 15' setback from the edge of the vegetative buffer for a 65' combined buffer/setback. The 15' setback was chosen for internal consistency with the City Critical Areas Ordinance that requires a 15-foot setback from the edge of a buffer (ECDC 24.40.280, Building Setbacks). The changes also added a threshold for redevelopment to Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 485 8.3.a Attachment G clarify when the requirement would apply. Ecology's changes were intended to align the SMP with the L planning commission draft, recognize existing conditions, and maintain consistency with the City's o Critical Areas Ordinance. 00 v 00 Description of City Alternatives to Rows land 8 For Rows 7 and 8 the City provides alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment in 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards. The City's alternative would establish a definitive 125' building setback and mandate the installation of a 110' vegetative buffer when approved master plans for the area are implemented. The City's description for the Change to Row 7: For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100150, that will be changed to 1251110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of the Marsh. The City's description of the Change to Row 8: The Harbor Square site on the north side of the Marsh has been developed in accordance with a contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established. Likewise, the property on the south side of the Marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side of the Marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved master plan implemented on the south side of the Marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to be established. While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary buffer restoration effort. City Rationale: Legal Standards The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Legal Standards to guide local decision -making. The citations address the requirements to protect ecological functions based on available scientific information. The memo cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) which states that SMPs "shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions." The Lighthouse Memo also cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) which states that SMPs "shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of... impaired ecological functions." However, it is important to note that the SMP Guidelines clarify that restoration be addressed through goals and policies, but is not intended to be achieved through regulations. The guidelines include other citations that reinforces this distinction. For example, WACs 173-26- 201(2)(c) and (e) describe how to address protection of ecological functions and environmental impact Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 486 8.3.a Attachment G mitigation. The rules require application of a mitigation sequence to achieve no net loss of ecological functions for each new development. The rules include an important restraint on SMP authority. The L o mitigation sequence may "not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions..." [WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(ii)(A)]. v Go r In other words, protective regulations can only require new developments to provide mitigation that �, compensates for the impacts of new development. A fundamental principle of the guidelines is that the > no net loss" standard protects existing functions, and restoration to improve conditions is met through nonregulatory means Restoration Planning WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). This was a cornerstone of the guidelines, which were negotiated with diverse interests to resolve a legal challenge. Ecology has a approved SMPs that include incentive -based approaches to encourage restoration, but these cannot be (L M required. U) City Rationale: Scientific and Technical Information The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Ecology's wetland guidance documents (Citations A — F). The citations correctly identify Ecology's recommended buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands would be 110 feet provided minimization measures are provided. However, buffers areas in Ecology's guidance documents are presumed to be functionally connected and therefore capable of performing ecological functions. The City's existing CAO recognizes this. In a section titled "Allowed Activities," a project applicant may propose to modify a standard buffer based on a site -specific study that determines an area is functionally isolated (23.40. 220 C.4). The Lighthouse Memo cites examples provided in Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State, Volume Z Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands in reference to buffer requirements for "new" development. However, any proposal in the UMU IV would be considered "redevelopment", not new development. In addition to the wetland guidance, the Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's SMP Handbook chapters on Vegetation Conservation (Chpt 11) and Legally Existing Uses (Chpt 14). These chapters recognize that tailored buffers should be based on existing conditions. By contrast, the City's alternative establishes a fixed area that would have to be revegetated during redevelopment that would "over -ride" the existing allowance in the City's CAO based on a site -specific study. The regulation relies on the "default" buffer width rather than developing a tailored buffer that acknowledges existing conditions. City Rationale: Effects of City Marsh Restoration The Lighthouse Memo notes "The city council appears to hold unanimously the goal of restoring the ecological functions and values of the Edmonds Marsh. To the extent that there are differing opinions on the city council, they appear to concern the extent to which the Edmonds Marsh can or should be restored, and/or the best strategies for accomplishing such restoration." Ecology fully agrees with the unanimous goal of the Council to restore the ecological functions and values of the Marsh. It appears Port of Edmonds Commissioners also share this goal. This should be an ideal circumstance for reaching agreement on a reasonable path forward. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 487 8.3.a Attachment G An SMP can include restoration goals and policies to improve existing conditions. As noted above the L SMP guidelines acknowledge improvements are to be achieved through voluntary restoration activities o or through regulatory incentives. Cn Go Ecology options based on the City's analysis of alternatives The Lighthouse Memo includes 4 options. Option 2 (75' buffer based on City's old CAO) is no longer applicable, as the City has already amended the CAO to include a 110' buffer for Category 2 wetlands. r Option 4 is Ecology's original Required Changes, which the Council has indicated it does not want to c pursue. Ecology offers the following two options based on the City's analysis of alternatives. +' The Lighthouse Memo starts its evaluation of alternatives with the following: "It will simplify the discussion of alternative buffer widths, if the setback from the edge of the buffer (not from the edge of the wetland) remains consistent across the various alternatives. We agree with Ecology that the SMP should strive for consistency with the CAO in this area. Because the city's CAO currently requires any structure to be setback from the edge of a buffer by 15 feet, the options discussed below will all assume that structures cannot be placed any closer than 15 feet from the edge of a buffer." Ecology's two options below are therefore premised on the use of a 15' setback measured from the edge of the buffer (whatever it may be). Both options include application of a site -specific study that allows the regulatory regime to acknowledge existing conditions and adapt to anticipated impacts of proposed development. For either of these options, the city may want to include a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for developments in the UM -IV designation. The intent here is to address possible concerns that a site - specific study might not get adequate review. The requirement for a CUP adds a heightened degree of scrutiny and projects would require Ecology formal review and approval. Option: 110-foot buffer/125-foot setback The City has offered this Option as its alternative to Ecology's Required Changes in Row 7 and 8. The Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates (June 2016) as the source for the inclusion of a 110-foot buffer with minimization measures as the appropriate buffer for a Category 2 wetland, consistent with the City's recent CAO amendments. The Lighthouse Memo acknowledges the reality that adoption of a 110-foot buffer does not do anything to change conditions on the ground. The Memo recognizes that existing developments could be maintained indefinitely, and that a wide buffer could be a disincentive to redevelopment. Ecology finds the City's alternative should be clarified to include recognition that at the project scale the buffers are to be implemented in a manner that acknowledges legally existing uses and site conditions and ensure the project includes necessary protections commensurate with the proposed development. A few clarifications could remove the disincentive for redevelopment and provide an equitable regulatory framework consistent with SMA authorities. As noted above, the Edmonds CAO already includes a section which allows for exemptions from prescribed buffer widths for areas proven to be functionally isolated. The provision requires a qualified consultant prepare a site assessment and includes criteria for evaluating the assessment, as follows: Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 4 Packet Pg. 488 8.3.a Attachment G Edmonds Critical Areas Code 23.40. 220 C.4 (Development Proposals within Interrupted Stream or Wetland Buffers) L o Adjacent areas that may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer v widths if proven scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The 00 r director will require the applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis M documentation report by a qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted buffer area is functionally isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation. The fixed buffer width in the City's alternative SMP provision would override the application of the CAO which allows for adapting necessary protections at the project level. The City's Alternative could be modified to incorporate existing CAO provisions through the following modification to the standards table: 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/11018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback a 00� 125/1101" Covered Parking Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 All Other Development Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established with approval of a CUP and when consistent with 23.40. 220 CA The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. Option: Minimum 50-foot buffer/65-foot setback, after confirming through site specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU4 The Lighthouse Memo identifies some of the assumptions behind Ecology's assertion that the City Planning Commission recommendation for a 50-foot buffer is appropriate. These assumptions (and others, including assumptions about restraints on requirements to restore during redevelopment) were Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 489 8.3.a Attachment G d identified during the local planning process. The City notes this approach might be acceptable if these .a) L assumptions were tested in scientifically and/or economically supported findings. C z One option to build on this approach is to incorporate such a scientific study into the SMP requirements, 00 14 using a 50' buffer as a minimum, with site -specific determination at the project level. This could be °r° accomplished with the following clarifications: tA 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 10M0- 125/110 to 65/5018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 125/110 to 65/5018 Covered Parking Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 All Other Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Marsh based on approval of a CUP and a site -specific assessment. The assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the Dotential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment. The buffer width shall not be less than 50 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 6 Packet Pg. 490 8.3.a Attachment G Additional changes to clarify the CUP requirement. L The City does not need to amend the Shoreline Development Table because Footnote 1 clarifies that 0 text in the SMP over -rides the table. However, if the City wants to clarify the CUP requirement for 00 alternative buffers, the table could be amended as follows: GGo r 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV Commercial and Light Industrial Development Water -oriented SDP' Nonwater-oriented SDP' Residential Development Detached Residential (Single -Family) X Attached or stacked Residential (Multi -Family) X Transportation and Parking Railroads X Ferry Terminals SDP' Parking —supporting associated water -dependent uses SDP' Parking — not supporting associated water -dependent uses SDP' Other SDP' 1: In the event that there is a conflict between the development(s) identified in this Table 24.40.080 and the policies and/or regulations with the text of this Master Program, the policies and regulations within the text shall apply. 2: Artwork associate with a permitted use in the Aquatic I or Aquatic II designation may by permitted; otherwise it is a prohibited use. 3: A CUP is reauired where the aaDlicant Droaoses an alternative buffer. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 7 Packet Pg. 491 8.3.b EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254 Inc.1890 October 19, 2016 Maia D. Bellon, Director WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — City Response to Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval Dear Ms. Bellon, The City of Edmonds appreciates the additional time granted by Ecology to fully evaluate and prepare a response to the Department of Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Since receiving Ecology's conditional approval with eight required changes and one recommended change, the City has spent a significant amount of time evaluating Ecology's required changes including discussing the proposed changes over the course of seven Council meetings and receiving many public comments on Ecology's proposed changes. The required changes from Ecology can be split into two categories, 1) Requires changes 1— 5 related to incorporating the recently updated critical area regulations into the SMP and 2) required changes 6 - 8 related to the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. Regarding incorporating the critical area regulations into the SMP, the City Council largely agrees with the changes proposed by Ecology with one exception. After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated critical area regulations in May 2016 with Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City Council has determined to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) is being incorporated into the SMP. Please see Attachment A for the specific alternatives and the rationale for the proposed changes. The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh, which is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. While the City Council accepts the change related to dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment, the City Council does not believe Ecology's proposed setback/buffer in the UMU IV environment are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Shoreline Master Program guidelines, or the best available science and wetland guidance in Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001). The City Council is proposing an alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV environment and establishing an alternative threshold for buffer establishment. The City's proposed Incorporated August 11, 1890 Packet Pg. 492 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 8.3.b EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254 fnc.18911 alternatives are included in Attachment A with an expanded rationale for the City's proposed alternative included to required changes 7 and 8 in Attachment B. Finally, the City acknowledges Ecology's recommended change to allow residential development with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment but declines to implement this change at this time. Please accept this letter along with Attachment A and B as the City of Edmonds' response as required by RCW 90.58.090(2)(e). The City of Edmonds appreciates the efforts of David Pater, Paul Anderson and Joe Burcar in this update and their attendance at Council meetings as the City has worked through the SMP update process. Sincerely, Kristiana Johnson City of Edmonds Council President Cc: Dave Earling, City of Edmonds Mayor David Pater, Ecology, Shoreline Planner Joe Burcar, Ecology, SEA Section Manager Paul Anderson, Ecology, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 493 Attachment A: City of Edmonds Responses/Alternative Proposals to the Department of Ecology's Required Changes from the June 27, 2016 Conditional Approval 8.3.b ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Ecology Required change from June 27,2016 Conditional Approval City of Edmonds Response/Alternative Proposal City of Edmonds - Discussion/Rationale Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethrough-deletions] 1. 24.40.020 Critical Critical Areas B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Areas Ordinance Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated Neyember 2-3 Referencing 2004 Ord ) (May 3, 2016, Ord 4026). are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections list below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2. Appendix B SMP Critical Replace Appendix B containing the critical area regulations The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with As a result of incorporating the Department of Area dated November 23, 2014, Ordinance 3527 with critical area the modified exceptions list in item 4 below. Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Regulations regulations (minus exceptions noted in item 4 below) dated (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026. exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. The critical area regulations in Appendix B will not include the provisions identified in item 4 below. 3. 24.40.020 Critical CAO 4 Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50 n��.3. ARY shoreline The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with The City accepts this change in that no critical area project Areas provisions neiRg heYGRd 25 buffer red In+inn through that minor modifications and indicated below: provisions will require a shoreline variance. proposes a triggered by the mfo!R GGr'n'r 24.40.02O.E.3 would deSGn1h Ghenisms ed a shoreline require 'a variaRGe. Noyai ia. for of the Gri+iGa;Area OrdinanGe G. The Ecology's required change did not include the shherelino - is . equired SpeGifiG PrOVOSOORS variance wetland buffer redUGtieR GORsisterlt with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3. listed below may only be imnlomon+o`J within chnrolino introductory sentence noting these provisions urisdiGtion through the shoreline „arianGe required a shoreline variance. That sentence is PrGGe&SL, h ECDC 23 80 n7n n h Q_ n 2: Buffer redUGtton 'I Wetlands shown as being deleted. and aI+eurcer"+� aZm Geologically Hazardous provisions were not shown 3 Fish Ernr Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas EGDG 23 50 non F 3 /any shoreline nroien++h �+ in Ecology's required change. However, allowed and a a �rr��z 23 90 non n ` : Re di lGed buffer widths onion beyOR J 25% buffer red ire+inn through activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC Prnnncoc a the rneGhallis„,s deSGribed!R ECDC-24.^�020.E.3 ^tea bECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to 23.80.040.B.1 & 2 were moved to the exceptions lir, for Tonic re No variall e r red list in item 4 below. The double -line strike -through szrFGtUesrex+st'R-g within hi asn� a�� . s+roam iffors wetlaR d h, ,ffer red In+iens nerisis+on+ with C('n(' 24. ^�020�3: �rnr Qn non Q -I Q �• A11Q1A,,,,1 e,.+i„i+i„r ir, indicates the move. ie�d h EGDG 23 Qn n7n 'I h A. 7: Buffer red UG l+ oora inns crvna Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 494 ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] 3. Fish aR d Wildlife Habitat Gonoen ation Areas �� 90 nnn.n.2: QedUGed1 bufferwidths b. EGDG 23 90.04n n 4: ^dditienstO S#U^+�''res�;?+gig within stream buffers 4. 24.40.020 Critical CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area The City of Edmonds offers the exceptions list below as an As a result of incorporating the Department of Areas Exceptions Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within alternative: Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates shoreline jurisdiction. (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. 1. General Provisions: � Drn�iicinnc of nh•�pfor �z nn Crnr relating +n�r�en�c Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. General Provisions: Two of the items in the general provisions exemption list were left out of 1. General Provisions: Ecology's required change item 4 (ECDC eGenerniG use of do not apply to with a Provisions Of ^hapt��,� ECDC 23.40.130.D Monitoring Program and ECDC property property i„risdiG�n• specifically C 23.40.220.C.8). `shherolino 23.40.210(2). N TT�`pp" i�� n; ECDC ECDC 23.40.130.D requires a monitoring program property with shoreline j speGifiGally �n non and ECDC 232.. of not less than five years. SMP contains a c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance a. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program monitoring provision that requires monitoring for a period of not less than ten years. Given the SMP e. ECDC 23.4&230 €xis b. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance contains a separate monitoring program, ECDC G. ECDC; 23 , 27n� Tinnr cite In„e^+igati„ 23.40.130.D will be excepted from the CAO in �rnr ��.4o�S: 2. Geologically Hazardous Areas: Appendix B of the SMP. a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically e €�ce�, 2. Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 (which is ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 in the updated CAO) contains provisions very similar to WAC 173-27-040(m). WAC 173-27-040(m) exempts minor site investigative work from shoreline substantial hazardous areas `n� 2. Wetlands: ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings a. h ECDC 23.5 non C 9 : Standard Buffer Widths c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize development permit requirements. ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 allows minor site investigative work Impacts to Wetlands ^^�rnr�� 50non n: �n�onBuffer Width d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated without the requirement for a critical area report. Given the intent of the two provisions to allow minor site investigation in preparation for a land use or g p p "^y"' ,� �r,nr, ��z Fn non � Q h� ��^ci.,e [?�r� Wetlands G. ECDC 23 5n non n: WetlaR per Widthder shoreline permit, and the similar language in each gillg �rC23�g;04n e + rla r�� n nn n � Q h: o�^��TeC�eati�,� provision, the City of Edmonds is proposing to remove ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 from the exception f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mitigation Ra �� ,-�at+es, e.€f'�1f' 23 50-04n.I:�Tpt�;ens list. ECDC 3 50 050 G: �ni��E�Eeep+ f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mi+�+i �� With the incorporation of the Department of g ga o ECDC 23 50 050 ram: Wetlands Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Mitigation "��` as (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, certain provisions of the wetlands section in the CAO 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas: needed to be excepted from the SMP where there a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in was conflicts with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. geologically hazardous areas Geologically Hazard Areas shown as a double underline to indicate the move from item 3 above. 5. 24.40.020 Critical Wetlands Delete 24.40.020.F(1) — (4). The City of Edmonds offers the wetland section attached After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated Areas Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space. to the end of this table as an alternative to Ecology's critical area regulations in May 2016 with required change number 5. Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland E co v 00 0 a a Q 0 r =a c 0 U M 0 0 0 w 0 a� 0 a N 0 N ai a� 0 O c 0 w 0 r Ab a Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 495 ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City of Edmonds desires to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, the City is choosing to incorporate Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) into the SMP. Incorporating the updated wetland guidance into the SMP primarily involves replacing the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements in the SMP. Apart from incorporating the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements into the SMP, the City of Edmonds accepts the deletions of the remaining sections as proposed in Ecology's required change. Ecology's required changed was to delete 24.40.020.F.1 — F.4; however, there is no 24.40.020.F.3 — FA in the SMP. The wetland section in the SMP is contained within 24.40.020.F.1 — F.2. 6. Part III Shoreline B. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Environments Designation being established on interim shoreline rdesignotien, is as 24.30.070 Criteria appropriate for those areas bordering T the Edmonds Marsh. Urban Mixed Use 5. Urban bei-ag The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is Mixed Use IV new to this SHAD of identified „�� o .,-ter— �� as a shoreline update and was the state late in the planning process.. , W-with properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not previously been so designated). SneGifig review of the effents of establishing shoreline environment on evicting d a aR nr� aroi R d the marsh must he oposed uses studied. The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent significant environment review with a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Sono update nror�ess was delayed to the Pert of E dmonlds tome to a long allow submit Harbor Square Master Plall fE)r review by plaRRed GGRGUFFellt E 0 (L a� W c L 0 U) co v 00 0 a a Q 0 r r_ 0 U rn 0 0 0 w 0 aD 1= 0 a N r O N r a� 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r i N x w c E r a Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 496 ITEM SMP PROVISION Topic• •• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Oho City of Eitmonrds The Port's proposer) Harbor Square of Edmonds•. Proposal of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale rr-rc-vn�vrL�rrrvnav�� Master Plan was net adopted by the Gity. ultimately The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem. Establishing the Urban Mixed Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in Geeperation With e pprep WRerse €GGlegy, e seientists e interested the ihIie' to membeFs ageRGies/�. fo gqRzatiORS,, and of pi illy review effents of establishing a new shoreline Garef ii irisdintion for the area around the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the enologinal role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds The City crmvrrcrsTVTurs��ru�.r� �arrrvr-ra�� c-vrry intends to the ending the Edmonds Marsh study issues surrounding and related I Irban Mixed _I Use IV designation for two dears date of this QUAD At the end of the sfi irhi from rthe effe6tuye , the City will adopt appropriate sheF I�ceR�iir� ran perieD Tm8Rt designation(s) for the area si irroi ending the Edmonds Marsh ineli ding evaluating whether a new designation is needed and I.A.xhethei: the have the designation. eRtire area should same 7. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback Shoreline Area Designation The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative for the setback/buffer requirement in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment: See Attachment B for the rationale behinds the City's alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment. For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100/50, that will be changed to 125/110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of the marsh. Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Area Designation Commercial and Light Industrial Development Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback 100/50 65/50 Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 8. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Footnotes 18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings yew develepment within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 4-S0 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative footnote 18: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed- Use IV environment is 4-00 125 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved The Harbor Square site on the north side of the marsh has been developed in accordance with a contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established. development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50- foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a 15 foot structural setback . master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. New development oetiVities within the Urban Mixed _I Use IV en\/Irenment require the establishment of a 50 feet vegetation buffer adianent to the Edmonds Marsh -eihere E co 1* 00 <4 O L Q IZ Q f3 C O r C O U N O O v W O a� c O a N O 0 N r a� O r 0 O E w 0 r N x w c E r a Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 497 ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic• •• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] of Edmonds•. Proposal the vegetative buffer is abseRt of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale Likewise, the property on the south side of the marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side of the marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved master plan implemented on the south side of the marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to be established. While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary buffer restoration effort. E co 00 O L Q Q Q r_ O r_ O U N O O v W O d N C O Q N O r O N r L O V O cO C W 4- 0 r N L X W r C E t V R r a Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 498 8.3.b City of Edmonds Proposed Alternative to Required Change No. 5 for Wetland Regulations within the SMP. 24.40.020 Critical Areas F. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with WAC 173-22-035 that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Wetlands shall be rated aeeefding to the Washington State wedand rating system for- eo tains the definitions and methods for- detefmining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining the following wedand rating aleg , Wetlands shall be rated accordingto o the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.: a. Category L Category €*hand r-elatively undis€destuarine wetlands lafger- than 1 aer-e; 2) wetlands that afe identified by seientists ef the Washingto Natural Her-itage Pr-ogr-am�DNR as high "ality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) mattir-e and old gf!ovvth forested wetlands larger- than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6) wetlands that per-f many ftmetions well (see,.;n 70 p r sor- re) Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs, (4) mature and old- rg owth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; _ (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. b. Category II. distff-bed estuarine wetlands larger- than I aer-e; 2) inter-dunal wetlands 1 aeFes; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high Lve-I A Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 499 8.3.b Category II wetlands are: Clestuarine E wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) a, interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) ° wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 a points). 0 2 c. Category III. Category M wetland wetlands with a moderate evel Of a) fianetions between 30 50 2) inter-dunal between 0. 1 (scoring and points); or- wetlands L and 1 aero i size Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequatelyplaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and 3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 le acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in v some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. o a 0. d_Category IV. Category W wetlands have the lev,est levels of ftiet rs (s,. Q fewer- than 30 points) andare often heavily disturbedCategory IV wetlands have the c lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to c improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in U any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should �% be protected to some degree. o 0 U d-.e.Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal c modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge. N C 2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in a accordance with the following: a. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in N accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined byqualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update o (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved bogy). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high. i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in E 24.40.020.F.2.b can be used if both of the following criteria are met: w 0 • A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the v Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. CM The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and w the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. 0 a Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 500 8.3.b Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, 24.40.020.F.2.b may be used with the required measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c alone.2 • The measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. ii. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b iii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then 24.40.020.F.2.d must be used. iv. The buffer widths in 24.40.020.F.2.b and 24.40.020.F.2.d assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. b. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are Implemented and Corridor Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category Bogs and wetlands of 190 225 High Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225 Category 1: Interdunal 225 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Forested Category 1: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat score) Category II: Based on score 75 105 165 225 Page 8 of 13 E L tm 0 a L d N m as c LO m A CO le 00 O L a Q. Q 0 a O a O U N O 0 u w O a� N a O a m 0 N r as O u O w c O E m w 0 Al a Packet Pg. 501 8.3.b Category II. Interdunal wetlands 110 165 225 Category II: Estuarine 110 buffer width not based on habitat score) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 will "llp-Ift will "llp-Ift ..fKsrear!se��ssss�rr��rs�fr�as��szs�ee�:�!se�r��ssss�r:r�. _ Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 502 8.3.b .. c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, ,=cif applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Required measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of eoffidor-s e 0 Maintain to that eonneetions ofAite areas are- undistur-bed rem Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 503 8.3.b d. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 100 140 220 300 Catelgory Bois and wetlands of 250 300 Hiizh Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lam 200 220 300 Category 1: Interdunal 300 Category 1: Forested 100 140 F220 300 Category 1: Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II. Based on score 100 140 220 300 Category II: Interdunal wetlands 150 220 300 Category II: Estuarine 150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 504 8.3.b E olnvmo,�4 n n l;vnn4nv o buffer 141, vo l„ 4; .r.n (.v nl L ev f wetland -width appr-ov lm O buff-er- widths for- wetlands whefe existing buff-ef eonditio L a „ffov widths) may be granted n mitant to the deyeln.v.men d itio, of n ..o41n,,a buff- r enhancement plan for Category H! and Al N O illy. Approval of n wetland buffer- enhaneemen4 plan shall, at ie � dir-eetoi, „flow for- buff-erwtth to less than 25he c ,rthe wetland fedtietion no 0- standard width; provided, 0 t vin„ ;thevlomov4n4;nv 4n n4 lonn4 40 to„ol bybyIn n L,,,f4o, CO1, provided standard le CO inal T 7 v.4n densities for- . o in buffer- > existing native plant andprovides O L :isities to less than thfee feet f6f feet 0. no on eenter- shmbs and eight e Q. Q f m C O ++ 20E4.n,,l `a O U N ases in wetland b ff ,- ft rieti .r ing as relate to. � O O t� W O r d - ,;l.11;f habitat f � O O_ a of wetland N fandN O etla .1 intf sio n,-,nl ,1;n4,,,43anee r ' O N Widt Aver-aging. The director- allow modif;eation saandaia r i er- may of a L 4, . aeeofdanee with an apprmoved efit nn1 n 0 0 n n.v4andthe bee by basis by buffef Only those O Oft - ease ease a-,�efaging widths. v f-erm the v n o „bjeet v of shall be wetlandb existing wit1, eet or ilified v n.f nn;n.,,nl wetland o n M ist n.,,n4 dem fes 44b,n4• c0c C funetion eduee the and value of wetlands of assoeia4ed f � O ,l . „4n;„n , n4ions ; dtie to .,l,afuetefisties sensitivity existing physieal the V slope, soils, of vegetation, and wetlan N 4t f n ,iderm b,,,fferm ; v.laees by n,l ; b,,, ++ om and would not ermsely ete ,f- r ; other places; t k W eee�rsrsrss�eas�.ressasesr�:sess�sr�:esssasseassss�srsrss�:esesrs - Q Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 505 8.3.b i� ii. Wi' amaze stfuet ,.emu iii.Fishing aeeess areas down to the watef's edge that shall be no larger- than six few i,e. Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.I4I. Additions to structures within wetlands will also require state and federal approval. Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 506 8.3.b Date: October 14, 2016 To: Washington State Department of Ecology Copy: Edmonds City Council Dave Earling, Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis regarding City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 and consistency of those alternatives with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidelines I. Purpose of this memo This memo demonstrates how the City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Required Changes 7 and 8 are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance for Shoreline Master Programs. The City's proposed alternatives are necessary because the Department of Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 would not satisfy the SMA's no net loss standard or the City's restoration goals for the Edmonds marsh. If the rationale set forth below is adopted by the Edmonds City Council, this memo should be included as Attachment B to Council President Johnson's letter to Department of Ecology, Director, Maia Bellon. As an alternative to Required Change 7, the City of Edmonds is proposing a 110-foot buffer and a 125-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU4) environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 7. As an alternative to Required Change 8, the City of Edmonds is proposing that the 110-foot buffer be planted and established in conjunction with a master planned development or redevelopment of the two properties within N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 507 8.3.b the UMU4 environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 8. Because the two properties in the UMU4 are separately owned, it is possible that they would plant or otherwise establish their respective buffers at different times. Until that occurs, any existing uses within the adopted buffer would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses. While most of the analysis below relates to Alternative Change 7, it should be kept in mind that Alternative Change 8 is the timing mechanism for Alternative Change 7. II. Findings of Fact demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The following findings of fact support the adoption of Alternative Changes 7 and 8. Packet Pg. 508 8.3.b A. The Edmonds marsh is a shoreline of the state. B. The Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland and salt marsh. C. The UMU4 environment consists of two properties that abut the Edmonds marsh. The property to the south of the marsh is largely undeveloped. The property to the north of the marsh is developed as a business park known as Harbor Square. D. Harbor Square is owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Port had expressed interest in eventually redeveloping Harbor Square into a more intense development. The Port had sought a comprehensive plan amendment to approve the Port's master plan for Harbor Square, but later withdrew that request. There is currently no known timeline for the redevelopment of Harbor Square. E. Neither the City or the Department of Ecology have conducted detailed wildlife habitat assessments or wildlife surveys that would provide additional site -specific information about which species are present in the Edmonds marsh and what the buffer those species would need to be protected from redevelopment. F. In the absence of such detailed site -specific studies, it is appropriate to rely upon Ecology's guidance documents to establish buffer widths at the planning stage. G. The Department of Ecology has published various scientific and technical guidance documents that are intended to be used by cities in the development of critical area regulations and shoreline master programs. The city council reviewed relevant excerpts from these documents before voting to propose Alternative Change 7. Various relevant excerpts from these Department of Ecology publications are excerpted below. Packet Pg. 509 8.3.b 1. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology This document distinguishes Category II estuarine wetlands from Category II interdunal wetlands and other Category II wetlands, where buffer width is based on habitat score. Unlike the other kinds, the buffer for Category II estuarine wetlands does not depend on habitat score. Assuming that certain impact minimization measures are required, the buffer would be 110 feet. The measures include things like ensuring that light, noise, and toxic runoff are directed away from the wetland. If these measures are not implemented, then the buffer would be 150 feet. 2. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version, January 2010, (1st Revision July 2011), (2nd Revision October 2012), Publication No. 10-06-002, Department of Ecology This document recommended standard buffer widths of 75 feet for Category II wetlands, with the possibility of additional buffer width being added based on a habitat score. The buffer table in this document does not have a line for Category II estuarine wetlands. The 75-foot buffer figure is for all Category II wetlands, except for interdunal wetlands. The buffers in the city's adopted CAO were based on the guidance from this document. After the CAO was adopted, this document was replaced in June 2016 by the Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version. 3. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1, A Synthesis of the Science, March 2005, Publication No. 05-06-006, Department of Ecology This document contains the following passage discussing the importance of estuarine wetlands: Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water mix, are among the most highly productive and complex Packet Pg. 510 8.3.b ecosystems. Here, tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients, and organic matter are exchanged between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine communities. A large number of plants and animals benefit from estuarine wetlands. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most visible organisms that live in estuarine wetlands. However, a huge variety of other life forms also live in an estuarine wetland, including many kinds of diatoms, algae and invertebrates. Estuaries, of which estuarine wetlands are a part, are a "priority habitat" as defined by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Estuaries have a high fish and wildlife density and species richness, important breeding habitat, important fish and wildlife seasonal ranges and movement corridors, limited availability, and high vulnerability to alteration of their habitat .... 4. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2, Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005, Publication No. 05-06-008, Department of Ecology This document contains the following sections: A frequent concern about buffers is their applicability to urban and urbanizing areas. The concerns generally fall into two categories: 1) the science on buffers comes largely from agricultural and forestry settings and is perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and 2) the need to maximize density of development in urban areas is in direct conflict with the protection of large upland areas around wetlands (and streams). The concern over the relevancy of the literature on buffers to urban areas is largely unfounded. While most of the studies of buffer effectiveness occur in non -urban settings, the principles are the same. Buffers do not function any differently in urban settings than in rural settings. The same processes of sediment, nutrient, and toxics removal operate similarly in urban areas as they do in rural settings. However, a good stormwater Packet Pg. 511 8.3.b management program can reduce the need for buffers to perform filtration functions, with the exception of lawns and landscaped areas which drain into wetlands rather than into stormwater collection areas. The role of buffers in providing needed upland habitat for wetland species and in screening adjacent noise and light is also performed similarly. In fact, a case can be made that buffers in urban areas are even more important from a habitat standpoint because there is little other upland habitat available. The factors that may be different in urban areas are that urban wetlands may perform some functions at a lower level because of degradation, and the range of wildlife species utilizing urban wetlands may be smaller. However, remaining wetlands (and adjacent upland areas) in urban areas may, in fact, function as habitat islands and be critical to many species. Generally, the protection of wildlife habitat functions of wetlands requires larger buffers than protection of water quality functions, particularly when state-of-the-art stormwater management is employed. However, the best way to address the issue of buffers in urban areas is to conduct a landscape analysis and develop a subarea plan that identifies, prioritizes, and protects the most important wetland, riparian, and upland habitats (see Chapters 5 through 7 of this volume for additional discussion). Maintaining and restoring connections between wetland, riparian, and upland habitats is key to protecting wildlife. A landscape analysis can help identify existing connections that should be protected as well as areas where connectivity can be restored. Combined with standards for low impact development and state-of-the- art stormwater management, this kind of approach could result in smaller buffers around the other critical areas that are not providing vital habitat. The studies Packet Pg. 512 8.3.b should always be confirmed on the ground during project review. The issue of balancing wetland protection with competing mandates in the GMA is a legitimate one that can be addressed in a number of ways. A buildable lands survey with a good wetlands inventory can provide important information on the actual conflicts that may exist (rather than a perceived conflict). Provisions to allow density trading from buffers to adjacent or nearby developable lands can help. Chapter 8, Section 8.3.8.8. Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the buffer exists (e.g., a road or structure that lies within the width of buffer recommended for that wetland), proposed actions in the buffer may be permitted as long as they do not increase the degree of non -conformity. This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland from activities in the buffer. For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g., building an urban road) is being proposed next to a Category II wetland with a moderate level of function for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an existing urban road is already present and only 50 feet from the edge of the Category II wetland, the additional 100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the road is being widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the road would not help buffer the existing impacts to the wetland from the road. If the existing road is resurfaced or widened (e.g., to add a sidewalk) along the upland edge, without any further roadside development that would increase the degree of non -conformity, the additional buffer is not necessary. The associated increase in impervious surface from widening a road, however, may necessitate mitigation for impacts from stormwater. Packet Pg. 513 8.3.b If, however, the proposal is to build a new development (e.g., shopping center) along the upland side of the road, the impacts to the wetland and its functions may increase. This would increase the degree of non- conformity. The project proponent would need to provide the additional 100 feet of buffer extending beyond the road or apply buffer averaging (see Section 8C.2.6). Appendix 8-C, Section 8C.2.4.2. 5. SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation, Buffers, and Setbacks, Publication Number 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this document should also be helpful: Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development. These measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as buffers do. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 3-4. New scientific studies conducted after the CAO was adopted may establish the need for different -sized buffers than included in the CAO. The SMP Guidelines require "the most current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available" to be used for development of SMPs [WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a)]. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 4. When SMPs were first adopted in the 1970s, setbacks were established largely to protect structures from Packet Pg. 514 8.3.b erosion and effects of wind and water and to prevent new houses from blocking views. Some consideration was given to habitat, as in Conservancy environments with bigger setbacks than in Urban environments. We now know more about the value of buffers in regard to ecological functions. Recent scientific studies show that 25-foot setbacks do not protect most ecological functions and will not meet the no net loss standard of the SMP Guidelines. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 7. How do you apply these buffer widths from the scientific literature to your local shorelines? Much of Washington's shorelines are developed, unlike the undeveloped shorelines discussed in much of the scientific literature. Those land uses include industry, commercial uses, houses, multi -family dwellings, parks, trails, marinas, bulkheads, parking lots, and fishing piers, among others. Some upland areas are intensely developed, and others are more sparsely developed. Some of our waters are heavily used for ports, industry, marinas and recreational piers. Many Washington lakes are intensely developed with houses on the upland and piers and docks in the water, while others remain undeveloped. Tailor buffers to local conditions Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The buffers and setbacks for marine and freshwater shorelines should be tailored to local conditions including existing shoreline functions and existing and planned land use and public access. Buffers and setbacks likely will vary within a local government's boundaries to reflect different shoreline conditions and functions. The inventory and characterization report should provide a complete analysis of shoreline functions. Packet Pg. 515 8.3.b SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 19. With this general guidance in mind, considerations for determining buffer and setback width include: What shoreline ecological functions continue to exist and need protection or restoration? What species of wildlife live along the shoreline, and what buffer width will protect them? Would smaller buffers increase nitrogen and phosphorous levels in local waters? How would removal of riparian vegetation affect slope stability and hydrology? Will future growth include new or expanded water - oriented uses? For developed shorelines, is redevelopment likely? Is development projected on vacant parcels? SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 20. 6. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, Legally Existing Uses and Development, Publication No. 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this chapter should be helpful: Existing legally established structures and uses are typically allowed to continue with the approval of updated SMPs. That means they can continue to exist, be used, maintained and repaired. That's the case even if the updated SMPs include regulations that would not allow new uses or development to be configured or built exactly as existing ones. For example, under updated SMPs, new buildings may need to be further away from the water, new development projects may need to retain some vegetation onsite, or new aquaculture projects may need to be a specific distance from aquatic vegetation. However, existing legal development and uses can remain in place. Packet Pg. 516 8.3.b Ecology and local governments do not expect most existing development and uses to be eliminated from the shoreline after new SMP regulations are adopted. In some cases, existing buildings may be expanded, although there may be limits to the size of the addition, the total square footage, or new impervious surfaces.... SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, pp. 1-2. Cities with densely developed shorelines may have fewer opportunities for achieving no net loss than cities or counties with less developed shorelines. With a densely developed shoreline, large buffers or setbacks may not be appropriate or feasible for various reasons - - small lots cannot accommodate them; large buffers would include many structures and impervious surfaces that interfere with buffer functions; regulations regarding structures within buffers could be complicated. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 3. Traditionally, uses and structures that are not consistent with the new regulations have been categorized as "nonconforming" development. Nonconforming uses and development were lawfully constructed or established, but do not conform to current land use regulations or standards. The regulation of nonconforming uses and development is an established concept, beginning early in the 20th century, when municipalities started enacting zoning regulations. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. WAC 173-27-080 applies at the local level only if the local SMP does not address nonconforming development. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. Some local governments are using different approaches as they update their SMPs. They would allow existing Packet Pg. 517 8.3.b structures, particularly single family residences, to continue as conforming structures even though new shoreline setbacks, buffers, and other regulations in their Shoreline Master Programs would typically create nonconforming structures. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 5. Packet Pg. 518 8.3.b H. The City has taken significant steps toward restoration of the Edmonds marsh. I. Ecology's Required Change 7 is a change to the 100/50 setback/buffer that the City had previously adopted for the UMU4 environment. The dimensions of this earlier adopted setback/buffer were heavily influenced by the city's desire to restore the Edmonds marsh and daylight Willow Creek and obtain funding for such restoration. While it is true that Appendix L alone may not support a 100-foot setback for the UMU4 shoreline environment, the weight placed on Appendix L by the city council demonstrates its commitment to restoration of the Edmonds marsh. It is relevant to determining buffers for the UMU4 that the city has a significant goal of restoring the Edmonds marsh and has been actively pursuing that goal through grant applications and studies. J. As the City evaluates the existing conditions of the Edmonds marsh and the surrounding area within the UMU4 environment, it finds the Edmonds marsh to be a valuable environmental asset worthy of the City's ongoing restoration efforts. This value must be taken into account when evaluating the local conditions to which the buffers and setbacks for the UMU4 environment should be tailored. K. It should be noted for the record that the city council on August 2, 2016 adopted Resolution 1366, which authorized the submission of another grant application to RCO related to the daylighting of Willow Creek. The December 18, 2015 final feasibility study for the daylighting of Willow Creek was the result of a successful grant application from 2013. Packet Pg. 519 8.3.b III. Conclusions of Law demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The Department of Ecology has adopted guidelines for Shoreline Master Programs. These guidelines are found in chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III (WAC 173-26-171 through WAC 173-26-251). Alternative Change 7 and 8 are consistent with these guidelines, particularly the following excerpts. A. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b): Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer must be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function, not only within the buffer, but more importantly, within the Edmonds marsh itself. While Harbor Square is already developed and the UMU4 buffer will render that development nonconforming, redevelopment of Harbor Square will presumably be more intense than the existing development. In the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys demonstrating that no species in the Edmonds marsh requires more than a 50-foot buffer, the presumption should be that the habitat value of the marsh is consistent with other Category II estuarine wetlands. Because Ecology's guidance documents recommend a 110-foot buffer for a Category II estuarine wetland, that is the buffer that is required to achieve no net loss in the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys. B. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c): For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. The city is engaged in an ongoing effort to daylight Willow Creek, which will have a significant restorative benefit to the Edmonds marsh. Packet Pg. 520 8.3.b C. WAC 173-26-186(9): To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26 WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances. The guidelines give the city reasonable discretion to balance various factors in the development of its SMP. The city, in adopting Alternative Change 7, has acted reasonably in basing the buffer for the UMU4 on Ecology's own guidance. The 110-foot buffer is consistent with the most recent guidance from Ecology related to buffers for Category II estuarine wetlands. Even if the Department of Ecology or the Port of Edmonds might have weighted the various policy goals differently, the guidelines give this discretion to the city. D. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a): To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58.100(1), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. 1. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.... The city has identified Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, as the most current, accurate, and complete scientific information available. It has also identified other resources which are set forth in the findings of fact, above. 2. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available.... Ecology agrees that the Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. Packet Pg. 521 8.3.b E. WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):... local governments shall ... apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below 1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.... Local governments should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with constitutional limits. Note that there is no higher -ranking priority here than to reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer can be seen as such a restoration. The fact that the existing development is allowed to continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use keeps this reservation firmly within constitutional limits. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(i): When addressing critical areas, shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards established in the following sections, unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW 90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. As a Category II estuarine wetland, the city must protect the Edmonds marsh by adhering to the standards for critical areas unless it is demonstrated through scientific information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. The applicable standards here include Ecology's wetland guidance, which in turn calls for a 110-foot buffer for this class of wetland. In other words, the default UMU4 buffer should be 110 feet unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. Ecology has not demonstrated through scientific and technical information that the 50-foot buffer from Ecology's Required Change 7 provides better protection for the Edmonds marsh than a 110-foot buffer. Ecology makes the point that untreated stormwater discharge is a significant threat to the marsh and that this threat could be corrected upon redevelopment of Harbor Square. Ecology's logic is that a 50-foot buffer will better incentivize redevelopment and redevelopment will fix the stormwater discharge. But this logic fails to address whether the habitat values of the Edmonds marsh would be adequately protected in the face of more intense redevelopment. It also fails to address the possibility that the stormwater problem could be corrected as a standalone stormwater improvement project that could be sponsored by Packet Pg. 522 8.3.b the city's stormwater utility and/or through a WRIA-8 or other grant sponsored project. Significant additional work would need to be done to determine whether a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 could find scientific justification given the presumably high habitat value of the Edmonds marsh. G. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(iv): The planning objectives of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Shorelines with critical areas get special treatment under the SMA. With critical areas, the objectives are not merely protection (no net loss) but also restoration of degraded ecological functions. The city's goal is to restore both the Edmonds marsh and its degraded buffers. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 could become restored either through a standalone restoration project that would likely require city and port cooperation, through mitigation requirements to offset the impacts of more intense redevelopment, or potentially through a combination of the two. H. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A): Local governments should consult the department's technical guidance documents on wetlands. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Ecology's Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D): Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, addresses many of these factors. It provides different buffer widths for Category I estuarine wetlands Packet Pg. 523 8.3.b (150 feet) and Category II estuarine wetlands (110 feet), recognizing that Category I wetlands have greater ecological function. There is no lower category of estuarine wetland than Category II. This suggests that even when the wetland and buffer may have some suffered some degradation, an estuarine wetland should still be afforded protection consistent with a Category II wetland. Ecology suggests that, because the Harbor Square portion of the UMU4 has already been developed, a narrow buffer of 50 feet is justified. We could not find support for this proposition in Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. If anything, that publication appears to state the opposite: "Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased." Id., at 13. J. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A): Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged areas. Critical saltwater habitats like the Edmonds marsh require greater protection than other critical areas. It is necessary to establish an appropriate buffer upon the shorelands of the UMU4 in order to be able to protect and restore these areas. K. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B): The management planning should address the following, where applicable:... Protecting existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems, especially salt marsh habitats; Establishing adequate buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas; Here again, the guidance emphasizes that salt marsh habitats like the Edmonds marsh warrant special protection, even when they are somewhat Packet Pg. 524 8.3.b degraded and that a significant component of that special protection is the establishment of an adequate buffer to protect the special habitat provided by such ecosystems. It should be noted here that existing development within the UMU4 buffer does not make the habitat in the marsh unworthy of protection. It should also be noted that even if existing development already has some negative impact upon that habitat, redevelopment to a more intense use could have greater impact upon that habitat if the buffer were not increased adequately to protect the habitat from the more intense development. L. WAC 173-27-080 Nonconforming use and development standards. When nonconforming use and development standards do not exist in the applicable master program,' the following definitions and standards shall apply: 1. 'Nonconforming use or development' means a shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program. 2. Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded provided that said enlargement does not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses.... Portions of the Harbor Square development already exist within as little as 25 feet of the Edmonds marsh. Ecology has argued that this existing condition warrants a much smaller buffer than the 110-foot buffer called for by the guidance. Ecology argues, essentially, that the buffers should be sized to avoid any already developed property so that the existing development can retain its conforming status indefinitely. If the SMA intended this result, 1 Note: the city's SNIP does contain provisions for nonconforming use. The WAC is cited here to demonstrate what regulation Ecology would impose as a default if the city did not have its own nonconforming use regulation. Packet Pg. 525 8.3.b Ecology would not have needed to adopt the above shoreline nonconforming use rule. The fact that Ecology did adopt a nonconforming use rule renders this argument suspect. Similarly, Ecology appears to argue that the SMA's no net loss standard provides not only the minimum amount of regulatory protection allowed, but also the maximum amount of regulatory protection allowed. This argument is not supported by the plain language of the guidance for shoreline master programs. In fact, the opposite is true, "these guidelines are designed to assure, at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where they have been impaired." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). The guidelines contain similar phrasing where they address wetland regulations. "Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function..." WAC 173-26- 221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). In short, the plain language of the SMP guidance indicates that no net loss is the minimum standard that an SMP must achieve. Nowhere does the guidance suggest that Ecology should deny an SMP for going beyond this minimum standard. IV. Consistency with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 WAC 173-26-120(7)(b) outlines this stage of Ecology's review procedure: If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record. In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendments is the date of the department's letter to local government approving the alternative proposal. If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120. Packet Pg. 526 8.3.b WAC 173-26-120(7)(b). We have demonstrated in Section III, above, how Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the applicable guidelines for SMPs. This section addresses consistency with the purposes and intent of Required Change 7. Certainly, the proposed buffers between Alternative Change 7 (110 feet) and Required Change 7 (50 feet) are significantly different, but that does not mean there is inconsistency between their purposes and intents. We look to the discussion in Ecology's June 27, 2016 Findings and Conclusions to discern the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. We acknowledge, however, that, because Ecology does not succinctly state the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7, this exercise requires some paraphrasing and extrapolation on the part of the city. We believe the following four statements fairly summary Ecology's purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. 1. The city's originally adopted buffer of 50 feet was consistent with Ecology's Required Change 7 buffer of 50 feet. The real difference was in the amount of the setback, where the city originally adopted a 100-foot setback (or 50 feet from the edge of the buffer) and Required Change 7 proposed a 65 foot setback (or 15 feet from the edge of the buffer). Ecology notes that the city did not adequately support the additional 50-foot setback with scientific documentation and replaced it with the extra 15-foot setback, which is consistent with the city's critical areas ordinance. Ecology states: "A minimum 15-foot building setback would help preserve the integrity of a restored buffer. A larger setback may encourage intensive uses such as parking, which is incompatible within a buffer setback." Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 because both reflect the same setback (15 feet from edge of the buffer) that is contained in the city's critical areas ordinance. As Ecology notes, intensive uses such as parking, would no longer be encouraged by the larger 50-foot setback. Packet Pg. 527 8.3.b 2. Ecology expressed concern about the city's reliance upon Appendix L to support the originally adopted buffer/setback of 50/100. In the table, Ecology states: "Ecology acknowledges the City Council amendments to the Planning Commission draft were based on a concern that buffers would be need to be 100 feet to be eligible for Ecology water quality grants. As noted in a letter from Ecology's Water program, a restoration project would be eligible based on the science -based planning commission setback of 50 feet (see letter from Ben Rau to Shane Hope, August 19, 2015)." The city acknowledges that Appendix L is not the most relevant guidance for establishing a buffer width for a Category II estuarine wetland. In Alternative Change 7, the city has corrected its reliance upon Appendix L and now bases the buffer for the UMU4 environment on Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The city believes this guidance to be the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available," as required by WAC 173-26-201(2) (a). By basing Alternative Change 7 on this recent guidance instead of Appendix L, the city's alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7. 3. Ecology's table regarding Required Change 7 cites to WAC 173-26-201(2)(c). That section of the guidelines contains the following language: "Nearly all shoreline areas, even substantially developed or degraded areas, retain important ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecosystems are interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish depends upon the viability of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Therefore, the policies for protecting and restoring ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas. not iust those that remain relatively unaltered." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 by recognizing the important applicability of the language above to Packet Pg. 528 8.3.b establishing the buffer for the UMU4 environment. While much of the UMU4 buffer area has been developed and degraded, this language, and Alternative Change 7, acknowledge that the Edmonds marsh retains important ecological functions that are worthy of being protected with a buffer that is consistent with Ecology's buffer guidance for a Category II estuarine wetland. 4. Required Change 7 may have been crafted to address the Port's concern about excess mitigation. The table cites WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e), which contains the following language: "master programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions." Mitigation is imposed at the project stage, not with the adoption of an SMP. Alternative Change 7 should not be construed as a mitigation requirement. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the Edmonds marsh provides high value habitat that warrants the 110-foot buffer called for in Ecology's guidance documents. When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 environment. Furthermore, we doubt that a 50-foot buffer would be upheld under a no net loss challenge without this additional information. Therefore, to the extent that the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 was to address a concern about excess mitigation, Alternative Change 7 is not inconsistent with that concern in light of the discussion above. Packet Pg. 529 8.3.c Date: February 2, 2017 To: Edmonds City Council Copy: Dave Earling, Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: City's proposed Option C: An alternative to Options A and 8 from Ecology's January 10, 2017 Exhibit G I. Purpose of this memo The purpose of this memo is to provide some legal context for review of Option C, particularly with respect to the no net loss standard. II. Relevant legal authority Set forth below are three particularly relevant excerpts from the Shoreline Guidelines. The no net loss standard in general: Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. (i) Local master programs shall include regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline; local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 530 8.3.c standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) (emphasis added). The no net loss standard specifically articulated toward wetlands: Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function... WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). The full text of the language referenced by Ecology with regard to its concern about excessive mitigation: (e) Environmental impact mitigation. (i) To assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, master programs shall include provisions that require proposed individual uses and developments to analyze environmental impacts of the proposal and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master program and other applicable regulations. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of such environmental impacts shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA, which also address environmental impact mitigation in WAC 197-11-660 and define mitigation in WAC 197-11-768. Master programs shall indicate that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority, with (e) (i) (A) of this subsection being top priority. (A) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (B) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; Packet Pg. 531 8.3.c (C) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (D) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; (E) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (F) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. (ii) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. Consistent with WAC 173-26-186 (5) and (8), master programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the act. (B) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(emphasis added). Packet Pg. 532 8.3.c III. Brief analysis of Option C Option C uses the same standard of no net loss that is used in the Shoreline Guildlines above. Using the same standard should reduce ambiguity and confusion when it comes time to implement these regulations. We stated the following in Section IV of our October 14, 2016 memo: When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 environment. Option C essentially establishes a 110-foot buffer as a default and for planning purposes, while deferring to a later date - after more environmental review has been done and after more is known about the project - the ultimate determination as to whether the buffer can be smaller while still ensuring no net loss, or conversely, whether the buffer needs to be larger to ensure no net loss. Packet Pg. 533 8.3.d Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chiefs request for another paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in. Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding. Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over saving money. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FD1 lawyer, while heated sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds. Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response. Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed: ■ Chronology o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one recommended change. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 534 8.3.d o October 19, 2016 City responded to Ecology's SMP changes and provided alternatives for Edmonds Marsh buffers o January 10, 2017 Ecology responded to the City's Edmonds Marsh buffer alternatives o In consultation with director, Ecology issued final response to evaluation of City's SMP • SMP Update Principles o The Comprehensive SMP update provides many improvements o Edmonds and Ecology are in agreement on most of the SMP — we are very close to being finished o We all share a common goal of protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh • Intent of Ecology's letter o Thoughtfully consider the City's October 2016 response o Formally accept the City's alternatives for Items 1-6 o Identify necessary clarifications to buffer provisions applicable to Edmonds Marsh • Marsh buffer clarifications o Recognizes I I0-foot wetland buffer + 15-foot setback o Clarify mitigation responsibilities at the time of redevelopment to be informed by a site - specific study o Identify review process and criteria to determine appropriate buffer width • Clarification Options o Option A: ■ Adds a reference to the City's CAO (23.40.220.C.4); • Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternatives buffer to be established based on site specific conditions o Option B ■ Establishes criteria to allow for a site -specific assessment to determine buffer widths; • Requires demonstration of lift to eco-functions ■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than of 50 feet Mr. Burcar explained under both options, the default would be a 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback. If those provisions were built into the SMP, a development proposal would need to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process which is reviewed locally by the City and by Ecology to consider any reduction in the buffer. A CUP has addition criteria under the Washington Administrative Code regarding consistency with the Shoreline Act, with the green principles, and with accumulative impacts and would bring Ecology's into the review process. Councilmember Nelson thanked Ecology for agreeing that the default would be a 110-foot buffer plus 15- foot setback. He asked about the wetland scientist's role in the site -specific review; does the scientist look at a report, go on site, etc. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, answered given the magnitude of the Edmonds Marsh and its importance to the City, it would include site visits in addition to reviewing reports. Site visits would be one of the most important aspects of the site -specific study. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at one time the City had an interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) W. She suggested the Council move the rest of the SMP forward and allow time to work on the UMU IV. Mr. Pater answered the options Ecology suggested get at that issue in a more scientific study way. Public comment seemed supportive of a rigorous scientific study with certain boundaries. It gets the Council to the same place because it allows studies to assist in determining what will work best. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City would still do the studies; her proposal was to proceed with the SMP and designate the UMU IV area as interim so the City would have an approved SMP, making it eligible for grants, and continuing to work on the UMU IV buffers and site specific report. She pointed out it will take a while to get a site -specific report done. Mr. Pater agreed the site -specific report is an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 535 8.3.d important piece of the puzzle. With regard to grants, there are statements in the SMP regarding a standalone restoration project if the opportunity arises. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City is currently under the existing 2000 SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her goal was to update the SMP to 2016 or 2017 and allow time to get the site -specific reports done to get the two questions answered. Mr. Burcar explained Ecology's policy with comprehensive updates has been to ensure they are comprehensive and look at all elements of the update. He clarified the site -specific study is intended to be the developer's responsibility/obligation at the time of development. It is not the City's interim responsibility to do the site -specific study. The site -specific study is intended to react and assess how the redevelopment proposal affects the marsh and opportunities to build in the necessary protections at the time of development; it is a project -related study not a planning study. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are no plans for redevelopment at this time. She referred to Everett's interim designation due to a lawsuit. The City doesn't have a lawsuit but has the issue of clarifying this area. An interim designation was suggested at the beginning of this process to give the City time to get the information completed and still have an updated SMP. Mr. Pater answered doing what Councilmember Buckshnis suggested would require unwinding the process a little as the interim designation was one of conditional changes. He was hopeful the Council would move forward with these two options. Councilmember Buckshnis said her goal was to get something approved and allow time to continue work. Mr. Pater said Everett's interim was fairly unique due to the lawsuit, a specific area and the creation of a subarea plan for the marshlands area which they eventually received a State grant for. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concerns including the buffer setback definition in the SMP that has the buffer and setback starting at the same point of origin and Ecology does not have that. She asked whether a scientist would keep the II0-foot buffer and 15-foot setback separated and assumed the scientist would look at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Mr. Pater answered the 15-foot setback does not change, the potential change is to the size of the buffer with a specific study. Ecology is open to possible hybrids of the options. Ecology internally believes they start at the wetland edge. Edmonds Marsh is complicated because of the combination of a salt and freshwater marsh. The berms make things simpler because it is a more uniform line compared to the other, more natural side of the marsh. Councilmember Teitzel reiterate Mr. Burcar's statement, that everyone is in support of restoring and preserving the marsh including the Council, Port, citizens and Ecology, the question is the practical reality of how to get there. He pointed out if the Council ultimately settles on a 125-foot setback that corporates a 110-foot buffer, that boundary would bisect three major building at Harbor Square including the Harbor Square Athletic Club. Creating that buffer/setback combination would require destruction of those buildings to create a natural buffer or they would remain non -conforming into the foreseeable future. That would not be the case with a 65-foot setback which would miss those buildings, allowing it to be implemented. Recognizing the Port is operating in the UMU IV zone as a contract rezone with a 25-foot setback/open space, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the 25-foot setback would remain for an undetermined period of time absent any redevelopment activity. Mr. Taraday said the City Council always has the right to rezone a contracted rezone area. Absent redevelopment, all of this is irrelevant; the buffers are only relevant in the context of redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel summarized as long as the contract rezone remains in effect, the setback will be 25-feet. A 125-foot setback is a strong disincentive for the Port to do anything other than maintaining the Harbor Square area as it currently exists. In that case, everyone loses, the City, the environment, and the marsh losses the opportunity to create a buffer that essential triples the existing buffer. He was hopeful the Council to work through this to reach something that creates a practical and real buffer increase for the benefit of the marsh and the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 536 8.3.d Councilmember Teitzel observed in Option B, the site -specific study shall use existing conditions as the baseline for assessing potential benefit of restoring the buffer including stormwater treatment. He asked if that would be existing conditions at the time the letter was written or existing conditions at the time a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Ecology would be involved in approving who was selected to perform the site -specific study to avoid conflicting studies. Mr. Burcar answered Ecology puts more emphasis on making sure the criteria is clear. Ecology would defer to staff and the City attorney with regard to the process of influencing who the consultant is. Most jurisdictions have a list of qualified consultants; the emphasis would be more on the work product. Councilmember Teitzel asked what Ecology expects of the Council by March 30, 2017. Clearly it is a dilemma; the City cannot present a site -specific study until a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered in a perfect world if the Council reached agreement on one of the options or a hybrid option, the City only needs to submit a response to Ecology. Ecology is not looking for the site -specific study but authorization for the sites -specific study to be included in the alterative for the 110-foot buffer plus 15- foot setback. Council President Mesaros commented there is a lot of wisdom in the two options, they get to the heart of the matter and he anticipated the Council could reach agreement. He did not agree with Councilmember Buckshnis about separating out the UMU IV zone and having an interim designation. He preferred to consider the options and provide Ecology a response by March 30 and approve the entire SMP. He initially liked Option B best because it limits the reduction to 50 feet plus the 15-foot setback. Option A would allow a determination that was smaller than 65 feet. He liked the flexibility the options provide especially around the Harbor Square area due to the existing building and it provides incentive to the Port for redevelopment. He emphasized without redevelopment, the 25-foot buffer remains and the marsh deserves more than a 25-foot buffer. Councilmember Tibbott said he was looking for the practicality of the options. He agreed with Council President Mesaros about Option B. Either option presents a lot of possibility for thought and if redevelopment were proposed, there would be a significant number of steps to determine what would be allowed. He asked whether Ecology had seen a 125-foot buffer/setback result in improvement of the environmental situation around a wetland like the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Burcar answered the concept incentivizes improvements that are driven by redevelopment. He has seen examples around Lake Washington where jurisdictions have included provisions to request bulkhead removal or vegetation enhancement on shorelines in exchange for flexibility on redevelopment. That has helped reestablish areas lost historically to development. It is a proven concept in many jurisdictions. Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, the City could establish a 125-foot buffer/setback but a development plan could show with development the environment could be improved with a 65-foot buffer/setback. Mr. Pater answered possibly. The scientific study will provide answers regarding what will work, how it will protect the marsh, how will it improve habitat. The Edmonds Marsh has a unique setup; the berm is not going away and development will need to work around the berm which is not natural. Any study will need to look at the long term impact on the buffer; the berm will invariably impact some buffer function. Councilmember Tibbott asked about incentives for redevelopment and asked whether these types of options were an incentive for development in a highly -developed area. Mr. Pater commented he and Mr. Burcar are planners. Councilmember Tibbott asked staff if they were aware of development that had occurred with this baseline guidance. Mr. Lien answered he was not aware of any specific proposals that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 537 8.3.d had been developed with a standard buffer that could be reduced with a site -specific study. Councilmember Tibbott said that was essential his concern. He appreciated the amount of study and collaboration that went into this proposal and he was inclined to support it and let the chips fall where they may. He was looking for what would be practical and usable and reduce the fog; this proposal does not reduce the fog but rather makes it foggier until a date in the future when it either goes to court or scientific research is done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented clearly Councilmember have separate opinions and there is still a majority and minority on the Council and she hated to put Ecology in the middle. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, splitting the UMU IV off and moving forward with the rest of the SMP. The UMU IV is a small issue within the SMP and the Council could move forward more quickly if that portion were split out. She asked if stormwater was the only water quality issue that would improve marsh. Mr. Pater answered his understanding from the studies that have been done is that untreated stormwater is a big problem. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if stormwater was the only problem. Mr. Pater answered probably not, there could be some habitat value from reestablishing the buffer and over time having mature trees on both sites. From what he's heard, stormwater is a big problem. Mr. Burcar said stormwater water quality and quantity are issues, regulating the flows would also be helpful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there were other things that could assist the marsh. Mr. Burcar agreed there likely are; deferring to the site -specific study, part of the scope would be to look for those opportunities, what functions could be improved. If the Council adopts a125 buffer/setback, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if anything stopped the Port from redeveloping their property. Mr. Burcar said that may be a better question for the Port. The issue laid out in Ecology's letter with the 125-foot buffer was it would require revegetation of the entire 110-foot buffer in response to any type of redevelopment which Ecology felt went the beyond compensatory mitigation obligation under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in terms of ensuring the impacts associated with redevelopment are adequately mitigated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Port currently has two large buildings with 30-40 year leases on the south end of their property. If the Council continued with the 125-foot buffer, nothing would prohibit the Council from developing the north portion of the property. Mr. Pater said the entire site in theory could be redeveloped. He has heard that the health club would possibly remain as a part of new development as an amenity to a mixed -use development. The buildings could continue as they exist but could not expand to encroach further into the marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the type of development may need to change. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the environment over the years has already lost to development. She remembered when the marsh extended to Dayton and has seen pictures of it all the way through the Safeway property. The marsh has shrunk over time due to development. She liked Option A but asked if it changed the legal opinion. Mr. Taraday answered no, he disagreed with some of Ecology's analysis. The missing piece is an assumption is being made by Ecology that new development could occur on the marsh that would not trigger the no net loss standard and that it could be done in a buffer of less than 110 feet, yet there is no science to prove that. The standard is no net loss; neither Option A or B rely on the no net loss standard. The question is to what extent can the property be redeveloped and not have a net loss. If scientists say it can be done with a 50-foot buffer, great, but that science does not currently exist. Mr. Taraday explained Ecology is proposing a default buffer of 110 feet; if Option A were converted to say if scientists can show there can be no net loss with less than a I I0-foot buffer, that would be more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 538 8.3.d consistent with the SMA than referencing the CAO that has nothing to do with the SMA. For example, a tennis court may have a very different impact on the marsh than a 3-story residential structure. While it is true the tennis court footprint already exists, that does not mean a 3-story building on that same footprint results in no net loss of habitat. He was disappointed in the analysis that has been done so far. Some flexibility could be built in so that when a development plan is proposed in the future, consideration is given to how close the development can get to the marsh and still have no net loss. There is no way to know that now which was why he was not sure an interim designation would help because that answer would not be provided until there was a development proposal. Mr. Burcar pointed out the footnote in Option B references no net loss. Mr. Taraday explained the standard he saw was the developer would have to demonstrate lift. Lift is the inverse of no net loss, putting the burden on the people interesting in preserving the marsh to demonstrate that it would improve. Mr. Burcar said these were suggestions for discussion. Mr. Pater reminded of the role of onsite mitigation when redevelopment is proposed. Depending on the proposal, the purpose of mitigation is to at a minimum bring it back to no net loss. For example, if there were a proposal to build a 10-story building on the wetland edge and keep the buffer, that would degrade the condition of the marsh. The site -specific study would determine how to mitigate impacts from development to achieve no net loss, depending on the study and the willingness of the property owner go beyond no net loss. He agreed it was foggy until development is proposed and a study is done. Mr. Taraday said it's possible a scientist could say a I I0-foot revegetated buffer is needed just to mitigate the impact of a new development. Mr. Pater agreed, pointing out it was also a possibility the scientist could say 50 feet was also adequate. That is the reason for the two options, one with reference to the CAO and the other referencing the conditional change. He summarized there are a lot of unknowns because the type of redevelopment that will occur is unknown. Councilmember Nelson commented the Council is hearing a lot of doom and gloom. As the author of the amendment to the CAO which is partially providing the option for a site -specific scientific study, the intent is for the science to speak for itself. Instead of one -size -fits -all generic buffers, the goal is to have a scientist determine what buffer makes the most sense. It is important to look to the science and where that science leads within these parameters whether it is up to 110 feet or as low as 50 feet. As far as this approach being common or not, having site -specific scientific studies has been included in other jurisdictions' SMPs. Mr. Burcar agreed it is very common. Mr. Pater said it is a more detailed approach to mitigation requirements in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is all just speculation. She relayed the citizens and the Bothell City Council spent $11 million for a golf course that Forterra bought and plan to turn it into a natural area and WRIA 8 provided some funding. The Port's Master Plan does not include moving the tennis courts or the hotel, only the building housing the breweries, Blue Collar and the accountant. She anticipated redevelopment would not happen for a while because the Port just made a lot of improvements to Harbor Square. She cited projects that WRIA 8 has funded including the removal of mobile home parks to allow free flowing water. Many cities have supported their environments using BAS to ensure its preservation for future generations. She recommended the Council only consider Option A. Council President Mesaros said Option A would allow for even a 10-foot buffer if the science supported it. Mr. Burcar agreed there is no required dimension. Council President Mesaros said Option B does not allow the buffer to be below 50 feet and would be more restrictive in protecting the marsh. Mr. Burcar said the intent with Option A was a lot of jurisdictions want consistent provisions in the CAO and the SMP because development often deals with both. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 539 8.3.d Council President Mesaros asked about the process for Council to provide a response to Ecology by March 30, 2017. Mr. Lien said he was looking for Council reaction. Staff could prepare a third alternative that combines Option A and B for consideration at the February 7 or 14 Council meeting. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the latest iteration of the agreement with Lynnwood that has been in place for a long time; Steve Fisher has been the City's Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator for the past 20 years. The proposed Interlocal Agreement extends that for the next biennium. The funding remains the same with grants that Edmonds and Lynnwood receive. The difference between the total cost and the grants is paid by the Water Utility as Mr. Fisher works on water conservation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled a few years ago the Council passed a motion to have all City - owned building participate in recycling. It was her understanding that was not happening in all City - owned buildings. Mr. Williams recalled the motion included the ability for facilities staff to use up materials. When the City contracts with building tenants, they are encouraged to use appropriate recyclable or made from recycled materials products. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Recycling Coordinator observe buildings, noting there is a major building owned by the City that does not recycle. Mr. Williams offered to meet with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Fisher and facilities staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested providing training and resources to tenants . Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled an effort to co -locate recycling containers downtown. Mr. Williams recalled the conversation but did not recall any action. Council President Mesaros said there are some recycling containers downtown. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said garbage cans should be co - located with recycling containers. Mr. Williams offered to research but did not recall any specific action or a funding source to provide publicly owned recycling containers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there was a big push since she has been on the Council to have recycling containers co -located with garbage containers. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS TO JOINTLY FUND THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION AND IMPLEMENT THEIR RESPECTIVE WASTE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS, STARTING IN 2017 AND CONTINUING THROUGH JUNE OF 2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE 2018 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained in November 2016 the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the 2018 and 2019 Waterline Replacement Projects. The City received responses from nine engineering firms and the selection committee selected Blueline based on their qualifications and experience. The proposed professional services agreement is for preliminary design and conceptual layout for 12 sites, approximately 11,000 lineal feet of pipeline replacement. From that, final design will be done on approximately 5,000 — 6,000 feet depending on the sites which is included in the scope of work. The scope of work includes related tasks such as geotechnical investigation, bid assistance and construction support. The total contract amount is $361,300 which includes a management reserve of $32,800 for unforeseen conditions and changes. The fee related to design services will be paid by the Water Utility Fund. Staff will return to Council next year to amend the contract to complete final design for the remaining sites. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 540 8.3.e pathogens as well as AED training. Staff is talking with Fire District 1 about servicing the AEDs and possibly getting more. Councilmember Nelson recognized there are some AEDs in the City but the problem is no one uses them. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mayor Earling advised Council President Mesaros and he agreed the presentation and discussion would be held to the scheduled 30 minutes as further discussion is scheduled on a future meeting agenda. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed: Ecology proposed options o Option A ■ Add a refence to the City's CAO 23.40.20C.4) ■ Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternative buffer to be established based on site specific conditions ■ Minimum buffer width undefined o Option B ■ Established criteria to allow for a site specific assessment to determine buffer widths' ■ Require demonstration of lift to eco-functions ■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than 50 ft. Staff -developed Option C o Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B o Keeps Council 125/110 buffer as default o Alternate buffer may be approved through a shoreline conditional use permit process ■ Alternative buffer cannot be less than 50 fee o Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis o Site specific analysis shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. Option C and No Net Loss Criteria o WAC 173-25-201(2)(e) ...does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions... o Site specific study may result in smaller buffer or lager buffer depending on the impact of a proposed development to achieve no net loss Next Steps o Scheduled on Council Extended Agenda on February 21 and March 7 o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2017 Council President Mesaros asked how Option C differed from Options A and B and whether the criteria for interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis was the key difference. Mr. Lien explained the interrupted buffer provision does not have a minimum buffer requirement. The criteria from the interrupted buffer is used but also establishes a minimum buffer, it cannot be less than 50 feet and that 50 feet would have a 15-foot building setback. Council President Mesaros said that is also in Option B. Mr. Lien agreed that was also in Option B; 50 feet is what Ecology included in their required change. Option B has a range of 125 to 65 or 110 to 50 feet. Council President Mesaros referred to public comments regarding the SMP; Ms. Petso stated the buffer cannot be reduced by State law; either she is correct or the City is correct, but the Council needs to determine who's correct and move forward with confidence. Mr. Shaw recommended having an unbiased study; Council President Mesaros hoped all the studies the City requires are unbiased and if there is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 541 8.3.e evidence that biased studies are being done, that should be stopped. The third comment was from Ms. Bloom regarding development and potential contradictions between the CAO and the SMP. With regard to Ms. Bloom's comments regarding liquefaction and allowed activities, Mr. Lien explained allowed activity in the CAO context basically means a critical areas report is not required, it is something that is allowed outright. hi the section Ms. Bloom referenced, 23.80.040 states the following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas and do not require submission of critical areas report; that is related to an allowed activity in the CAO. Exempting that section from the SMP means a study will automatically be required and the use is not allowed outright. With regard to independent studies, Mr. Lien explained typically the developer pays for the studies because they are proposing the development. The City can have those studies peer reviewed and has done that for some areas. The City can also do a third -party contract whereby the City selects the consultant and the developers pays for it. He assured the City was not doing biased studies. With regard to Dr. Senderoff's comment regarding adding language to the criteria related to light and noise, Mr. Lien said that is already captured in the existing and potential wildlife habitat and the pre and post development condition; light, noise, etc. are types of activities that impact habitat and species. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the CAO informs the SMP and to what extent do the regulations overlap in the shoreline. Mr. Lien responded that is a difficult question to answer. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP is from the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the two do not necessarily work together. The City's SMP adopted large sections of the critical areas regulation, those that apply in shoreline areas and excepted certain some things out such as allowed activities in geologically hazardous area. With regard to buffers and setbacks in the UMUIV environment, the buffers and setback that are being established by the Council now or via a future site specific study will rule in the UMUIV environment versus the wetland buffers established in the CAO. What is established here will rule in the UMUIV environment but for geologically hazardous areas, streams, etc. in shorelines, those regulations apply. If there are other wetlands along the shorelines, the critical area regulations apply. He summarized it was a complex relationship. Whatever the Council establishes for the buffers and setbacks will apply in the UMUIV environment. Councilmember Tibbott was glad to hear there were very specific guidelines for SMP areas. The City is on the verge of making a commitment to establish a 125-foot buffer around the marsh which in effect is a seizure of property from the property owners. Some of property owners do not care such as BNSF; other owners do care and they are significant stakeholder in how the marsh is managed. For that reason it was very important be clear when a site specific study is done in the future that it can be measured against something very specific. Because the City is asking property owners to surrender a portion of their property for an extended buffer, the City also needs to be clear about the activities they can use to recoup their costs as well as pay for vegetation of the property. In order to recoup the costs, there need to be opportunities such as more taxation or grants to fund revegetation or the possibility of commercial development. (Councilmember Johnson discontinued her participation by phone.) Councilmember Teitzel referred to the interrupted buffer in Option A and C, commenting since stormwater from Harbor Square runs off into the marsh today in at least two places, how can the buffer between the marsh and Harbor Square be considered interrupted. There seems to be a functional connection between the two by virtue of stormwater running directly from the parking lot into the marsh through the levy. Mr. Lien answered that may be the case. Whether there is an interrupted buffer would be determined by a qualified professional. There are some physical connections between the Harbor Square property and the marsh with stormwater pipes. Ecology was looking at the dike between the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 542 8.3.e Harbor Square property and the marsh and the sheet flow. Due to the stormwater pipes, it may not meet the interrupted buffer requirement but that would be determined by the study. Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the work done to develop Option C and felt it made sense; to consider the full range of options and have a site specific study done. He posed a hypothetical: a site specific study is done when redevelopment is proposed. Based on the conditions on the ground and BAS, the study determines the number should be 75 feet. He personally liked the concept of incentive based zoning where the developer is provided achievable goals such as rooftop raingarden in exchange for some reduction in the buffer. In his hypothetical example where the study determined the buffer should be 75 feet, he asked whether the City could require a buffer of 90 or 100 feet and provide reasonable achievable incentives for the developer to reduce the buffer to 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered the criteria to focus on is no net loss, what development is proposed and the type of mitigation required to achieve no net loss. In Option C, no net loss is the requirement that must be met, not incentives for development to reduce the buffer but the buffer for a specific type of development, given the criteria and what mitigation is required to achieve that no net loss requirement. Councilmember Teitzel suggested the site specific study using BAS and considering all the factors on the ground found 75 feet satisfied no net loss. He asked if there was anything that prevented the City from requiring 90 feet and to provide incentives to the developer to reduce it to 75 feet. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that is a complex question; it gets to the fundamental question of whether the City can only regulate to the extent of no net loss which is a point of contention between he and Ecology. A clear answer could not be provided to Councilmember Teitzel's question because there is a dispute regarding that question. Ms. Hope said the other challenge would be having the study done and then changing the rules which would be difficult from a regulatory point of view. Councilmember Nelson asked about the property owners, relaying to his knowledge there was Chevon, BNSF, WSDOT and the Port. Mr. Lien agreed although WSDOT is not yet a property owner. Councilmember Nelson relayed his understanding that typically the developer does the site specific study but they are sometimes peer reviewed and there can be a third party contract where the City selects the contractor. He asked who makes the selection. Mr. Lien answered in peer review, if there are questions with a study's findings, it can be send to another qualified professional for review. With a third party contract, the City selects the consultant and the developer pays for it. Sometimes the director is involved or the City already has professionals on the Small Work Roster. Councilmember Nelson asked about Ecology's role in the site specific process. Mr. Lien answered in all three options, an alternative buffer is allowed with a Shoreline CUP. In that process, the City's Hearing Examiner approves or denies the permit. For a shoreline CUP or variance permit, Ecology has the final say; the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to Ecology. Councilmember Teitzel observed a site specific study would be done at the time a redevelopment plan was proposed, not before. Mr. Lien said in order to assess no net loss, there needs to be a development proposal to analyze the post development conditions. Harbor Square and the Unocal property are both master planned development sites; a master plan could be done through the master planning process or via a planned action SEPA. A site specific study could be done at the planning process stage, not a specific development proposal, because the zoning would need to be changed, the master plan prepared but the shoreline CUP and the site specific study would be done on the proposed development or the planned action SEPA. As long as the proposal meets what is described in the planned action, it could proceed. Ms. Hope said conceptually at that stage the design and general configuration and uses are known but not the design detail. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 543 8.3.e Councilmember Teitzel recalled hearing during public comment a suggestion to do studies to determine habitat and declining bird species in the marsh. He asked what a study done now would look like, who would pay for it and whether it should be done now in the context of the SMP. Ms. Hope answered any study that would be done now would be paid for by the City as there is no nexus to make someone else pay for a study not associated with a proposed development. A study done now would also not be able to assess the impacts and mitigation options absent a development proposal. Councilmember Teitzel observed if a study was done now and a development proposal was made in three years, there would be a large gap in time. He asked how that would consider pre and post development conditions. Ms. Hope agreed that would be problematic. Council President Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday to comment on Ms. Petso's statement that the Council cannot legally reduce the size of the buffer. Mr. Taraday answered he would rather not comment on it publicly. He suspected this matter will end up in litigation regardless of what happens so it was more appropriate to discuss risks of possible actions in executive session as matter of potential litigation. If a study was done before a development plan, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would be in the Port's best interest not to do any improvements such as let non-native vegetation take over and leave the property the way it is until a pre -study is needed. He envisioned any improvement done on that side of the marsh would ultimately count against the Port at the time of development. Ms. Hope said there were probably pros and cons. While one could say over the last many years things have deteriorated in certain areas near the marsh, the information needed is the measure relate to no net loss and what does the scientific information reveals. The area is maintained reasonably well; stormwater is a continuing issue. Meanwhile there are other improvements planned for the marsh that will help improve the quality regardless. Even though there may be some good points about having a study done now, there are also disincentives for doing it now without knowing the potential project. Councilmember Tibbott commented deferring improvements would be advantageous for future developers. Ms. Hope answered maybe, maybe not. Maybe not because what else might occur there to improve condition from the existing conditions is unknown. Councilmember Tibbott envisioned it would be a disincentive to improve the area around the marsh in light of a future site specific study. Ms. Hope answered it could be but it was not guaranteed to be an incentive or disincentive. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 3. CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT AND POTENTIAL COMMITTEE STRUCTURE (Councilmember Johnson resumed her participation by phone.) Council President Mesaros explained this is a follow-up to discussion at the retreat where the Council considered reinstating Council committees. He referred to information in the Council packet, advising Legislative/Council Assistant Andrew Pierce, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Clerk Scott Passey and he met to discuss the format. The first issue is reaffirming the committees; three are proposed, 1) Finance, 2) Parks, Planning & Public Works, and 3) Public Safety & Personnel. He referred to a draft description of each committee in the Council packet and suggested if the Council agreed with those three committees, each committee could review the draft description and bring it back to Council for final review and approval. Another options would be for the Council to approve the description and the committees could suggest amendments if necessary. Council President Mesaros explained the second issue is how often the committees will meet and the format. He referred to an email from staff with suggestions/ideas, explaining originally, committees met on the second Tuesday of the month. The downside of that option is meeting once a month can cause delays for staff. An option to address that includes not having committees review items if time does not Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 544