The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-07-26 City Council - Full Agenda-17271. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7. u� Of EYMo�o Agenda Edmonds City Council n Hy° COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 26, 2016, 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 July 19, 2016 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. 4. Lease Agreement for Envelope Stuffing Machine 5. Authorization to release the salvage of unit 126-PRK to Evergreen Adjustment Service PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Snohomish Health District's Proposed Per Capita Investment (15 min.) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing on a Concession Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog (10 min.) 8. ACTION ITEM 1. Closed record review and action on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve a consolidated application for a conditional use permit and variance for the Downtown Public Restroom project (File Nos. PLN20160030 & PLN20160031) (20 min.) 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. Refunding 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (15 min.) 2. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2016-2017 (5 min.) 3. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Police Coverage at Athletic Events (5 min.) 4. Ordinance Adding Public Indecency Sections to ECC 5.38 (Offenses Against Public Morals) (10 min.) 5. Discussion and Potential Action on Ordinance Amending the Sign Code (30 min.) 6. Resolution of Intent to Designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Zone for Implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program and to Schedule Public Hearing (20 min.) Edmonds City Council Agenda July 26, 2016 Page 1 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda July 26, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016 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: 07-19-2016 Draft Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES July 19, 2016 The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. Elected Officials Present Others Present Kristiana Johnson, Council President None Mike Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Dave Earling, Mayor Elected Officials Absent Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room and interviewed two candidates for appointment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) Board: Mr. Patrick Mulva and Mr. Kevin McKay. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016 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: 07-19-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 19, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT M. Bower, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner 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 5t" 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 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2016 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS 3. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 4. WILHOIT PROPERTY DONATION 5. AMENDMENT #3 ILA WDFW FISHING PIER Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BERGERABAM FOR THE FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT 7. PRESENTATION OF GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT FOR SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF STONE CLADDING, PAVING AND SITE FURNISHINGS FOR THE VETERAN'S PLAZA FROM COLDSPRING 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEOPOST FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT 9. CITIZEN BOARD CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS - EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CANDIDATE APPOINTMENTS 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed concern with reducing the buffer on the Edmonds Marsh and recommended retaining at least a 100-foot buffer all the way around. He pointed out there was little information in the State and Council's materials regarding wildlife and species in the marsh. He and the Pilchuck Audubon have put out a call for data regarding species that live in the marsh; there are 177 species that they know of based on 1,200 checklists by volunteers. He provided a handout from a birder, Bill Anderson, whose data is divided into habitats within the marsh including the buffer zones, the marsh wetland, the hatchery, etc. includes approximately 95 species. He looked forward to receiving more information to assist with understanding the utilization of the different areas of the marsh by birds and wildlife. He also provided a bar graph of the number of species that Mr. Anderson has recorded over the past three years. Mr. Anderson has also photographed many of the birds and wildlife in the marsh. Mr. Mearns referred to a photograph he provided the Council of a Sora, a rare, distinct marsh bird that lives in the cattails around the periphery of the marsh. Most of the birds are on the migratory bird list and are protected, 93 of the 95 on Mr. Anderson's list are protected species. Gene Wisemiller, Edmonds, spoke regarding the downgrading of the category of the Edmonds Marsh. In his research he found a 1910 map of Edmonds and was amazed to see the City had already divided and subdivided into lots except for a large area that would eventually be called the Edmonds Marsh. All the lots were eventually built out but due to its nature, the marsh area was not developed as quickly and eventually the ownership passed to the City. As the City grew, even this undesirable land became more attractive, first a highway was built across it, then a commercial development built on one side and a seawall that cut off the tidal exchange; activities that began to degrade the pristine estuary and it eventually no longer deserved to be classified as Category I and pressure mounted to downgrade it to Category 11. His research indicated Category II status would result in relaxed buffer widths needed to protect the wetland from adjacent development as well as reduce the amount of mitigation required for impacts to the wetland which will compromise the permitted uses. The Washington State Wetland Rating System states a Category I wetland represents a unique and rare wetland. He argued the Edmonds Marsh is a unique and therefore the current Category I status should be retained. The alternative is a continued degradation of this unique resource and risk people saying in 100 years that there used to be a marsh there. David Richman, Edmonds, a former faculty member at New Mexico State University, said people in New Mexico highly value their water; the Rio Grande River is often completely dry. New Mexico has freshwater and saline marshes. During visits to the Edmonds Marsh he has seen Great Blue Herons and was certain there were Soras due to the habitat. He recently encountered a person photographing Belted Kingfishers. Based on his experience as a biologist, he cautioned the Council to deal with wetlands very carefully. Wetlands are important, it is too easy to degrade them and unless they have the proper buffer, they will certain degrade. In the desert despite laws against taking cacti, a developer will level a cactus Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 4.2.a forest. The Edmonds Marsh is a wonderful resource; it should be improved and nothing done to degrade it. April Richardson, Edmonds, displayed a pencil sketch she did in the Edmonds Marsh; the marsh is a beautiful place to see animal life. While she was visiting the marsh, she was asked if she had seen the resident coyote. She also heard someone remarking they had seen a herd of five deer which she found amazing right on edge of the town. She summarized the Edmonds Marsh is a spectacular, wonderful place. Marty Jones, Edmonds, referred to the Great Washington State Birding Trail, a map of premier and unique birding locations throughout the State, prepared in collaboration with Audubon of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Transportation and the Washington State Community Trade and Economic Development Department. The first stop on the Cascade Loop of the birding trail is the Edmonds Marsh and waterfront and lists several interesting birds that are not seen many other places. She has been a docent at the marsh during the Puget Sound Birdfest and was amazed how many people visit the Edmonds Marsh from out of state. Birding is a huge industry; people travel to see birds and spend money. The Edmonds Marsh is a unique situation, a saltwater marsh where people can walk on the boardwalks and see birds and wildlife and then walk a block downtown to fine dining and shopping. She urged the Council to do everything possible to protect this treasure to ensure it exists for future generations. The best thing for the wildlife, city and state is to protect the marsh as much as possible. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, commented on the future daylighting of Willow Creek. She urged the Council not to reduce the Edmonds Marsh buffer for the reasons previously stated. Her interest is in the science; the ratings for the buffer were done in 2004 and when it was updated in 2014 it was her understanding there was no mention of changing the ratings. Since 2004, more is known about global warming/climate change and it is accepted by more people as well as more is known about projected sea level rise, all of which tie into streams and fish which need to be protected. In preparing a paper she did about the Edmonds Marsh for the program she is in, she learned from Keely O'Connell, Valerie Stewart and others that blue carbon is one of the best ways to store carbon and marsh grasses store 4-6 times more carbon than forests. She cited the importance of grassy marshes; Puget Sound is in grave danger from pollution, PCPs, runoff, etc. and needs to be protected. Edmonds Marsh is a rare wetland and marsh in Puget Sound. In October 2015 President Obama issued an order to all agencies stating any new project must include ecosystem science values. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, submitted written materials regarding the demo garden, noting Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson have visited the demo garden. She invited Councilmembers to visit the demo garden, advising a work party is scheduled on August 6. She has learned a lot from the demo garden including cooperation with groups in the city and that people will do things when you ask them. They built the garden for almost nothing and have even gotten money from Chevron to buy plants. She has been watching the marsh for years; she moved to Edmonds in 1980 and saw the buildings and tennis courts constructed in the marsh and the pervious paths replaced with cement paths. After watching the marsh be beleaguered for years, she urged that to stop and for the City to take care of this valuable resource. Lynette Petrie, Edmonds, said her interest is in natural places. Edmonds is so fortunate to have this marsh; it is a resource beyond compare and needs to be valued. As Ms. Jones stated, the marsh attracts visitors, it is an economic as well as a natural resource and it can help educate children. She pleaded for the Council to value this resource and build the value of it into the City's plans. Bea Wilson, Edmonds, cited her volunteer efforts that include the planning committee for Edmonds Birdfest, a WSU beach watcher and beach naturalist, SnoKing Watershed Council, steward with Global Water Watch, removing invasives and planting natives in backyard wildlife habitats and in watersheds, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a and coordinating beach cleanups. People enjoy the serenity and peace of nature which is essential for spiritual wellbeing of all humans. She agreed with Ms. Schaefer that people will help when asked. She testified to the natural wonder of youth and families who visit the beach on a low tide. The Edmonds Marsh is valuable and unique. She has participated in cleanups at Kayak Point and seen how the community is working to preserve their marsh. She referred to Snohomish County's purchase of Hooven Bog, noting Edmonds already owns Edmonds Marsh, it only needs to be maintained. People from throughout the world visit the marsh during the Edmonds Birdfest. She thanked the City for what they have done and said more could be done such as the Category I designation. Carlo Voli, Edmonds, said 30 years from now he wants to be able to tell his grandchildren that thanks to an enlighten Mayor and City Council in July 2016 who decided to protect the unique marsh and retain the Category I with a 100-foot buffer, wildlife flourishes in this unique salt marsh. He has volunteered at the marsh and the demo garden and finds it a very special area. He implored the Council to protect the marsh and retain the Category I and let the passionate community help to restore it and bring it back to its glory. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Planning Manager Rob Chave explained these are focused amendments; there will be future amendments related to Supreme Court decision regarding content neutrality. The City Council asked the Planning Board to specifically look at temporary signs, especially A -frame signs. He displayed photographs and described sign types: • Pedestrian signs (new term) o A -frame, easel, stanchion and similar signs • Projecting / blade signs o Usually found under awnings but may project off a wall or hanger o Encouraged by City o Does not count against overall sign area o Helps identify and promote businesses in an unobtrusive, attractive way • Monument signs o Free standing Mr. Chave reviewed Planning Board public hearing options related to pedestrian signs: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: No Portables (A- Pedestrian Signs as Pedestrian Signs as frames) Temporary Signs Permanent Signs with (Existing Code) restrictions Pedestrian Sign No Yes Yes Permitted? Size Allowed No 6 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. Location Allowed No w/in 2 ft. of building or w/in 2 ft. of building or street edge; 4 ft. clear street edge; 4 ft. clear zone zone How Many No 1 per business 1 per storefront Duration No 60 days per year When business is open Benefits of approach? ? ? ? He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation: • Option 3 for pedestrian signs: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a o A form of permanent signage with restrictions, and counts against overall sign area (no longer classified as "temporary") o Only one per ground floor entrance o Only allowed while business is open o Businesses may rotate their signs o Locate within 10 feet of entry o Minimum 5 feet of pedestrian clearance; prefer within 2 feet of building or curb o Maximum 6 sq. ft. in size Mr. Chave reviewed other proposed code modifications: • "Directional Symbols" allowed for directions • Symbols can be illuminated (not just letters) • Halo signs specifically allowed • Sign height tied to actual finished grade • Monument signs better defined, minimum setback • 1-story buildings with mansard recognized • Sign area practice codified (calculate outlines) • ADB can grant modifications due to unique architectural elements of a building Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, emphasized a pedestrian sign is a temporary sign. The Council has been told the focus of the sign code update has been on temporary, portable signs which have proliferated in the Bowl. Temporary signs are the least desirable, creating obstacles and social blight on City streets which is why many municipalities limit them, hence the term "temporary" because no one wants them permanently as proposed in Option 3. The current Edmonds Code contains a list of temporary signs, Option 3 changes 4 of the temporary signs to permanent. She referred to the list of additional recommendations that accompany Option 3: limit the number, location/placement, square footage, and height and require a permit, suggesting these tight regulations indicate what a nuisance temporary signs can become. She referred to the statement that none of the recommended changes would substantially change the number of signs currently allowed by the sign code, pointing out the current Edmonds sign code has an important restriction on temporary signs, limiting the frequency of display to 60 days per calendar year. The proposal has no limit on display time which will allow temporary signs to be displayed on downtown streets 365 days/year. Option 3 is a giveaway of municipal streets to promote cheap advertising, streets that have taken many years and thousands of dollars to make attractive. She questioned how such a major change could be made without a valid reason, going from 60 days for a temporary sign to 365 days, and what warranted such a major change. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares, and President of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, was pleased with the work done by staff and the Planning Board to develop Option 3 and he encouraged the Council to implement Option 3 as recommended. He noted temporary signs are a valuable form of advertising for a lot of small businesses. Temporary signs catch pedestrians while they walk by a storefront in the split second where the decision is made to go in or walk by. The proposed changes to the sign code are very favorable. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, owner of Rogue and representing the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, said it is important for businesses to thrive and contribute to downtown and pedestrian signs are an important part. She reported pedestrian signs can represent up to 30% of business for a small business. She urged the Council to consider Option 3 as recommended by the Planning Board. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 4.2.a Councilmember Teitzel referred to language in the proposed sign code (page 299 of the packet), "The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles." Although not a particular fan of A -frame signs and believes they contribute to blight downtown, he recognized businesses rely on them to generate business so there is a reason to keep them for the time being. However, he did not want some signs next to the building and others out by the street as it created a zigzag appearance that looked messy and cluttered. He preferred to strike "within two feet of the curb." For a business that had a valid need for a sign by the curb, he asked whether a variance process could be provided. Mr. Chave did not recommend a variance. One of the things staff will consider when issuing a permit for a pedestrian sign is the location. Although he understood the desire for uniformity, the difficulty with limiting the location to within two feet of the building is there may already be things at the street such as trees, street furniture, etc. and it may make sense to have sign at the curb and keep the area in front of the building clear. He noted every situation is unique; if it was the Council consensus, staff could work with the City Attorney to strengthen the preference for locating signs within two feet of the building but have an exception process for a staff decision. Councilmember Buckshnis said she does not rely on signs, she looks at the interior and goes in every store. She believed businesses place excess reliance on A -board signs and would have liked a 60-day period without A -board signs. She referred to Ms. Shippen's comment about signs no longer having a 60- day limit and now being permanent signs. Mr. Chave anticipated there ultimately will be fewer signs due to the limitation of one per entrance and the permit will make enforcement easier. One of the Planning Board's recommendations which the BID supports is exploring other ways of advertising businesses. Councilmember Teitzel recalled a comment from Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, whose business is difficult to see from 5th Avenue, that it was valuable to have sign on 5th Avenue to direct customers to her store, especially when her business first opened. He suggested allowing new businesses located off a main street to have an off -premises sign for 60-day period and after the 60-day period, comply with the terms of sign code. Mr. Chave responded that could be difficult to write in a content -neutral manner. The argument would be it's specific to particular business and the only way to determine whether it was allowed would be to read the sign. That may be possible but would require further research. He was hopeful there were other ways to accomplish that such as mobile apps. He was concerned with off -site signage, even temporarily, because once it is allowed, it can go in a direction the Council may not like. Councilmember Teitzel saw a purpose for an A -frame sign for a new business which benefits downtown vibrancy. He asked staff to consider his suggestion. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Teitzel's remarks about requiring the sign within two feet of building, pointing out every business and property is unique and applying one rule throughout the downtown area may not be appropriate. He encouraged flexibility when the permit is submitted with regard to the best location on the property and as it relates to other permitted signs on the block to avoid a zigzag appearance. Councilmember Nelson thanked the Planning Board for their work and for gathering input from businesses and citizens. The proposed sign code is a good compromise, a first step at regulate signs that have not been regulated before. If necessary, the sign code can be tweaked in six months. He referred to the proposed sign code (page 299) "The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access." and asked if that meant the sign could be beyond 10 feet if it improved pedestrian or vehicular access. Mr. Chave said that would be considered in the permitting process. The preference is within 10 feet but there needs to be flexibility due to existing trees, bistro dining, etc. Councilmember Tibbott spoke in favor of the Planning Board's recommendation with regard to limiting the number of pedestrian signs. The proposal will allow businesses to be creative regarding signs in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 4.2.a window, blade signs, etc. He pointed out an A -frame signs that is 6 square feet on one side also has 6 square feet on the other side for a total of 12 square feet. He suggested that could make an A -frame sign advantageous to a business compared to other signage. Mr. Chave said the reason both sides of the sign are not counted is only one side of the sign is visible at a time. That is the general rule for all signs types except wall signs. He was hesitant to single out A -frame signs and double the sign area and suggested if the Council wanted to limit signs to 3 feet, the code should state 3 feet. Councilmember Tibbott reiterated it provides some advantage to a business using an A -frame versus another sign type. He concurred with Councilmember Teitzel's suggestion to give preference to new businesses, allowing them to display a temporary banner, a pedestrian sign, etc. for the first 60 days, allowing them to advertise in a unique and special way. Mr. Chave said staff will consider that; the only concern is allowing them off site. Mr. Chave said this is topic scheduled for a follow-up meeting. The original intent was an ordinance; staff could return with the requested research along with a draft ordinance and specific amendments. Mayor Earling suggested a draft ordinance with amendments based on comments made tonight. The Council could then vote on the amendments and ordinance. Council President Johnson suggested having all three options on the agenda for consideration as the Council has not decided which option to pursue. Mr. Chave suggested Council provide direction on the option. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON TO USE OPTION 3 AS A BASIS FOR THE ORDINANCE. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council has never voted immediately following a public hearing. Some Councilmembers may need more time to consider audience comments, etc. Councilmember Teitzel supported proceeding with Option 3 and directing staff to prepare the ordinance as the basis with amendments for Council consideration. He was comfortable Option 3 was the most reasonable approach. Council President Johnson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' comment, explaining it has long been the Council's tradition not to take a vote directly after a public hearing to allow Councilmembers to consider the information provided at the public hearing. She was convinced the reason these options were being considered was due to Ms. Shippen's work and her concerns about visual clutter. As stated by Ms. Shippen, Option 3 makes 60-day temporary signs permanent for 365 days and she wanted an opportunity to consider that further. The business community believes pedestrian signs are very valuable to their businesses, a 30% increase in advertising, but others are not as interested in A -board signs. The Council has only heard from a few people at the public hearing and she preferred to hear more from the community before making a decision. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the concern with the Council taking a vote after a public hearing, explaining the Council was not voting on the ordinance; Council was giving staff direction regarding the ordinance to prepare. Although this vote follows a public hearing, it is not a final vote. For example, if a majority of the Council wanted to pursue Option 1 or 2, that could be done at the next Council meeting. He supported the motion to give staff direction regarding preparation of an ordinance. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER AND BEACH REHAB SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 4.2.a Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite Council recalled the Council approved a lease agreement with the Senior Center that allowed the Center to proceed with a capital campaign and develop a proposal to rebuild the Center on the waterfront site. The Council was provided a very thorough presentation last week and forwarded the matter to this week's Council meeting for action. She requested the Council authorize the Mayor to sign The letter in the packet approving the schematic design of the new Waterfront Center. The Senior Center is also required to come to the Council for approval of design development and the construction phase. Senior Center Executive Director Farrell Fleming was present to answer questions. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF THE NEW WATERFRONT CENTER. Council President Johnson said she visited the Senior Center this weekend and saw many people on the waterfront playing Pok6mon Go. She suggested there be a way for people on the beach to access the coffee shop from outside. Ms. Hite advised the design has a window that opens onto the park. Under the proposed sign code, they could put an A -board sign directing people to it. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Fleming, Mr. Johnson and she went to the Woodway Town Council meeting last night and it was very well received. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ON SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP Planning Manager Rob Chave said this is a follow up to discussions the Council had in April when a resolution was passed authorizing staff to apply for the program. The City was accepted into program; the packet contains a proposed Interlocal Agreement and an impressive list of projects that will benefit the City. Staff is eager and supportive of moving forward. Councilmember Buckshnis was impressed with the list of projects and the dollar amount for each. She relayed the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and the Tree Board have offered their resources to assist the students. Mr. Chave said one of reasons the list looks like this is staff looked to the Strategic Action Plan and other programs such as Zero Waste. Councilmember Nelson was particularly interested in exploring zero waste and food waste, sea level rise, and green business. He noted the large cost of the wastewater treatment plant project was due to hiring an intern. He commended staff on a job well done. Councilmember Tibbott was impressed with the list of 10 projects, commenting the list was far more impressive than he originally envisioned. He echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' suggestion to utilize the strength of City commissions; many citizens would be happy to share their extensive experience base with the students. For example, the Economic Development Commission would be interested in assisting with the Tourism Mobile App. Mr. Chave said the BID has also expressed a strong interest in that project. Council President Johnson recalled the wastewater treatment plant was originally a video as well as a brochure; she asked what happened to the video. Mr. Chave answered it was determined developing signs and content for WWTP tours would be a better use of students' time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FINALIZING EDMONDS' PARTICIPATION IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP FOR 2016-2017. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 4.2.a Mayor Earling thanked staff for their great work on this. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF ITEMS 8.1 AND 8.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the initial response to Ecology: • Draft letter in Exhibit 10 o Agree with critical area regulations integration o Need more time for UMU IV evaluation and response o Anticipate 30 — 60 days for a more detailed response o Revisions recommended by Council President Council President Johnson ■ Reword paragraph regarding the need for additional time to evaluate the proposed changes ■ Reword request regarding how much additional time is acceptable for fuller response COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE INITIAL RESPONSE TO ECOLOGY WITH THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the sentence, "Please advise the City how much additional time is acceptable for a fuller response," commenting some Councilmembers are interested in having a special study conducted which may take longer than 60-90 days. He asked what would happen if Ecology agreed to 90 days and it took much longer to assess the issue. David Pater, Regional Shoreline Planner, Washington State Department of Ecology, said the City could send another letter requesting more time and explaining why more time was needed. Ecology is interested in keeping the momentum going. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien reviewed Ecology required changes: • Five critical area integration changes • Three UMU IV Required Change o Setback/buffer o Interim Designation o When buffer establishment triggered Recommended change to consider residential in UMU IV Mr. Lien reviewed policy considerations: • Marsh setback/buffer o What is the goal for the Edmonds Marsh? o What is goal for the UMU IV shoreline environment? o How can the SMP setback/buffer for the marsh help achieve these goals within the legal framework of the SMA? • Interim Designation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 o Establishing the Urban Mixed -Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested agencies/organizations, and members of the public to carefully review effects of establishing a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and planned development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds. (SMP pg. 31) o Ecology notes no longer necessary o Consider the purpose of interim designation and whether maintaining interim designation provides any benefits Other o Whether the SMP needs to prohibit residential in the UMU IV shoreline designation ■ Ecology's recommendation is to streamline future consideration. If Harbor Square were rezoned to allow residential development, that would also require a change to the SMP and the Ecology process. Mr. Lien reviewed process options: • Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(2)(e), the City of Edmonds has two options for responding to Ecology's conditional approval: 1. Agree to the proposed changes, or 2. Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology with the Shoreline Management Act. • Commission independent wetland determination o An independent wetland report has found the marsh to be a Category II wetland applying Ecology's standards o Estimated cost: ■ Categorization: $3,000 ■ Categorization and delineation: $8,000 ■ Categorization, delineation and delineation of salt tolerant vegetation: $13,000 Mr. Lien commented there is some confusion with regard to the tide gate, salt tolerant vegetation and the marsh categorization. He displayed an aerial of map of the Edmonds Marsh that illustrates how it was identified as a shoreline of the state and required the new shoreline designation. He identified the boundaries of the marsh at different points in time, 1878 when the marsh extended to Main Street, 1944, 1964, 2002 and 2006, noting the salt portion of the marsh has shrunk over the years. During the SMP update, Ecology determined the marsh to be a shoreline of the state rather than an associated wetland which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends beyond the marsh. That is verified by, 1) determining whether the marsh is tidally influenced; the December 2010 study found there is tidal influence even with gate closed, and 2) establishing where the salt tolerant vegetation is located. He referred to the aerial photos which illustrates where the vegetation changes; the western portion has one plant community and the eastern portion where the cattails begin has another plant community that is not salt tolerant. Mr. Lien displayed another aerial view from a survey done by WSDOT as part of the Edmonds Crossing project and identified the salt marsh. boundary. To the question of how the marsh would change if Willow Creek is daylighted, he said the overall boundaries of the marsh would not change due to the dike and development but the plant community would change. He identified the 10-foot elevation mark which is approximately the mean high or high tide of Puget Sound. If Willow Creek is daylighted and tidal influence is allowed to flow freely, the blue hatched area on the map would convert to salt marsh. He clarified the tidal gate and the salt tolerant plant community are used to determine whether this is an estuarine marsh and shoreline of the state. It has been determined the marsh is an estuarine wetland and a shoreline of state. The agreed upon boundary of the shoreline jurisdiction is the 2006 line. He emphasized Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a this is a planning level document; when a project is proposed, the exact boundary of the marsh and the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be determined by a qualified professional. Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, referred to Table 4.1 Wetlands code comparison in the City's CAO. Last week he was uncertain of the initial basis for classifying the Edmonds Marsh as a Category I wetland. A document was provided to Development Services Director Shane Hope by Ken Reidy, 2004 BAS Review by EDAW, Inc., prepared for the Council during the review of the CAO update in 2004. Table 4.1 in that document summarized the current classification system the City was using. Ecology's update to the 1993 rating system came out in spring 2004. In 2004 prior to the update, the City was using a three-tier classification system for wetlands, Class 1, 2 and 3. Ecology has been accused of downgrading the wetland but that is not the case; going from a three-tier to a four -tier system allows for a more refined classification. EDAW's BAS document addresses better protection of this Class 1 wetland, referencing the classification system in place at that time. Mr. Anderson explained when the City adopted Ordinance 3527 in November 2004, it adopted the 2004 Wetland Rating System as well as the 1993 Washington State Wetland Rating System, both of which were 4-tiered systems. The criteria carried forward into the 2004 Rating System was from the 1993 State Rating System and have been carried forward into the 2014. Criteria include: • SC 1.2 Wetland unit >1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I; NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed — 100 ft buffer on at least 3/4 of the landward edge — > 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Hruby, T. (2004). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2004 Revised. (Publication #04-06-025). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology Mr. Anderson explained in its current condition, Edmonds Marsh only meets the last provision; it does have tidal channels, depressions with open water and it is contiguous with a freshwater wetland but it does not have an intact 100-foot buffer on 3/4 of the perimeter and it is disturbed (filled, ditched, piped and there is not free tidal exchange). That is why Ecology determined it to be a Category II wetland. Category II wetlands are still high quality wetlands, they still require a relatively wide buffer (150 feet) and Ecology is not saying only a 50-foot buffer on the entire wetland, it would be whatever the buffer is in the CAO. Where there is intact buffer in the southeast corner, all the existing buffer on the wetland needs to be protected. A 50-foot buffer would be where there will be redevelopment and that area would be restored to buffer. He assured it was not that Ecology does not favor restoration; Edmonds Marsh is a great asset to the City but Ecology is cautious due to legal mechanisms regarding how Ecology and City get there via the SMP. He displayed oblique aerial photographs of estuarine wetlands: • North Fork Skagit River Delta o Intact tidal channels, free tidal exchange o No development around it o Contiguous on the backside with freshwater wetlands o Category I • Elger Bay, Camano Island o Free tidal exchange, no pipes or dikes o Wood occurs naturally and not considered a disturbance o May not have 100-foot buffer on at least 3/4 of perimeter (only need to meet 2 of 3 criteria) o Category I • Swan Lake, Island County Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 4.2.a o Some adjacent development o Inlet and outlet piped and diked o Agricultural on back side o May be Category II Edmonds Marsh o Fully developed around wetland o Does not have free tidal exchange, piped o Does not have intact buffer o Category II Mr. Lien displayed aerial photographs and described the differences: • Council Approved 0 50-foot vegetation buffer 0 100-foot setback from the edge of marsh 0 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction o Edmonds Marsh Ecology Required 0 50-foot vegetation buffer (with redevelopment of 50% of the shoreline area) 0 65-foot setback from the edge of the marsh 0 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction o Edmonds Marsh Councilmember Tibbott referred to the definition of restoration (page 779 of the packet), for example, ecological restoration means the establishment or reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline and describes an elaborate process. However, in conclusion it states, "In this SMP, restoration is used broadly to used broadly to include conservation and enhancement actions. Conservation is different from restoration as described above in that it protects areas relatively free of degradation." Councilmember Tibbott said he was trying to understand what level of restoration is expected in the SMP and, from Ecology's point of view, what does it take to improve a buffer. Mr. Pater reiterated the State cannot require restoration, it is a voluntary element of the SMP. If the buffer is restored, whether as part of redevelopment of Harbor Square, the Unocal site or the Port, it will improve the marsh. Under the changes where the marsh enhancement is triggered by 50% redevelopment, that is mitigation because redevelopment will likely intensify the land use along the shoreline, possibly building heights, residential or mixed use, etc. Therefore, enhancement is necessary to maintain the overall no net loss of ecological function of the marsh. He summarized there is a difference between restoration and mitigation. Councilmember Tibbott asked how enhancements could be done on a dike. Mr. Anderson answered his understanding was the dike would not be touched; planting would occur landward of the dike. If that occurred in the 50-foot zone, the pavement would be removed and trees and shrubs planted but the dike would remain in its current state. He said trees and dikes generally do not get along, eventually trees fall over which threaten the integrity of the dike. He has not seen any specific proposals but discussion has been that the dike will remain in its current configuration. Councilmember Mesaros referred to public comments about preserving the marsh as well as improving it. He recalled hearing last week that the real threat to the marsh is runoff, not whether the buffer is 65 or 100 feet. Even with a100-foot buffer, there is too much runoff into the marsh. He expressed interested in establishing a buffer that encouraged the property owners surrounding the marsh to do restoration that keeps runoff out of marsh. For example, the Council may approve a 100-foot setback with a 50-foot buffer but that won't improve the marsh. Unless something is done to stop runoff, the marsh will go away in 60-70 years due to runoff. Mr. Anderson agreed the greatest benefit to the marsh would be improving stormwater treatment. It was his understanding that should Harbor Square be redeveloped, that would be part of the proposal and they would be required to meet the City's current stormwater manual guidelines Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a and standards. Improving water quality is one of the greatest benefits to the marsh, fish and salmon within a sort range of the discharge of Willow Creek. Councilmember Mesaros said his goal is to improve the marsh in 10-20 years and taking steps to accomplish that by setting a policy and approving an SMP that encourages adjoining property owners to make those improvements. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Ecology Required photograph, explaining he looked at the survey work being done by the Port and it is not clear that the OHWM butts up against the levy; in some areas it appears it is a fair distance out. He asked what the white line on the Ecology Required photograph represented. Mr. Lien answered that is an estimate of the edge of marsh for planning purposes, it is not a delineation. The survey the Port had done surveyed their property line, not the edge of the marsh. With any development, a wetland report would be required that delineated the edge of the marsh, OHWM, location of setbacks and buffers, etc. Council President Johnson referred to "Urban Mixed Use IV Required and Recommended Changes" (page 500 of packet), which states, "The City Council adopted the UMU IV environment as an interim designation (to be reviewed and finalized within two years after the SMP becomes effective)..." The City received a letter from Ecology dated June 27, 2016; which she assumed gave the City two years from that date to resolve that issue. She questioned why Ecology wanted the City to remove the UMU IV interim designation. Mr. Pater answered the interim designation was based on complete approval of the SMP by the State; the two years would begin on the date the SMP was effective, two weeks after final action by the State which has not happened yet. One of the reasons for the interim designation was to let the grant process play out for restoration and Ecology's research found 100 feet was not needed to qualify for grants, only a minimum of 35 feet was needed to qualify for a grant (a grant standard not an ecological standard). Second, it was to allow time to get the parties together to work this out and consider how to improve the marsh in the long term, a process that has been going on for a while. Given the level of information and the local record of the SMP, and the 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback from the CAO for that classification of wetland, Ecology does not feel the interim designation is needed anymore. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who emailed and called her, she received 148 comments this week, and urged citizen to continue contacting her. She inquired about the code citation in the end summary regarding the setbacks and classification of the wetland, which states Ecology considers the Edmonds Marsh to be classified as a Class 2 wetland under City's CAO ECDC 24.40.020. Mr. Lien referred to Mr. Anderson's comment that one of the CAO updates adopted the 1993 and the 2004 Wetland Rating System. The updated COA references wetland ratings in ECDC 23.50.010.13 which is the adopted Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System found in 2014 Washington State Wetland Ranking System for Western Washington, Ecology Publication 14-06-029, and those are the standards that Mr. Anderson used to identify the classification. The critical area regulations do not not classify the marsh or any other wetland, they adopted Ecology's publication for classification of wetlands. The CAO adopt a 75-foot buffer for a Class 2 estuarine wetland. Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for comment from citizen comments and the Audubon Society about not a degraded marsh but a thriving marsh with wildlife. He was confident everyone wanted to preserve the marsh and wildlife. He relayed hearing essentially that some development will benefit the marsh. He read from Ecology's "At Home with Wetlands, A Landowner's Guide," "Throughout our history, wetlands have suffered at the hands of humans, whether through indifference, exploitation or misguided use, we have damaged or destroyed most of Washington's wetlands. Even now — in spite of our new understanding of the ecological importance of wetland — degradation continues and we are still losing hundreds of acres of wetlands a year. With regards to fish and wildlilfe, many species of birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians rely on wetland habitat for breeding, foraging, and cover. The special wetland conditions provide unique habitat for species that cannot survive elsewhere. Many endangered and threatened species such as salmon require wetlands during a part of their lifecycle. The incredibly high rate of wetlands loss has contributed to their demise. People versus wetlands: urban Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.a growth and development also count for significant historical losses in wetlands. Washington's coastal urban areas have already lost 90-98% of the estuarine wetlands and the Puget Sound basin has lost 70% of its wetlands due to development and other activities. When we degrade a wetland, we diminish or lose some or all of its functions." He asked whether development will help or hurt the marsh. Mr. Anderson answered it is hoped development will help the marsh by providing an incentive for additional buffer on the north and south sides, areas that are already developed and do not provide a functional buffer. Redevelopment will actually benefit the marsh once the SMP is adopted with these standards. Without redevelopment, the currently developed degraded areas will remain in their existing state until a willing landowner voluntarily decides to do ecological restoration. Councilmember Nelson asked if redevelopment has equaled no net loss. Mr. Anderson answered no net low is based on the current conditions, when the SMP is adopted or when the inventory characterization takes place; it does not look backward, it looks at current conditions. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment that after studying the 65-foot buffer and setback, Ecology was satisfied with 65 feet versus 75 or 100 feet and asked what level of science that represents and if Ecology was prepared to defend that evaluation and the 65-foot buffer in the event of legal action. Mr. Pater answered Ecology was comfortable a very supportive record has been provided to back up the proposed change to 65 feet. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Council has seen that record. Mr. Pater answered yes, it was part of the conditional approval and Mr. Anderson's analysis of the marsh's jurisdictional issues and the buffer issues and the unique situation is part of these findings and conclusions. Ecology was confident about the record from an ecological standpoint. With regard to defending the SMP, Mr. Pater answered absolutely, the SMA is a state/local partnership, if the City approves the SMP, Ecology will be there with the City to defend an appeal. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Ecology would defend it based on BAS. Mr. Pater answered it would be defended based on the record at the time of approval; BAS and no net loss are part of the record. Councilmember Mesaros followed up on Councilmember Nelson's reading, agreeing that development has injured wetlands throughout western Washington; something has to be done to turn the tide. He believed the 50-foot buffer and another 50-foot setback would not encourage change. Unless change is encouraged, this marvelous asset will continue to be destroyed. Of the Councilmembers, he lives the closest to the marsh and has seen the resident coyote several times, noting a coyote pair had puppies last year. The marsh is a wonderful asset for the City and he hoped Councilmembers would join him in doing something to encourage change and create incentives or what Councilmember Nelson read will continue. Councilmember Teitzel echoed Councilmembers Nelson and Mesaros' comments, noting all the Councilmembers and citizens want the marsh preserved and restored so that salmon, fish, birds, and wildlife thrive; the question is how to get there. He has studied the SMP and looked at the Comprehensive Plan and other documents in an effort to look at this from the 10,000-foot level; it is easy to get into minutia. He read from the draft SMP, "The purposes of this Master Program are ... B. To promote uses and development of the City of Edmonds shoreline consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan while protecting and restoring environmental resources." He read from page 43, Activity Centers, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, "Balanced (re)development - strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development and housing along with cultural and environmental goals." As Councilmember Mesaros said, sensible development can help the environment; stormwater runoff is significant problem for the marsh. He recommended looking at the big picture, and as the Comprehensive Plan instructs, look to the environment as a top priority. Another high priority is to ensure development occurs sensibly in concert and in harmony with the environment. He summarized the goal for the marsh is to preserve, protect and enhance it and also allow for sensible development near the marsh. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 19 4.2.a Council President Johnson asked why Ecology did not not recommend a 75-foot setback as per their own regulations. Mr. Pater answered due to the unique conditions of marsh. Unfortunately, the marsh is surrounded by asphalt, the railroad, and the dike and has a lot of challenges. The presence of the dike does not allow the reestablished buffer to function normally especially from a water quality perspective. Buffers usually provide some filtration for water quality; the presence of the dike makes that function problematic. Redevelopment is key because significant redevelopment of the site will require compliance with more modern stormwater regulations, low impact development techniques, etc. to filter and clean the stormwater. Mr. Anderson agreed the presence of the dike diminishes the effect of the buffer. It was his understanding there were also legal concerns that mitigation needs to be proportional and there needs to be a nexus with the impact. In this case it would be a more intensive land use with residential development that could impact marsh, thereby providing a nexus. With regard to proportionality, Ecology felt 50 feet was defensible and 75 feet may not be. Council President Johnson said if the standard is 75 feet, why didn't Ecology rely on their standard. Mr. Anderson answered this is restoration of a lawfully established use which is different than what the buffer should be where there is intact natural vegetation. Mr. Pater said this is a redevelopment -triggered mitigation as compensation from a more intensive land use. That is different than a wetland with an established buffer that needs enhancement. There is minimal buffer and it is not high quality along Harbor Square and the Unocal site. Council President Johnson pointed out this is a new shoreline jurisdiction and some areas are developed and some are not which should require looking at both the northern and southern sides. Mr. Lien explained the UMU IV applies to both sides of the marsh. He displayed an aerial map, explaining there are different buffers that apply around the marsh. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the 50-foot buffer and 65- foot setback apply. Outside shoreline jurisdiction, the critical area regulations would apply. He identified an area in the southeast corner of the marsh that has an established buffer, advising the City's CAO would apply there and the 75-foot intact buffer would be protected. The BAS reports were done in areas where there are intact buffers and determined the appropriate size for an intact buffer. The difficulty is applying that BAS to developed urban areas where buffers have been developed. Just saying there is a 75 or 100- foot buffer does not make it a buffer, if it is a developed area. Ecology is saying that allowing some redevelopment within an already developed area provides incentive to establish a buffer where the buffer is degraded or non-existent. One function buffers provide is water quality infiltration; due to the dike, the buffer cannot perform that function. Another function buffers provide is habitat; while the marsh has some good habitat as indicated by the number of birds, establishing a wider buffer does not provide a connection to other habitat which is another reason a 50-foot buffer makes sense versus a wider buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien, commenting she has learned a lot from him and from WRIA 8. She asked Ecology if they have seen the Edmonds Marsh water monitoring report prepared by the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon Stream Team. Mr. Lien advised Ms. Hope had forwarded that to them. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if they saw that the stormwater runoff is on other side of Shellabarger and the majority of petroleum is not actually in the marsh. Mr. Anderson said it was not detected at the points where the water was sampled. The current stormwater system in Harbor Square is not up to today's standards and there would be benefits of upgrading. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to studies done by the UW in areas where redevelopment cannot occur where sand and other materials are used to filter the water such as near 520. Redevelopment may be an alternative but redevelopment also comes with other issues such as additional people, cars, etc. The Students Saving Salmon are giving a presentation to WRIA 8 tomorrow. Councilmember Nelson referred to the question Mr. Lien posed, what is the goal of marsh and Mr. Pater's statement at the last meeting that the marsh is not functioning properly, commenting the goal should be to have the marsh function properly. He asked whether Ecology or another state agency currently monitor or assess wetlands. Mr. Anderson said there is an ongoing national effort this summer directed by the US Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 20 4.2.a Environmental Protection Agency, the National Wetland Condition Assessment, that Ecology is participating in. Ecology does compliance follow-up following a permit for a wetland fill. Ecology has an environmental assessment program that primarily does water quality monitoring but he was not aware of any current monitoring efforts. Councilmember Nelson observed for all the wetlands that are within 200 feet of the shoreline, no one is tracking that there is in fact no net loss. Mr. Pater said that is expected once the SMPs are approved and implemented to see how effective they are over time. Councilmember Nelson commented the no net loss policy has been in place for 20 years, yet no monitoring has been done. Mr. Pater said it has not been in place 20 years, only since the SMP state guidelines were approved in late 2003. A lot of SMPs have been approved and in effect for a number of years; the expectation has been as funds are earmarked there would be some follow-up regarding how effective the SMPs are with regard to no net loss on a programmatic basis which is related to project specific impacts. Mr. Anderson said George W. Bush made a statement that there would be a federal policy of no net loss; that has not been achieved on a national basis. Washington has done a better job because of follow-up on mitigation but there is still a loss of acreage in the State as time goes on. Mayor Earling advised this topic will return to Council for further discussion/review on August 2. He thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Pater for attending to respond to Council questions. 1. LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN INTRODUCTION Finance Director Scott James said staff s goal is to provide the Council, Mayor and citizens and others financial documents that are easy to understand and provide a sense of transparency, for example the budget process. During the budget process, decision packages are used to describe additions to the budget. Staff also provides monthly financial reports to the Council that contain detailed information regarding revenues, expenses and fund balances. Another example is the annual audited financial report. Although important, these reports have a limited sight, looking at annual numbers versus a long range financial plan that looks into the future. He reviewed: • What is a "Long-range" Financial Plan? o Combines financial forecasting with financial strategizing o Does not simply project the status quo "x" numbers of years into the future o A technical tool to identify problems and opportunities o Provide an avenue for Council, citizens & staff to discuss policy o Provides a road map for where the City wants to go o Can help build consensus for making financial decisions o Fundamental Elements of Long-range financial plans include: ■ Multi -year planning horizon ■ List range of funds to be included in plan ■ Schedule frequency for updates ■ Identify important policies • Why do Councilmembers and Council as a whole need a Financial Plan? o Enable City's financial management to identify emerging problems & communicate them to elected officials and the public o Help the City to plan for a consistent level of essential services over a multi -year period o Stimulate long-term thinking o Stimulate "big -picture" thinking o Raise specific issues o Clarify the City's strategic intent o Integrate discipline o Communicate to citizens o Demonstrate good management to bond rating agencies and subsequent lower interest costs Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 21 4.2.a How is a plan put together? o Long-term financial planning is a multi -step process with four major phases 1) Mobilization ➢ Mobilization is the first step of getting ready to plan ➢ Identify the leader of the planning process ➢ Identify Planning Committee participants ■ Current committee: Councilmembers Teitzel and Johnson, Scott James, three citizens, Public Works Director, Parks Director ➢ Define the purpose of the long-range financial planning process itself ➢ Design the process that the plan will follow ➢ Conduct a preliminary fiscal analysis ➢ Look at service level preferences and related policies ➢ Look at financial policies ➢ The committee and Council need to reach a consensus on these points 2) Analysis ➢ Dedicated to producing information that supports the planning and strategizing of the decision phase. This phase covers: ■ Information gathering ■ Trend projections ■ Fund balance analysis 3) Decision ➢ After the analysis phase is completed, the Committee presents the results to Council so you can use the information to decide how you will respond to the information ➢ These decisions will result in a set of financial strategies for bettering the financial position of the City ➢ The strategies can be used to address an actual weakness or potential weakness in the City's financial structure ➢ During this phase, the Team helps identify methods for developing financial strategies that encourages participation from all levels ➢ The plan ultimately is brought before Council for adoption 4) Execution ➢ After the plan has been developed and adopted by Council, it is time to put the plan into action ➢ The budget is the primary tool for executing the plan ➢ Other tools are: ■ Policy statements ■ Council resolutions & ordinances ■ Performance measures ■ Action plans ➢ After the plan is put into place, progress must be monitored. This involves determining how status reporting and timing of reporting will take place Who benefits from having a plan? o Citizens o Council o Businesses looking to locate in the City o Department heads & staff What are the timelines for building a plan? When July August September October November 2017 Who Council & Council & Council & Council & Council & Council & Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff What Staff Update on Review of This item is This item is Look at City's Introduction of LRFP purpose Preliminary not directly not directly Financial Long-range & progress to Fiscal related to plan related to plan Policies, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.a Financial date Analysis & development development Long-range Planning to Purpose of the but requires but requires Financial Council Solicit Council Long-range Council & Council & Planning input on LRFP Financial staff: staff: Committee process & Planning Mayor's 2017 Council share their General Process, and Preliminary review of the consensus on Discussion of begin Budget proposed 2017 topics Plan discussion Delivered to Budget & discussed to with Council Council adoption of this point. on Service 2017 Budget Next steps are Level completing Preferences Analysis, Decision & Execution Phases of Plan Product Introduce List of Preliminary 2017 2017 Budget Complete all concepts and Council's Fiscal Preliminary four phases of process for elements to Analysis & Budget Long-range creating a include Long- Purpose of the Financial Plan. long-range range Long-range Council financial plan Financial Plan Financial adoption of for Edmonds Planning Plan Process Venue Council Study Council Study Council Study Council October - Council Study Session July Session Session Meeting November Sessions & 13, 2016 August 2016 September October 11, Council Council 2016 2016 Meetings Meetings Councilmember Buckshnis requested the City provide Councilmembers the book, "Elected Official's Guide to Long -Term Financial Planning for Local Governments." She commented on improvements in financial reporting since she was a citizen in 2009 and efforts to put out fires in recent years instead of planning. Mr. James also recommended the book as an introduction to long range financial planning; it offers insights for those interested in learning about long range planning. Councilmember Tibbott said he found the presentation very helpful; long range planning helps give a sense of security regarding where the City is going and what to expect. He also supported the opportunity that long range financial planning provides for discussions with citizens. He looked forward to hearing the results of the committee and participating in a dialogue that will result in a robust plan. Councilmember Teitzel said the message is not that the process is broken; the City is functioning, budgets are being prepared, etc. Long range planning is a way to improve the process and bring more discipline and transparency to the process and move away from silo budgeting. He was pleased to be a part of the team and has enjoyed working with Mr. James. Mr. James said the City has been on strong financial footing; the intent of a long range financial plan is to lessen impacts of a downturn. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers and the public to watch tomorrow's sandcastle building contest at the waterfront, a fun, creative event where typically, 50-150 people participate. He reminded of the Snohomish County Cities meeting on Thursday and encouraged Councilmembers to attend the AWC district meeting at Scott's on October 20. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson reported he was invited to attend the 100 anniversary of Boeing by a family member who works for Boeing. He enjoyed seeing the wonderful work Boeing has achieved in 100 years as well as meeting current and retired workers and learning about the buildings they worked in and the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a planes they worked on. As a plane buff, it was very impressive. He commended the Edmonds citizens who currently work for Boeing workers or have in the past and he found the work they have done inspired. Referencing events of the past few weeks, Councilmember Buckshnis paraphrased a quote from Muhammad Ali, "If we practice an eye for an eye, soon we will all be blind." Council President Johnson reminded of the Walk Back in Time featuring Civil War Veterans at the Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. Councilmember Teitzel said he has talked to several citizens and read comments in My Edmonds about the elimination of the drive -up mailbox at the 2nd & Main post office. Due to concern with the difficulty for the elderly and others with physical challenges getting out of their car to drop off mail, he contacted the postmaster and learned post office views eliminating the mail box as cost -saving measure as first-class mail volumes have been declining and that the drive -up mail box is no longer needed. Councilmember Teitzel said he assured the postmaster a drive -up mailbox close to downtown is needed. The postmaster indicated if 2-3 locations were identified, he would consider them. Councilmember Teitzel said he is working with Public Works Director Phil Williams to identify 2-3 sites and meeting with the postmaster. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged everyone to attend the ECA's 10`h Anniversary bash on July 30th. The all -day event is free and further information is available in My Edmonds News and on the ECA website. Councilmember Tibbott reported on improvements occurring in the City including Veteran's Plaza, replacement of the bandshell at Frances Anderson Center, a downtown restroom, street repairs and overlays, reconstruction of the fishing pier and construction of a new post office. Observing one notable projects not on the list, Sunset Avenue, he encouraged the Council and staff to have a plan in place for Sunset Avenue by fall. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 19, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 24 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #220893 through #221004 dated July 21, 2016 for $650,528.89. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62249 through #62258 and #62264 through #62265 for $506,995.33, benefit checks #62259 through #62263 of $548,990.26 for the pay period July 1, 2016 through July 15, 2016. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Financial Impact Claims $650,528.89 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $506,995.33 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $548,990.26 Total Payroll $1,055,985.59 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 07-21-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-21-16 payroll summary 07-15-16a payroll summary 07-15-16b payroll summary 07-15-16c payroll benefits 07-15-16 Packet Pg. 25 4.3.a vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 220893 220894 WiY1.62 220896 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 7/21/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 369790 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTR MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 369829 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CO 7/21/2016 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 90745 220897 7/21/2016 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 2016-0423 Page: c ca lid U a� Nl Amoun c a OI -0) OI � 82.3E La)`a Nl 4- 137.2E c 1 : 219.6( c c� 0 27,890.3( ca a -1,244.5, CF CF 78,874.6E w 0 -3,943.7: I: 101,576.7E i a Q- Q 162,899.2( o Total : 162,899.2( STREET - ARBORIST TREE ASSES: t° r Street - Arborist Tree Assessment 77, N 111.000.68.542.71.41.00 475.0( ti Total: 475.0( w AMWINS CREDIT ADJUSTMENT CREDIT AMOUNT FOR OVERPAYME E 001.000.369.90.000.00-5,493.7£ CREDIT AMOUNT FOR OVERPAYME 009.000.39.517.20.23.10-1,611.5z CREDIT AMOUNT FOR OVERPAYME t R .r r a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220897 7/21/2016 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 220898 220899 220900 220901 7/21/2016 072799 ANDRES, KAREN 7/21/2016 075631 APPLYA LINE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 4332620 LEOFF1 MEDICAL INSURANCE BARTON, RONALD ; COOPER, JA 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 ALL OTHER LEOFFI MEDICAL IN 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 Tota 6/30 REIMBURSEMENT 6/30/16 REIMBURSEMENT MILEA 6/30/16 REIMBURSEMENT MILEA 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 6/30/16 REIMBURSEMENT UNIFO 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 Tota 6201 STREET - SUNSET AVE PAVEMEN Street - Sunset Ave Pavement Mark 111.000.68.542.31.41.00 7/21/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 11383 CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 2 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 -219.7E a � CI L 1,130.61 Total: 2,728.0( a Q. Q ti 0 549.1( 53.8, Total : 603.0' N 7/21/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988678581 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS o FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS Y 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4z 6 1988689179 WWTP: 7/13/16 UNIFORMS, TOWEL wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( R .r r Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220901 7/21/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 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 1988689180 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1988689181 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988693216 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 3 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 110.9E a� L 0.5( =a 10.8E m 57.0< c�a 1.6' > 0 6.1' a Q 6.1' 0 6.1' m r 6.1' r N ti 6.0E o 0 0.1( W 0.6( 6 c 0.6( t R .r r Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220901 7/21/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) Fi�'I:I:i:1;'Zc3►y�7 220902 7/21/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0940620-IN 220903 7/21/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 11947 11950 11952 PO # Description/Account 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 Total WWTP: GREASE FOR BLOWER MC GREASE FOR BLOWER MOTOR 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 2015 CM INSP E4FB SERVICES THE E4FB.2015 CM Insp Services thru Jui 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 2016 CM. INSP - E5GA/E5JA/E4GB E5GA.2016 CM. Insp. Services thru J 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 E5JA.2016 CM. Insp. Services thru Ji 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 E4GB.2016 CM Insp. Services thru Ji 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 E6FB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2016 E6FB.Services thru June 2016 4.3.a Page: 4 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 0.6( -0a 0.6( aUi L =a 0.5� a� c m 16.5: c� 0.6z o L 1.6' a E 299.7' 0 c� 0 97.Z a 0. 9.5< r" 106.7E CD cc 8,785.7E N ti 0 N 1,100.9( E 3,263.9� .2 U Page: 4 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220903 7/21/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Tota 220904 7/21/2016 075201 BRAINSTORM NOVELTIES 7/14 TARANTELLAS HMP 7/14/16 TARANTELLAS HMP COW 4.3.a Page: 5 C 21 e c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- 31703.5( -0a 1 : 17,918.11 m E E 4" 250.0( c 1 : 250.0( a)K; c A f° 20.1' 0 1.91 E U 151.8, o 60.7( c a 160.0( Q 36.5' c � � 209.6' r r N 20.5, c N 0' Y 340.3� E 33.3( U r c m E 146.7: u R .r r Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 220905 220906 220907 Date Vendor 7/21/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 7/21/2016 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 7/21/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 16298444 16301620 16301621 21053 ART CAMPS PO # Description/Account Copier lease C5250 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 Copier lease C5250 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 CANON 2501F June contract charges 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 July contract charges 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 ENG COPIER JULY 2016 Eng. Copier July 2016 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 COPIER CONTRACT CHARGE COPIER CONTRACT CHARG 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Tota 21053 ART CAMPS INSTRUCTION 21053 ART CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 9433491780 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota 4.3.a Page: 6 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 31.4z a� L 31.4z =a 14.3£ m 3.0£ c� 3.0£ 0 L 0 a 26.4z E 26.4z u 4- 0 344.0( 1: 1,974.4; m N ti 0 582.0( Y 1 : 582.0( E r 422.1( E 40.1( R .r r Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220907 7/21/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC (Continued) 9433527424 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9433577712 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9433584976 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9433597041 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 220908 7/21/2016 065403 CHAPIN, FRANCES 6/24 REIMBURSEMENT 220909 7/21/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E5JB.ENG20160271 220910 7/21/2016 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 116001473 Tota 6/24/16 REIMBURSEMENT TRAVE 6/24/16 REIMBURSEMENT TRAVE 001.000.64.571.22.43.00 Tota L ESJB.ROW PERMIT ENG20160271 ESJB.ROW Permit ENG20160271 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 Tota WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.3.a Page: 7 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a m 142.8( L =a 13.51 a� c m 422.1( c� 40.1( o L 0 a 337.1( E 32.0' u w 0 128.5( i a Q. 12.2' Q 1 : 1,590.6' 0 L m 1,177.5, r r 1 : 1,177.5, c� ti 0 N Y 295.0( E 1 : 295.0( � � m E 861.3( R .r r Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 32 4.3.a vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220910 7/21/2016 063902 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 220911 7/21/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 220912 7/21/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS 220913 7/21/2016 072848 COPIERS NW 220914 7/21/2016 005965 CUES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Page: 8 c ca lid U W U _ Amoun }; (Continued) Total: 861.3( 0 m 12357 INV#12357 CUST #47 - EDMONDS F NARCOTICS SGT APR-JUN 2016 a� 104.000.41.521.21.51.00 10,582.1' Total: 10,582.1' NW2884752-7 PM: WASP/HORNET KILLER PM: WASP/HORNET KILLER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 1408896 INV#1408896 ACCT#HMH636 - ED LEASE #IRC5045 6/5 TO 7/4/16 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 1408897 INV#1408897 ACCT#HMH636 - ED 4,747 B/W COPIES 6/5 TO 7/4/16 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 2,756 COLOR COPIES 6/5 TO 7/4/ 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 Tota 457763 SEWER CAMERA REPAIR SUPPLI Sewer Camera Repair Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Repairs 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax a c m 67.1( c c� 6.5E o 1 : 73.71 ca a M 226.7 1 ,- 0 22.2. > M o a Q. 37.9E Q 1E 0 129.5< 16.4, 1 : 432.9; N E o N 371.4' W 230.0( 6 Page: 8 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220914 7/21/2016 005965 CUES INC (Continued) 458024 458548 459077 459276 459489 PO # Description/Account 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 SEWER CAMERA REPAIRS Sewer Camera Repairs 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Parts for Repairs 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 SEWER - CAMERA TRAILER TIRE Sewer - Camera Trailer Tires 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 SEWER - SUPPLIES Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 SEWER - SUPPLIES Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 SEWER CAMERA PUSH SYS PO Sewer Camera Push Sys Power Su 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 9 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a 37.2E -0) U a� L 1,035.0( 4- 2,609.61 c m 20.3z c� 257.7, o S 0 a 638.0z 15.3E u 4- 0 64.0: > 0 L Q 0. 127.8z Q 16.01 m r r N 28.0, o N 71.7E E 9.7E WE r c pK m 238.3 - E R .r r Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220914 7/21/2016 005965 CUES INC 220915 7/21/2016 075699 DAHLQUIST, JAMES B Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 14-1343 EV 14-0244 220916 7/21/2016 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 30726 220917 7/21/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 220918 7/21/2016 075704 DURR, BARBARA 220919 7/21/2016 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL 16-3672 16-3677 TREEDURR0516 7/12 REFUND DAM DEP PO # Description/Account Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Tota RETURN FUNDS TO NEXT OF KIN PROPERTY TO NEXT OF KIN 001.000.239.900 Tota COUNCIL CHAMBER- CHANGE O Council Chamber- Change Order 3- 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 Tota E5DB.MEETING MINUTES THRU J E5DB.Meeting Minutes thru June 2 001.000.67.518.21.41.00 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7/12/201 07/12/2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETI 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota EVENT SUPPLIES EVENT SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Tota 7/12/16 REFUND DAMAGE DEPO 7/12/16 REFUND DAMAGE DEPO 001.000.239.200 Tota 4.3.a Page: 10 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a am 15.1< a� L 24.8z 'D 5,855.8E W c C � 840.0( 1 : 840.0( o 0 R[ � a 1,167.0( .9 114.3 —0 1,281.31 @ 01 N U 0 a Q. 485.1( Q 6 0 ( 313.5( " 1 : 798.6( m r N ti 0 63.2E 1 : 63.21 S SI- 969.0( I : 969.0( E R .r r Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220920 7/21/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001675 PM: POWERLOCK TAPE PM: POWERLOCK TAPE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 001679 PM: BULK FASTENERS PM: BULK FASTENERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 220921 7/21/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00200 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01127 WWTP: 5/17-7/15/16 WATER - MET WATER - 5/17-7/15/16 200 2ND AVE 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 6-01130 WWTP: 5/17 - 7/15/16 WATER - ME1 5/17 - 7/15/16 WATER - METER 943� 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 6-01140 WWTP: 5/17-7/15/16 WATER - METE 5/17 - 7/15/16 water - METER 50102 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4.3.a Page: 11 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 11.9� a� L 4- aD c 6.8( 0.6 , c�a 20.6i o 0 0 a 1,272.9z 4- 0 801.0: 0 L a 839.7E Q 0 1,490.7' m r 279.1 E N ti 0 N Y 25.6< E 1,820.2E r c m E 3,200.1: U R .r r a Page: 11 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220921 7/21/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01280 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A\j FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A\j 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER FAC SPRINKLER 4.3.a Page: 12 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 1,483.7E m 1,077.4( c m 616.0' 0 442.1' a E 264.6E 4- 0 c� 1,812.6( i a 0. El 1,128.0� w r IL 1,130.61 c N Y 4,672.8E ,E ca r 25.6: a0i E t R .r r Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220921 7/21/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 4.3.a Page: 13 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 2,557.3� -0a U a� L 2,019.2( 4- w c 478.8 1 c c� 247.2z o 0 a 267.1' E 802.51 o 0 14.6: 0- Q. El 1,528.1z m 477.7' r r N ti 0 337.9' Y E 145.8 0 r 554.3, a0i E 554.3, R .r r Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220921 7/21/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-05156 6-06040 6-07775 6-08500 6-08525 220922 7/21/2016 075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA BID-071316 PO # Description/Account PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGi 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGi 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR E BID Administrative services 7/5-7/13/' 4.3.a Page: 14 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 554.3, a� L 554.3, =a 4. 554.3' c m 0 6.9E L>% ca a 6.9E 6.9E U 0 6.9E 0 L 6.91 a Q 183.1< m r 1,057.5, r N ti 0 1,882.4' Y U E 2 2,630.8� U 39,836.9' m E t R .r r Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220922 7/21/2016 075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA 220923 7/21/2016 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 151545 220924 7/21/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR42860 AR42861 PO # Description/Account 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEM Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - A 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 Tota WATER SEWER COPY USE 5/19- Water Sewer Copy Use 5/19-6/18 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water Sewer Copy Use 5/19-6/18 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW COPY USE 5/19-6/18 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 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 4.3.a Page: 15 6/ c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- 487.5( a) 1 : 487.5( m E uc 4" 152.0( c 1 : 152.0( a) ' c ca 9.6' o 9.6' Q" E 0.9, 4- 0 0.9z 0 a 19.3� Q 10.9( c 10.9£ 7.7( N ti 0 7.7z Y 1.9( E 1.0£ r c m 1.0£ E t R .r r Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 220924 220925 220926 Date Vendor 7/21/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 7/21/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 7/21/2016 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) AR43248 AR44485 AR44487 EDH709864 EDH710654 31327 PO # Description/Account 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 PW Copy Use 5/19-6/18 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 FLEET COPY USE 5/21-6/20 Fleet Copy Use 5/21-6/20 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 COPIER CONTRACT SERVICES COPIER CONTRACT SERVICES 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 COPIER CONTRACT SERVICES COPIER CONTRACT SERVICES 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Tota 4.3.a Page: 16 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 0.7( -0a 0.7( aUi L =a 0.7E }' W c 7.7( M c c� 9.5z o L 0.9< a E 5.7z 4- 0 4.4 1 0 1 : 112.71 a 2 CITY ORDINANCE 4037 CITY ORDINANCE NO. 4037 0 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 27.5, CITY NOTICES CONCESSION AGRE CITY NOTICES- r 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 53.3, N Total : 80.81 c CITY HALL - COMPRESSOR REPAIF N Y City Hall - Compressor Repairs E 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 545.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 53.4, c Tota Page: 16 Packet Pg. 41 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/21/2016 11:03:41AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 220927 7/21/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU40502 PM: 1/4-20 X 1S/S PFHMS o PM: 1/4-20 X 1S/S PFHMS a m 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.3E 9.8% Sales Tax L 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.6. 'D Total: 6.91, a� 220928 7/21/2016 009880 FEDEX 5-474-30201 STORM PLAN REVIEW m Storm Plan Review 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 30.3( Total: 30.3$ o 220929 7/21/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0513414 WATER METER INVENTORY - - L Water Meter Inventory - - Q" 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 886.8( . 2024 M-METER-0.625-010 f° U 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,144.0( c 9.8% Sales Tax -cu- 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 395.0, c SC31469 WATER - SVC FEES a Water - Svc Fees Q- Q 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.3E Total: 4,466.11 c 220930 7/21/2016 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE t° r 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 33.3E N TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE ti 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 33.3E w 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' E 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.4E 'ca PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 82.4' PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 69.2, R .r r Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 220930 220931 220932 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice 7/21/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-771-4741 425-775-1344 425-775-2455 7/21/2016 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 33374 7/21/2016 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0005733 220933 7/21/2016 075336 GONZALEZ, TAMARA 20980 CHALLENGE ISLA PO # Description/Account PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND 1 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND 1 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUS 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Tota WATER- PRV #15 VALVE REPLAC Water- PRV #15 Valve Replacemen 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 18 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a N' -0a 69.2, N' 92.2� =a /I1 4- /11 W c 83.3: M' c c� 64.6( o 5 K a 63.0� 1 : 607.31 El o t; 559.0( 0 L a 12.9E Q ti 56.0E Total : 628.0: WWTP: 2 PUMPS W/PUMPHD,FITTI r 2 PUMPs with PUMPHEAD, FITTING N 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7,985.0( c Freight w 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 63.1 < 9.8% Sales Tax E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 788.7, ca Total: 8,836.8E r c 20980 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( t 20980 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( R .r r a Page: 18 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220933 7/21/2016 075336 GONZALEZ, TAMARA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # (Continued) 20981 CHALLENGE ISLA 20982 CHALLENGE ISLA Description/Account 4.3.a Page: 19 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 3,385.8( 20981 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( +. 20981 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( L 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,012.0( 20982 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( 20982 CHALLENGE ISLAND INSTR( 0 c 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,012.0( 0� Total : 5,409.8( -a c 220934 7/21/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9154174826 WATER - SUPPLIES c� — Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 177.6£ a 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.4' •� Total : 195.1( U w 0 220935 7/21/2016 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 173133/1 WATER INVENTORY - 0381 W-RES Water Inventory - 0381 W-RESET-0. c 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 654.2z a Water Supplies Q- Q 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,653.4£ 9.8% Sales Tax c 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 64.1 9.8% Sales Tax .. 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 m 162.0z r 173790/1 WATER SUPPLIES N Water Supplies c 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 608.0z w 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 59.5� E Total: 3,201.5' 220936 7/21/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14253353 WATER INVENTORY - - Water Inventory - - 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,070.4z R .r r Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220936 7/21/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 220937 7/21/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 0570 W-MTRLIDDI-02-030 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total: 1020663 FAC MAINT - TRUCK SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10683 CITY HALL DEV SVC PERMIT COUN City Hall Dev Svc Permit Counter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10710 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 1095314 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12124 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: 20 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 232.4( a� L 1,229.2E =a 4 323.6E c m 120.4 , 4,976.2i ca 0 0 a 13.9( E cu 1.3: Z 4- 0 99.7( o L a 0. 9.4 1 Q 0 109.9z m 10.4z r r N ti 0 25.9' Y U 2.4( .E c� Page: 20 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220937 7/21/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 13105 1563144 1564609 1586167 2032875 2095139 3592651 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 LIBRARY - LIGHTING SUPPLIES Library - Lighting Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Parks Bldg Thermostat 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 PS - PUSH BUTTON SWITCHES PS - Push Button Switches 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 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES Traffic - Supplies 4.3.a Page: 21 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 63.1. aUi L =a 6.0( a� c m 39.8E c� 49.9E o L 8.5z a E 30.8 0 2.9: 0 L Q 0. 8.9E Q 0.8E m r 19.9, r N ti 1.8� o N 138.51 . c� 13.1E m E t R .r r Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220937 7/21/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4020239 FAC - TOILET SUPPLIES FAC - Toilet Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4023110 CITY HALL DEV SVC PERMIT CO 4.3.a Page: 22 U c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 49.1( -0a 4.61 m L 4. 8.5( c m 0.8' � c� 0 60.8( j, M a 5.7E U 19.9E o 17.8E 0 1.7( r 1.2,e a0i UI E R .r r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 17.8E 0 1.7( r 1.2,e a0i UI E R .r r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220937 7/21/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) City Hall Permit Counter - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 587669 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 591883 FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - SUPPLIES Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6016021 DEV SVC PERMIT COUNTER SUPP Dev Svc Permit Counter Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6016025 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6032920 DEV SVC PERMIT COUNTER Dev Svc Permit Counter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6081219 SEWER - SUPPLIES Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 23 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 57.7z a� L 5.4� =a d c 51.8E 4.9< c�a 80.1' > 0 7.6' a i r- 5.4 59.9, m r r 6.2' N ti 0 N 11.71 Cj E r c m 10.2 i t Page: 23 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220937 7/21/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6082423 DEV SVC PERMIT COUNTER SUPP Dev Svc Permit Counter Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7080143 SEWER - LIFT STATIONS GENERAT Sewer - Lift Stations Generators 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7081066 TRAFFIC SUPPLIES Traffic Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9094133 SEWER - LIFT STATIONS PAINT SU Sewer - Lift Stations Paint Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Tota I : 220938 7/21/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2823370 SUPPLIES -BOXES SUPPLIES -BOXES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 2824027 WWTP: PAPER TOWELS & LAMINA PAPER TOWELS & SMALL LAMINAT 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2824652 SUPPLIES -PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES -PAPER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 4.3.a Page: 24 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 0.9E 5D 116.1E a� c 11.1E � c c� 62.3 1 o L 5.9< a E 37.4' 0 3.5E > 0 L Q Q. 26.7E Q 2.5z 1,525.6: m r r N 174.7E c N Y 74.7( E 7.3, c m E 98.6( R .r r Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220938 7/21/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 220939 7/21/2016 071634 INTEGRATELECOM 220940 7/21/2016 075180 INTERSECTION MEDIA LLC 220941 7/21/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2826443 14006030 BID-213585 BID-214768 300-10010455 300-10010576 PO # Description/Account 4.3.a Page: 25 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- CITY CLERKS LOGITECH MOUSE m LOGITECH TRACKMAN MARBLE M( 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 27.8� a0i L 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 2.7: Total: 386.0i m C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 918.1 _ Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 0 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.5( a Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.5( Total: 935.11 6 4- 0 MARKETING ADS ON REGIONAL TF — Transit advertising for Ed! - Edmonds cu c 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 8,355.9( a Q. Q 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 115.8� TRANSIT ADS FOR ED! 0 Transit ads for Ed! 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 7,125.0( m Total : 15,596.7$ r PM: SAFETY GLASSES, CABLE TIE; r N ti PM: SAFETY GLASSES, CABLE TIE: o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 N 263.5' 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.8. 'M HOSE CLAMP #12 HOSE CLAMP #12 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -31.5( 9.8% Sales Tax t R .r r Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220941 7/21/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) 220942 7/21/2016 075661 JANET MAPLES DESIGN /IZZY GIRL BID-07132016 220943 7/21/2016 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 220944 7/21/2016 075695 KIMBERLIE STAHELI 220945 7/21/2016 072304 KOTIS DESIGN 220946 7/21/2016 067568 KPG INC 220947 7/21/2016 016600 KROESENS INC 694288 3-41310 PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGEMENT BI 651050 PARKS UNIFORMS PARKS UNIFORMS 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 Tota 45915 E2AD.SERVICES THRU 4/25/15 E2AD.Services thru 4/25/15 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota 34645 INV#34645 - EDMONDS PD COMMENDATION BAR-B/W/R, NO 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 COMMENDATION BAR,B/W/R 1 S 4.3.a Page: 26 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a -3.0£ 254.71 +. a� D 78.6c m r I : 881.65 r N ti 0 N Y 1,438.7, 1 : 1,438.7, .� r m 90.0( E TA � R .r r Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 51 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/21/2016 11:03:41AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 220947 7/21/2016 016600 KROESENS INC (Continued) a 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 105.0( COMMENDATION BAR,B/W/R 2 STA }, 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 30.0( L COMMENDATION BAR,B/W/R 3 STA 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.0( COMMENDATION BAR,B/W/R MERI' c 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.0( MEDAL OF MERIT 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 378.0( c�a 9.8% Sales Tax mm o 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 67.9' >`, Total: 760.9' a 220948 7/21/2016 074135 LAFAVE,CAROLYN 071316 MAYOR'S ANNUAL MEETING Cookies for student orientation meetir U 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 12.5( o Cookies for Mayor's Town Hall 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 13.9E o Flowers for Mayor's annual meeting L a 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 19.9E Q Candy for Mayor's annual meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 13.9E Watermelons for Mayor's annual mee v 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 17.9 1 to 9.5% Sales Tax r r 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 1.9( N Total : 80.3; o 220949 7/21/2016 075701 LALLI, DAWN 7/11 REFUND CLASS C 7/11/16 REFUND CLASS CANCELLE N 7/11/16 REFUND CLASS CANCELLE E 001.000.239.200 191.0( f° Total: 191.0( r c 220950 7/21/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4484004 INVOICE#4484004 SHREDDING SEI E INVOICE# 4484004- R .r r Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220950 7/21/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 INVOICE# 4484004- 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.3.a Page: 28 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 2.2E -0) 2.2£ aUi L Total : 4.5E 'a 220951 7/21/2016 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 08/16 Premiums 08/16 CIGNA PREMIUMS a August 2016 Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 11,155.6z Total : 11,155.6, 220952 7/21/2016 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20254 expenses 05-16 REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPE 0 L 05-16 reimbursement for expenses - ca 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 335.2E 05-16 reimbursement for expenses 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 39.9E 05-16 reimbursement for expenses - c 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 111.9( @ Jul-16 07-16 LEGALS FEES > 07-16 Legal fees 0 a 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 42,640.0( Q Total: 43,127.1( •• 220953 7/21/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 961462 PM: REPLACEMENT SPRAYER FRC PM: REPLACEMENT SPRAYER FRC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 119.9( 9.8% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.7( ti Total: 131.7E w 220954 7/21/2016 075702 MCKENZIE, JEANNE 071516 WWTP OPERATOR 3 EXAM, APPLI( 12/7/15 Dept. of Ecology Application I E 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.0( 12/8/15 Mail Fee for Application 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 5.7E m 4/20/16 AMP Examination Services - E t R .r r Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220954 7/21/2016 075702 MCKENZIE, JEANNE 220955 7/21/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 220956 7/21/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 220957 7/21/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 4.3.a Page: 29 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; U) 0 a 98.0( Total : 153.7E +. a� 69858298 WWTP: PIPE, FITTINGS, PADLOCK; PIPE, FITTINGS, PADLOCKS, MAST = 4 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 373.1 c Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.4( -0 Tota 238004 STREET - SUPPLIES Street - Supplies 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 240287 WWTP: PROPANE FOR FORKLIFT Propane for forklift - 9.4 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 240363 STREET - 2 CYCLE OIL Street - 2 Cycle Oil 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 Tota 0440128-IN STORM - SUPPLIES Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0441445-IN STREET SUPPLIES Street Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 405.6( C E 7.8( TU 4- 0 M 32.4< o a 3.1£ Q ti 0 22.9E m 2.2E r I : 148.1E N ti 0 0 1 356.1( E 34.9( r c m E 28.9( R .r r Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220957 7/21/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 220958 220959 220960 7/21/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 12 7/21/2016 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 74707 7/21/2016 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 220961 7/21/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 88428 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING P WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING P 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING G 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Tota WWTP: 4 T104/04E-104 & 50 AIR/ 4 T1 04/04E- 104+50 AIR/WATER H 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota WWTP: 7/8/16 SODIUM BISULFIT Sodium Bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 Tota 4.3.a Page: 30 c ca hd U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- a) 2.8< I : 422.7: i =a R, 4. R, aD c 750.0( R 937.5( r- I: 1,687.5( o 0 W, 0 O; 0" 125.5, . U 11.5: c 137.01 @ E o a Q. 1,973.4( Q 0 193.3� 1 : 2,166.7$ " m 253698 P&RADMIN: LAM POUCHES r P&RADMIN: LAM POUCHES N ti 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 16.1: o 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.5� 558696 P&R ADMIN: COLOR PAPER, COPY w P&RADMIN: COLOR PAPER, COPY 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 98.7, 9.8% Sales Tax m 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.6£ t R .r r Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220961 7/21/2016 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 220962 7/21/2016 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 32712 220963 7/21/2016 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00080114 220964 7/21/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 221934 221958 221969 222656 222671 PO # Description/Account Tota E6DA.SERVICES THRU 7/8/16 E6DA.Services thru 7/8/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota UNIT 106 - BUSHINGS Unit 106 - Bushings 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Tota 4.3.a Page: 31 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 126.1, 0 CL a� 4,561.9' 4,561.9' a� c m 3.9z c c� 12.2E 1.5£ 17J, . U 4- 0 120.0( > 0 a Q. 120.0( Q 0 96.0( " m r 120.0( ti 0 N 75.0( E 531.0( 220965 7/21/2016 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-53 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 5/29/26 E7AC.Services thru 5/29/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 37,446.0( E R .r r Q Page: 31 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 220965 7/21/2016 063951 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC (Continued) 220966 7/21/2016 075703 PETERSEN, DOUG TREEPETERSON0516 220967 7/21/2016 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 220968 7/21/2016 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC 220969 7/21/2016 064552 PITNEY BOWES 220970 7/21/2016 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 220971 7/21/2016 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 355715 355758 19020 3301032348 2016-6844 113874 Description/Account EVENT REFRESHMENTS EVENT REFRESHMENTS 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Tota Tota WELLNESS COMITTEE FRUIT WA PEACHES 48/LGR 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 WA DARK CHERRIES 18# 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 WELLNESS COMMITTEE FRUIT WA NECTARINES 24# 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Tota BALLS FOR SUMMER PICKLE-BAL BALLS FOR SUMMER PICKLE-BAL 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 Tota POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 Tota POLICE OFFICER PRE-EMPLOYM SUB FEES Q2 (APRIL - JUNE 16) 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 Tota INV#113874 - EDMONDS PD 4.3.a Page: 32 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 37,446.0( a m a� 57.1. 57.1: a� c m 22.7E c c� 34.7E a 19.7E , 77.2E w L L f° 39.6( o a Q. 3.8E Q 4141 c m r 718.6( r N ti 70.4, c 1 : 789.0, U E E 721.0( 1 : 721.0( y E t R .r r Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220971 7/21/2016 070955 R&R STAR TOWING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 113915 220972 7/21/2016 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000049763 220973 7/21/2016 071815 REILLYAND MALONEY 220974 7/21/2016 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 220975 7/21/2016 075592 ROBISON, WILLIAM RAY 7/10 CONCERT PARK PO # Description/Account TOW 2014 CHEVY PU #C46288B 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 INV#113915 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1998 TOYOTA #AUC9561 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Tota STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Total 7/10/16 CONCERT PARK REILLYAN 7/10/16 CONCERT PARK REILLYAN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total 125010 FAC - FLOORING FAC - Flooring 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Freight 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 7/19 HMP CONCERT Tota 7/19/16 HMP CONCERT ROBISON 7/19/16 HMP CONCERT ROBISON 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Tota 4.3.a Page: 33 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 166.0( a� L 16.21 =a a� c 166.0( 16.2 , c�a 364.5i o 0 0 a 1,678.9E M 1,678.9E 6 4- 0 c� 0 900.0( a 900.0( Q 0 328.3( " m r 35.0( N ti 35.6: w 398.95 E 550.0( 1 : 550.0( t R .r r Q Page: 33 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220976 7/21/2016 074986 SCREEN PRINTING NORTHWEST INC 51361 220977 7/21/2016 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 16-3374 220978 7/21/2016 071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY 7/17 PARK CONCERT 220979 7/21/2016 075705 SIMON, MAX 220980 7/21/2016 075628 SNO CO DEPT OF EMERG MGMT 220981 7/21/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 BID-031601 1000410346 2002-6027-1 2003-9895-6 4.3.a Page: 34 c ca lid U a� PO # Description/Account Amoun }; INV#51361 - EDMONDS PD - MEHL U) a SMART TEAM POLO SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 24.9E SMART TEAM WINDBREAKER L 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 39.9E =a 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 5.91 Total : 70.8, STORM - 1" LEADER HOSE & GUIDI c� Storm - 1" Leader Hose & Guide 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0 710.8( 9.8% Sales Tax a 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 69.6( Total: 780.4E 7/17/16 PARK CONCERT SEATTLE,' o 7/17/16 PARK CONCERT SEATTLE : 0 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,800.0( o Total: 1,800.0( a Q. CUSTOM IMAGE FOR TRANSIT AD Q Custom image for BID/Ed! transit c 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( Total : 200.0( " m Q3-2016 EMERGENCY SERVICES r Q3-2016 Emergency Services ti 001.000.39.525.60.51.00 111658.2E Total: 11,658.2E YOST POOL E YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,359.0 1 r FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; E t R .r r a Page: 34 Packet Pg. 59 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/21/2016 11:03:41AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 220981 7/21/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) a 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 785.4( 2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R }, LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R L 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 74.2( 2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V c 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 100.4' 2006-5085-1 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4, o 2007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI a 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 26.6z E 2008-6924-6 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACF CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.6E o 2011-8453-8 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK p L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 90.6E 0- 2013-8327-0 CITY PARK GAZEBO Q CITY PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4. 2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY v PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY m 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.1( r 2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC r N PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC ~ 0 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.9E Y 2014-4175-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 44.5� 2014-5305-7 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS r CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS m 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 64.8< E 2021-1448-4 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL R .r r Q Page: 35 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 220981 220982 220983 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 7/21/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2022-8945-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2025-4064-7 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2036-5215-1 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 2044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2202-1638-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2205-4757-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 Tota I : 7/21/2016 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 59935 INV#59935 - EDMONDS PD LOCKET MAGNET - SWARTZ 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 MAGMATE PLATES - SWARTZ 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Total: 7/21/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC 1160716-3 WATER - TELEMETRYIMPROVEME Water - Telemetry Improvements Proj 4.3.a Page: 36 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 41.5< a� L 74.2E E. aD c m 16.8: c� 0 126.2E j, ca a E 69.0( '@ U 4- 0 53.3< @ 0 a 0. 71.1: Q 3,114.8' ti 0 m 4.5( r r N 6.0( c N 2.7: E 1.3( f° 14.5E .. r c m E t R .r r a Page: 36 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220983 7/21/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC (Continued) 220984 7/21/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 220985 7/21/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 66113/1 66128/1 220986 7/21/2016 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3003485436 220987 7/21/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT 20917 BEACH CAMP 20925 BEACH CAMP-SLE 220988 7/21/2016 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 19524 PO # Description/Account 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Tota WWTP: 6/2016 ASH DISP/RECYC 6/2016 ASH DISPOSAL/RECYCLIN 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 Tota INV#66113/1 - EDMONDS PD 18" ORANGE TRAFFIC CONES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 ORANGE "PARKS" CONES ORANGE "PARKS" CONES -FROM 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 Tota INV#3003485436 CUST#6076358 20917 BEACH CAMP 20917 BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 20925 BEACH CAMP-SLEEPOVE SEWER -LS 5 TECH SUPPORT Sewer -LS 5 Tech Support 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.3.a Page: 37 EC r Q Page: 37 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220988 7/21/2016 065578 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 220989 7/21/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 18123603 30793298 220990 7/21/2016 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 74112 74125 74238 220991 7/21/2016 071666 TETRATECH INC 35009-813 PO # Description/Account Tota GYMNASTICS - SUPPLIES Gymnastics - Supplies 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 PM: BLACK ENAMEL PM: BLACK ENAMEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota WATER SEWER - WORK SHIRTS Water Sewer - Work Shirts 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Water Sewer - Work Shirts 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 SEWER - WORK SHIRTS & EMBR Sewer - Work Shirts & Embroidery 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 FLEET - WORK SHIRTS Fleet - Work Shirts 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 Tota ESDB.SERVICES THRU 6/3/16 4.3.a Page: 38 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 601.5( a am U m 22.2E 2.1E c m 122.5( 12.0' 158.81 a E U 723.0( o 723.0( c a 70.8E Q 70.8E c O cc 174.7E r N 17.1< c N Y U 129.4( E 12.6� r 1 : 1,921.61 E t U R .r r Q Page: 38 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220991 7/21/2016 071666 TETRATECH INC 220992 7/21/2016 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 220993 7/21/2016 075696 TODD TIMMCKE 220994 7/21/2016 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 220995 7/21/2016 043935 UPS 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) ESDB.Services thru 6/3/16 001.000.67.518.21.41.00 Tota 11843419 PW ADMIN - 1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTI PW Admin - 1 Year Subscription 001.000.65.518.20.49.00 Tota 8-46925 #4245-2666081 UTILITY REFUND #4245-2666081 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Tota 20932 UK ELITE SOCCE 20932 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRU 20932 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRU 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 00002T4T13286 WWTP: 7/6/16 SHIP CHG-RETURN 7/6/16 freight charges for return of 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Tota 1865 OFFICE MAX - FAC MAINT OFFICE Office Max - Fac Maint Office Suppli 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Lowes -- Museum - Wheelchair Ran Weather Tech - Unit E115EN, E116 4.3.a Page: 39 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- am 40,348.7( I: 40,348.7E i =a O a� c 195.0( 1 : 195.0( c c� 0 167.6E ca 1 : 167.6E E C T C ,- 3,267.0( o 3,267.0( o L Q Q. Q 20.7( ti 20.7E n m r e r 30.6z N ti F o 372.2, Y 185.5( . c� 1,123.9E m B( E t R .r r Q Page: 39 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Memoteronics - Units E111,112,113P( 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 UPS - Unit E112PO - Return Postage 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Tomar - Unit M16 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Fisheries - Unit 41 - Winch Handle Ki 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Lowes - Unit 110 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Lowes - Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 SeatCovers - Unit 102 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 David Clark - Unit 46 - Headset 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Fisheries - Unit M16 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 GoodToGo - Unit 537 - Fees 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Fisheries - Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WA DOL Lic Fees - Unit E125PO 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 WA DOL Lic Fees - Unit E108PO 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 WA DOL Lic Fees - Unit E117ST 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Amazon.com - Fleet Shop - Straight E 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 Weather Tech - Unit E115EN, E116B( 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2674 FISHERIES- UNIT 79 - RETURN CRE 4.3.a Page: 40 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 115.9E 43.4E aUi L =a 14.0E a� c 134.61 12.1E c�a 0 21.8� L>% ca a 22.7: 198.0( U 0 54.0( 0 L 52.41 a Q 5.5( 0 50.7: m r 417.2E r N ti 67.4 1 o N 88.5( U w 01:11:MM Page: 40 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Fisheries- Unit 79 - Return Credit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2985 WWTP: JULY 2016 CC: BATTERY/JC Physio Control: battery for 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 BC Water Job Bd for WWTP Operato 423.000.76.535.80.41.40 Water Environ. Federation 2016 WEF 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 3249 HOTEL FEE FOR JUDGE'S CONFEF HOTEL FEE FOR JUDGE'S CONFEF 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 3314 INV#3314 07/06/16 - LAWLESS - ED SAFETY GLOVES (FALK) 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 MULTI -MISSION MEDICAL (SWAT) 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 GPS ADJUSTABLE TARGET STAND, 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 COMBAT APPLICATION TOURNIQUI 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 COMBAT GAUZE 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 NAR COMPRESSED GAUZE 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 STEEL SHELVING UNIT - SHELVES 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 3355 CABLEORGANIZER.COM - TRAFFIC Cableorganizer.com - Traffic - Supplie 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Office Max - Traffic Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.3.a Page: 41 c ca hd U a� Amoun }; 0 a am -502.8( 9) 166.6E aD c 200.0( 575.0( c�a 0 L 484.8z a E 199.9E '� 4- 0 17.51 > 0 932.2< a Q 386.1� 0 329.8� m r 472.7E r N ti 32.8� o 0 175.3E 60.6( m 19.7( R .r r Q Page: 41 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 3520 INV#3520 07/06/16 - POLICE #2 - EC FEDEX CHG CASE #16-12589 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/6/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL UINVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/6/1 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/7/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/7/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/8/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/10/1E 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/FUEL - STRUM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/8/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/9/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/9/16 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/10/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/13/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/LODGING - STRUM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/13/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/15/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/FUEL - STRUM 4.3.a Page: 42 c ca U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 15.2: aUi L =a 8.4 a c 18.6£ 10.3, c�a 0 21.3' c� a 10.6£ 9.8z 4- 0 17.7: 0 L 9.5E a Q 12.2 1 0 8.2' m r 10.1( r N ti 11.7£ o N 379.5( w 31.4' u Page: 42 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/14/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/15/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/16/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/17/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/LODGING - STRUM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/17/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/16/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #16-12609 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX CHG CASE#16-13200,10617 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #2016-12824 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/21/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/22/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/FUEL - STRUM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/21/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/22/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/23/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/LODGING - STRUM 4.3.a Page: 43 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 27.2( -0) 24.9z a0) L =a 31.4' W c 10.1( 10.1( c�a 0 303.6( L>% ca a 7.3( 18.7� - 0 22.0' 0 L 18.91 a Q 19.7z 0 6.9f m r 30.1E r N ti 28.5 1 o N 33.3z U w 10.1( U Page: 43 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 COLL INVEST/MEAL-STRUM 6/23/1( 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #16-5427 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #16-14822 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #16-12535 & 13E 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FEDEX CHG CASE #16-15465 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3535 GREEN RIVER - WATER -BACKFLO Green River - Water -Backflow Cours 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4675 4675 PARKS CR CARD AMAZON: PART FOR SPA (LATER R 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: SURFACE IGNITOR REPI. 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON:SHOVEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 CONSTANT CONTACT: MAIL LIST N 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 CONSTANT CONTACT: MAIL LIST N 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 SAFEWAY: RANGER STATION SUP[ 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 GOODWILL: RANGER STATION SU[ 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 DOLLAR TREE STORES: RANGER! 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 AMAZON: LAMINATING CARRIERS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: CAMI 4.3.a Page: 44 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 227.7( -0a 8.5E aUi L =a 20.9E aD c 15.2E M 14.4, m 211.4: > 0 151.6( a Q 11.7( 0 9.5( m r 21.2( r N ti 5.4 1 o N 10.9z E 2.1� c 10.6' t R .r r a Page: 44 Packet Pg. 69 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 07/21/2016 11:03:41AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK (Continued) a 001.000.64.571.26.31.00 36.7' m AMAZON: IGNITION CONTROL FOR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.2' L AMAZON: CAMP GOODTIME TOWE 001.000.64.571.26.31.00 109.8( CASH & CARRY: CUPS FOR CIVIC I c 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.8' ALBERTSONS: ICE FOR CIVIC MAS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.9E c�a EB: EDGE OF AMAZING CONFEREl' o 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 149.0( AMAZON:SHOVEL a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.6( AMAZON: WATER PITCHERS FOR P 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 87.9E CONSTANT CONTACT: MAIL LIST N w C 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 119.4 0 CONSTANT CONTACT: MAIL LIST N o 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 265.9' a 4675 4675 PARKS CREDIT CARD Q AMAZON: SPA PART RETURNED 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -211.4< 4697 ESCC PENS EASC Snohomish County Update 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 r 30.0( r ESCC logo pens ti 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 131.2z G Styrene U-Frame Y 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.7E U E Medium slant brochure holder 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 2.9E 6 Chamber luncheon r c 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 20.0( Plastic table covering for Mayor's R .r r Q Page: 45 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 coffee creamer 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 Pentel rolling writer roller ball pens 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 planner calendar 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 Magnetic photo frames for ESCC 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 coffee 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 decorations for Mayor's annual meetii 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 Smead pressboard file folders 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 Facebook ad for ESCC ALT position 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 5179 CYBERSECURITY TRAINING, NUC i Newegg.com - Kingston 8GB 260-pin 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" 1 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - INSTEN 1042784 All-i 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 4.3.a Page: 46 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a 44.5E 11.7� aUi L =a 24.0£ W c 12.4£ 19.9£ c�a 0 17.11 L>% ca a 12.6( 19.9� U 4- 0 1.6: 0 L 12.8E a Q 4.0z 0 1.Z m r r 179.91 0 1,294.3E � U 13.9E Page: 46 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Kingston 8GB 260pin 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 ASUS VE228H 21.5" Full HD HDMI 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 ASUS VE228H 21.5" Full HD HDMI 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 Techsmith - Snagit software renewals 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 Newegg.com - Kingston 8GB 260pin 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Edmonds Hardware & Paint - Extensi 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 CyberSecurity Academy - 5 day class 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 Newegg.com - APA SUA1000 12V 10 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Amazon.com - Lexar JumpDrive S55 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61! 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 5179 3M MAINTENANCE PACKAGE CRE[ 3M - Maintenance package credit for 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 5419 DEPT CREDIT CARD 4.3.a Page: 47 c ca U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 1,294.3E a� L 185.9z =a 4- 109.9� m 109.9� c� 408.7E 0 L 123.9( a E 1,082.8E 'M U w 28.5: 0 29.8' LO- CL Q. 1,495.0( Q 110.9E 154.1( 721.9, 0 1,063.9z E 799.3E r c -1,400.0( t U R .r r Q Page: 47 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) LIC RENEWAL 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 SOFTWARE RENEWAL 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 NOTARY SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 TRAINING COURSE 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 5593 RECORDING FEES & NOTARY SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS OI 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 NOTARY TRAINING SEMINAR FOR 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 5923 MEMBERSHIPS, OFFICESPACE, DI` Purchase of leis for Diversity 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 Annual membership Internation Coun 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Purchase of image for Diversity 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 Attending tourism marketing whale 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Monthly subscription to Off iceSpace c 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 6254 6254 PARKS CR CARD CITY OF EDMONDS: BAND SHELL F 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 AMAZON: SUMMER TENNIS BALLS 4.3.a Page: 48 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 42.0( a� L 54.8� =a 4- 63.6£ c m 125.0( c� 9.0: 0 L 0 a 280.5( 280.5( u 4- 0 98.0( 0 L 125.0( a Q r- 41.9 1 100.0( m r r 25.0( 0 70.0( 100.0( c 1,601.5( t R .r r a Page: 48 Packet Pg. 73 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 7000 DEPARTMENT CREDIT CARD PARKING FEE 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 7476 INV#7476 - 7/16 - CREDIT - LODGII CR PREPAID LODGING - STRUM 6/! 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 S CR PREPAID LODGING - STRUM 6/: 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7476 INV#7476 07/06/16 - BARD - EDMO� POSTER BOARD FOR EOC 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 ALS LEVEL III HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 SUPERSAAS PKGS SUBSCRIPTIOI` 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 MOTOROLA FLEXIBLE ANTENNA 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 MAGLITE 6V NI -CAD BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 TLO SEARCHES 6/2016 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 8017 ENG CREDIT CARD JUNE 2016 E3FH.Construction Notice 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Rackleff - Docking Station 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 8304 JULY US BANK VISA CC BILL K Cups for HR Office (2 purchases 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 Barefood Student's Membership Ren( 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Brown & Caldwell - Job Posting 2016. 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 4.3.a Page: 49 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 146.1z -0) U a� L 12.0( 4- W c -75.9( -75.9( 0 39.4E a E 173.6( 23.0( o 120.3( Q 50.2! m r 45.7E r N 166.0( o N 28.9E .E c� 100.0( 200.0( E R .r r Q Page: 49 Packet Pg. 74 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220996 7/21/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 8349 8592 220997 7/21/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0676800-WA 220998 7/21/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6060126 PO # Description/Account Craigslist - Job Posting #2016-0037 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Craigslist - Job Posting (Ass. Fin. 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Craigslist - Job Posting (Gym 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Craigslist - Job Posting (Rec. Leader 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Husky Jobs (Gym Instructor II) 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Husky Jobs (Rec. Leader Gym) 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 Vista Print - Job Interest Cards 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 INV#8349 07/06/16 - ANDERSON - E CANON EOS REBEL CAMERA 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 APPLICATOR BOTTLES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 CANON IMAGE LASER PRINTER 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 APPLICATOR BOTTLE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 DEPARTMENT CREDIT CARD OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Total PRE EMPLOYMENT DRUG TEST WATER/SEWER DOT PRE -EMPLOY 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Total UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 4.3.a Page: 50 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 90.0( 90.0( =a 4- 90.0( c m 90.0( c� 10.0( 0 L 10.0( a E 20.91 'a 4- 0 749.0( 0 L 9.9£ a Q 87.8< 0 4.9c m r r 202.4£ 24,289.91 o N Y E 33.0( 33.0( c m E t R .r r Q Page: 50 Packet Pg. 75 4.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 07/21/2016 11:03:41AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 220998 7/21/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR (Continued) 0 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 65.5( UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI }, 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 65.5( L UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 67.5z Total: 198.6E m 220999 7/21/2016 075697 WALLSCHLAEGER, TRACY 06302016 POSTER ART AWARD FOR PUGET Poster art award for 2016 Puget Sour 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( _ Total: 200.0( c� 221000 7/21/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 56175 INV#56175 - EDMONDS PD Q' TOW 2004 AUDI #SH15336 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( f° 9.8% Sales Tax 4- 0 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 16.2 -,; Total: 182.2, c 0 221001 7/21/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7094 UTILITY BILLING - 5000 PINK LETTE a Utility Billing - 5000 Pink Letter Q 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 61.3< c Utility Billing - 5000 Pink Letter 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 61.3< " Utility Billing - 5000 Pink Letter 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 61.3z N 9.8% Sales Tax ti 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.0' w 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.0' E 9.8% Sales Tax ca 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.0' 7098 PARKS & REC: ENVELOPES PARKS & REC: ENVELOPES: 2 BOX E 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 161.5( R .r r a Page: 51 Packet Pg. 76 vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221001 7/21/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 221002 221003 221004 7/21/2016 075122 YAKIMACO DEPTOF CORR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 7100 7102 JUNE 2016 7/21/2016 075254 YAKIMA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES J25927 7/21/2016 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 112 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 112 Vouchers in this report PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 CEMETERY BOARD ENVELOPES CEMETERY BOARD ENVELOPES 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 DOOR HANGERS PRINTING OF DOOR HANGERS 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Tota INMATE HOUSING FOR EDMOND 46 DAYS INMATE HOUSING @$54 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 Tota 20161NTERLOCALAGREEMENT 2016 Interlocal agreement for Rack 001.000.31.518.87.45.00 0182913 PARKS - SIGN BLANKS Parks - Sign Blanks 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 52 R� c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a 0 15.8< a� L 142.0( W c 13.9. c c� 65.8E o j I : 601.1E , c� a S � .7 2,518.5( 6 I : 2,518.5( p c a 2,700.0( 0- Total : 2,700.0( • - Tota Bank tota Total voucher 0 111.0( m N 12.7: ti 0 N 12.1: 1 : 135.8E E I : 650,528.8$ r s : 650,528.81 E t R .r r Q Page: 52 Packet Pg. 77 4.3.a vchlist 07/21 /2016 11:03:41 AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Page: 53 Amoun Page: 53 c ca lid U a� 0 a m m L 0 L Q I. c.i W 0 i 0 L Q Q Q 0 r Packet Pg. 78 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 i E5FE s STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC s SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA s s STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB t STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA s STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 t E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA i WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC i STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC i STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA z STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 w E5CA i SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 t E5CC s s SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB i WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB i WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 E STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA i SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 4 E6CC i WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC s WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB i SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA c WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA 19 STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 t E7AC s STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD E STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB i STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 s E6DA z STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC i STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA s STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB t FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA u STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE a s STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA s PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 79 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 4.3.b Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 i ElFM s PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC s t STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE t FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB s STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 t E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB i FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB i WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA i STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA z PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 w E8MA s STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 t E2AD s s SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB i SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC i STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA E STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA i STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 4 E3FE i STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG s STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN i STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC c FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA 19 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 t E4DB s STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA E UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA i STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 s E3FG z STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA i STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB s STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH t STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA u STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA a s STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA s STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 80 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 81 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title E1AA * c34" Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c354 Sunset Walkway Improvement STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvement STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c423 W38th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STIR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th _ STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program 2014 Chip Seals 91a" WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basi STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 82 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title - E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Updat FAC E41LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Mmll E5HA � SIWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications AM WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates 2016 Overlay Program d WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays E6CC 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements 3rd Ave Rain Gardens wr UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza E81VIA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 83 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4,113 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E41-A c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 84 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E61FA iol 1 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 85 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E51FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 86 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i0o5 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 STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 7/21/2016 Packet Pg. 87 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 779 (07/01/2016 to 07/15/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pay Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 24.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 88.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 384.30 14,109.62 122 VACATION VACATION 1,862.50 75,505.23 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 115.00 4,413.73 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 26.00 930.24 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 207.75 7,249.71 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 50.00 1,902.78 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 27.00 1,030.80 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 84.00 3,242.71 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 180.00 6,616.68 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 74.01 3,211.49 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 45.63 1,597.13 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 231.85 8,115.17 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 33.00 2,063.52 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,039.78 530,595.07 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 200.00 7,868.82 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 24.00 1,151.39 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,269.60 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 205.50 12,613.83 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 27.75 1,789.50 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 53.90 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 398.42 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4.00 884.86 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 913.21 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 132.25 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holiday Comp 1.0 27.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 104.25 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 4.00 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 24.95 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 143.91 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC 11 Certification 0.00 84.53 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 107.89 07/21/2016 Packet Pg. 88 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 779 (07/01/2016 to 07/15/2016) 4.3.c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 294.56 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 622.35 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 125.00 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 102.75 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 989.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 731.26 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 873.40 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,933.56 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,212.80 44,394.36 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 102.75 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 888.29 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 396.36 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 737.53 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 979.56 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 5,651.40 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 206.78 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 291.06 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 931.11 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 82.46 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 80.00 3,261.82 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 200.57 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 47.12 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,920.92 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER 0.00 157.56 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 514.51 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 157.56 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 323.67 vab VACATION VACATION ADD BACK 4.50 0.00 20,513.87 $757,650.52 Total Net Pay: $506,296.37 07/21/2016 Packet Pg. 89 Hour Type Hour Class 190 REGULAR HOURS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 841 (07/19/2016 to 07/19/2016) Description REGULAR HOURS Hours Amount 8.00 8.00 120.96 $120.96 Total Net Pay: $108.33 4.3.d 07/21/2016 Packet Pg. 90 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 842 (07/20/2016 to 07/20/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 1.00 31.43 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 12.00 565.81 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 2.00 94.30 15.00 $691.54 Total Net Pay: $590.63 4.3.e c 0 L R Q E V 4- 0 0 L Q E c,> r r a 07/21/2016 Packet Pg. 91 4.3.f Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 779 - 07/01/2016 to 07/15/2016 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 62259 07/20/2016 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,925.00 62260 07/20/2016 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 388.00 62261 07/20/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 789.99 62262 07/20/2016 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,840.20 62263 07/20/2016 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,856.31 11,799.50 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 2418 07/20/2016 awc AWC 310,772.10 2421 07/20/2016 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177131 94,314.23 2422 07/20/2016 us US BANK 105,608.99 2423 07/20/2016 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,397.00 2426 07/20/2016 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,266.94 2427 07/20/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 158.00 2428 07/20/2016 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 673.50 537,190.76 Grand Totals: 548,990.26 7/21 /2016 U) U a� U .y O Direct Deposit Q- m 0.00 0.00 L 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 m 0.00 ca 0 L Direct Deposit E 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0 0.00 f° 0.00 0 0.00 0- Q. 0.00 Q 0.00 0.00 T ui r ti O N r d C N O L M r E L U a Packet Pg. 92 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Lease Agreement for Envelope Stuffing Machine Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History The City has to replace its 14 year old envelope stuffing machine. Staff Recommendation Approve lease contract with Neopost USA Inc., for 60 month term at $193.58 plus sales tax. The lease costs will be equally paid by the General, Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Funds. Narrative The City's current envelope stuffing machine has served beyond its useful life and has to be replaced. The recommended replacement machine is being secured through Washington State Department of Enterprise Services contract. Briefly, this State Department works with other States to provide a very cost-effective and efficient acquisition of products and services that are available for public agencies and the City of Edmonds to utilize. Attachments: Lease Agreement for UB Envelope Stuffing Machine UB Envelope Stuffing Machine Purchase Order Packet Pg. 93 n ' C eop �S� TERMS & 0 NOITI N � S GOVERNMENT PRODUCT LEASE AGREEMENT any In this Product Lease (the "Lease"), the words "You" and "Your" mean the lessee, which is Order Form the entity that is identified as the Customer on the Government Product Lease Agreement Order Form ("Order Form"). "We," "Us" and "Our" mean the lessor, MailFinance Inc. "Supplier" refers to either Neopost USA Inc., or any other third party that has manufactured, or is providing services related to, the Products. 1. Lease of Products. THIS LEASE IS UNCONDITIONAL AND NON -CANCELABLE (except as provided in Section 24, below) during the Initial Term (as defined below). You agree to lease from Us the equipment, embedded software, Software, and other products listed on the Order Form, together with all existing and future accessories, embedded software programs, attachments, replacements, updates, additions and repairs, (collectively the "Products") upon the terms stated herein. For the avoidance of doubt, postage meters for use in mailing machines are excluded from the definition of Products. The term "Software" means any software that is subject to this Lease, other than software programs that are embedded in the hardware. Software is subject to the additional terms as may be provided by the Supplier. 2. Promise to Pay. You promise to pay to Us the lease payment shown on the Order Form ("Lease Payment") in accordance with the payment schedule set forth thereon, plus all other amounts stated in this Lease. 3. Initial Term; Renewal. 3.1 FMV Lease. The Initial Term of this Lease will begin on the date the Products are installed and will continue for the number of months shown on the applicable Order Form ("Initial Term"). Unless You have opted for an LTOP Lease as described in Section 23, You must notify Us in writing at least thirty (30) days before the end of the Initial Term that You intend to either (i) return the Products at the end of the Initial Term; or (ii) purchase the Products pursuant to Section 22. If You have not opted for an LTOP lease and You fail to give us such notice, then this Lease will automatically renew for consecutive periods of one (1) month each (each a "Renewal Period"). The amount You pay for the Products will remain unchanged during each Renewal Period. We will not notify You that the Initial Term or any Renewal Period is ending. You may terminate this Lease at the conclusion of any Renewal Period by giving Us thirty (30) days prior written notice of Your intent to do so. If You notify Us in writing that You intend to terminate the Lease, as set forth above, You shall either return the Products pursuant to Section 12 of this Lease or purchase the products pursuant to Section 22. 3.2 LTOP Lease. If you have opted for an LTOP Lease as described in Section 23, then the term of this Lease will begin on the date the Products are installed and will continue for the number of months shown on the applicable Order Form ("Initial Term"). At the conclusion of the Initial Term of an LTOP Lease, we shall (i) transfer title of all hardware Products to You as set forth in Section 23; and (ii) Your license to use any Software Products shall continue without the need to make any further license payments to Us. 4. Payments. Lease Payments, and other charges provided for herein, are payable in arrears periodically as stated on the Order Form ("Lease Payment"). You agree to make Lease Payments to Us at the address specified on Our invoices, or at Page 1 of 6 other place designated by Us within thirty (30) days of the date of Our invoice. 5. Delivery and Location of Products. The Products will be delivered to You at the delivery address specified on the Order Form ("Delivery Address") or, if no such location is specified, to Your invoice address. Your acceptance of the Products occurs upon delivery of the Products. You shall not remove the Products from the Delivery Address unless You first get Our written permission to do so. 6. Ownership, Use, and Maintenance of Products. We will own and have title to the Products during the Lease. You agree that the Products are and shall remain Our personal property. You authorize Us to record (and amend, if appropriate) a UCC financing statement to protect Our interests. You represent that the Products will be used solely for commercial purposes and not for personal, family or household purposes. At Your own cost, You agree to maintain the Products in accordance with the applicable operation manuals and to keep the Products in good working order, ordinary wear and tear excepted. 7. Assignment of Supplier's Warranties. We hereby assign to You any warranties relating to the Products that We may have received from the Supplier. 8. Relationship of the Parties. You agree that You, not We, selected the Products and the Supplier, and that We are a separate company from the Supplier and that the Supplier is not Our agent. IF YOU ARE A PARTY TO ANY POSTAGE METER RENTAL, MAINTENANCE, SERVICE, SUPPLIES OR OTHER CONTRACT WITH ANY SUPPLIER, WE ARE NOT A PARTY THERETO, AND SUCH CONTRACT IS NOT PART OF THIS LEASE (EVEN THOUGH WE MAY, AS A CONVENIENCE TO YOU AND THE SUPPLIER, BILL AND COLLECT MONIES OWED BY YOU TO THEM). 9. Default. You will be in default under this Lease if You fail to pay any amount within ten (10) days of the due date or fail to perform or observe any other obligation in this Lease. If You default, We may, without notice to You, do any one or more of the following, at Our option, concurrently or separately: (A) cancel this Lease; (B) require You to return the Products pursuant to Section 12 below; (C) take possession of and/or render the Products unusable, and for such purposes You hereby authorize Us and Our designees to enter Your premises, with prior reasonable notice or other process of law; and (D) require You to pay to Us, on demand as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, an amount equal to the sum of: (i) all Lease Payments and other amounts then due and past due; (ii) all remaining Lease Payments for the then -current term, together with any taxes due or to become due during such term (which You agree is a reasonable estimate of Our damages); and (iii) in the event that You failed to promptly return the Products to Us, an amount equal to the remaining value of the Products at the end of the then -current term, as reasonably determined by Us. You shall also pay all Our costs in enforcing Our rights under this Lease, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses that We incur to take possession, store, repair, or dispose of the Products, as well as any other expenses that We may incur to collect amounts owed to Us. We are not required to re -lease or sell the Products if We repossess them. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 94 4.4.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p 10. Finance Lease. You agree that this Lease is a "finance lease" as defined in Article 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"). To the extent permitted by law, You hereby waive any and all rights and remedies conferred upon You under UCC Sections 2A-303 and 2A-508 through 2A-522, or any similar laws. 11. Loss; Damage; Insurance. You shall: (i) bear the risk of loss and damage to the Product(s) for the Initial Term and any Renewal Period; and (ii) keep the Product(s) insured, at Your expense, against all risks of loss and damage in an amount at least equal to its full replacement cost. 12. Return of Products. Unless You take title to the hardware Products pursuant to Section 22 or Section 23, then You are required to return the Products under this Lease. In such a case, at the end of the Lease, You shall, after receiving an Equipment Return Authorization ("ERA") number from Us, promptly send the Products, at Your expense, to any location(s) that We designate, in addition to paying Us Our then -applicable processing fee. The Products must be properly packed for shipment with the ERA number clearly visible, freight prepaid and fully insured, and must be received in good condition, less normal wear and tear. 13. Assignment. YOU SHALL NOT SELL, TRANSFER, ASSIGN, SUBLEASE, PLEDGE OR OTHERWISE ENCUMBER (COLLECTIVELY, "TRANSFER") THE PRODUCTS OR THIS LEASE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 14. Disclaimer of Warranties. WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCT(S), ITS CONDITION, ITS MERCHANTABILITY, ITS FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ITS FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT, OR OTHERWISE. WE PROVIDE THE PRODUCTS TO YOU "AS IS," "WHERE IS" AND "WITH ALL FAULTS." 15. Limitation of Liability. WE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU AND YOU SHALL NOT MAKE A CLAIM AGAINST US FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE (INCLUDING INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES), OR EXPENSE OF ANY KIND ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE DELIVERY, INSTALLATION, USE, RETURN, LOSS OF USE, DEFECT, MALFUNCTION, OR ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS (COLLECTIVELY, "PRODUCT MATTERS"). NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS LEASE, EXCEPT FOR DIRECT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM PERSONAL INJURY OR DAMAGE TO TANGIBLE PROPERTY CAUSED BY OUR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, THE MAXIMUM OUR LIABILITY TO YOU FOR DAMAGES HEREUNDER SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO US HEREUNDER BY YOU. 16. Notice. All notices, requests and other communications hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be addressed to You or Us, as applicable and shall be considered given when (i.) delivered personally, or (ii.) sent by commercial overnight courier with written confirmation of delivery. 17. Integration. The Lease represents the final and only agreement between You and Us. There are no unwritten oral agreements between You and Us. The Lease can be changed Page 2 of 6 only by a written agreement between You and Us. Any additional terms and conditions referenced on any Purchase Order shall be void and have no effect on this Lease. 18. Severability. In the event any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. The parties agree to replace any invalid provision with a valid provision, which most closely approximates the intent and economic effect of the invalid provision. 19. Waiver or Delay. A waiver of any default hereunder or of any term or condition of this Lease shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver or a waiver of any other default or any other term or condition, but shall apply solely to the instance to which such waiver is directed. We may accept late payments, partial payments, checks, or money orders marked "payment in full," or with a similar notation, without compromising any rights under this Lease. 20. Survival of Obligations. Your obligations under this Lease shall survive any expiration or termination of any government procurement contract that may be related to it. Any obligations and duties which by their nature extend beyond the expiration or termination of this Lease shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease. 21. Choice of Law; Venue; and Attorney's Fees. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with, and all disputes hereunder shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Connecticut, excluding its conflict of law rules. The state and federal courts in Hartford County in the State of Connecticut shall have the exclusive jurisdiction and venue over all controversies arising out of, or relating to, this Lease. The prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and the court shall be authorized to award such amounts. 22. FMV Leases. If this Lease is a fair market value lease, as indicated by the lease rate that has been used by Us to calculate Your Lease Payment then, unless You are in default, You may elect to purchase the hardware Products at the end of this Lease on an "as is, where is" basis for their fair market value, as reasonably determined by Us. In the event that You elect to do so, You must give us sixty (60) days prior written notice of Your election to purchase such Products. 23. LTOP Leases. If this Lease is a lease to purchase, as indicated by the lease rate that has been used by Us to calculate Your Lease Payments then, at the end of the Initial Term and after You have made all of the Lease Payments, We shall transfer title to all hardware Products that are subject to this Lease to You on an "as is, where is" basis. 24. Termination. 24.1 Non -Appropriation. a. You warrant and represent that You intend to enter into this Lease for at least the entire Initial Term and that You are doing so for an essential government purpose. You agree that, prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, you shall not terminate this Lease in order to obtain the same or similar Products from another vendor. b. You may terminate this Lease at the end of Your current fiscal year, or at the end of any subsequent fiscal year, if appropriated funds are not available to You for the Lease Payments that will be due in the next fiscal year. In the event of such a non -appropriation, then You shall provide written notice to Us that states: Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 95 neopostJ4TERMS &CONDITIONS Sufficient funds have not been and will not be appropriated for the remaining payments due under the Lease. I confirm that we will not replace the Products with similar equipment from any other party in the succeeding fiscal year. 24.2 Convenience. You may terminate this Lease at anytime and for any reason or for no reason ("Termination for Convenience"); provided that You comply with the provisions of this paragraph. In the event of a Termination for Convenience, You shall pay Us a termination charge equal to the net present value of the periodic payments remaining in the Initial Term or, if applicable, the then -current Renewal Term, discounted to the present value at an interest rate equal to six percent (6%) per annum. Such amount must be received by Us within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the termination. 25. Additional Postage Meter Terms. If the Products require a postage meter, then You agree that Neopost USA's Postage Meter Rental Agreement shall govern your rental of such postage meter. POSTAGE METER RENTAL AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. Customer acknowledges that: (i) it has entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc. (the "Lease"); and (ii) if the Products that are subject to the Lease includes a mailing machine, then the terms of this Postage Meter Rental Agreement ("Rental Agreement") shall govern its rental of the Postage Meter (as defined below) for such machine. Any defined terms in the Lease shall have the same meanings in this Rental Agreement, except that "We," "Us," and "Our," refers to Neopost USA Inc., and any reference to "Products" shall refer to the Postage Meter. Sections 11, 12 and 14 through 25 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Rental Agreement, except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refer to this Rental Agreement. 2. Provisions as to Use. You acknowledge that: (i) as required by United States Postal Service ("USPS") regulations, the postage meter(s) identified on the Order Form (the "Postage Meter") is being rented to You and that it is Our property; (ii) the Postage Meter will be surrendered by You upon demand by Us (iii) You are responsible for the control and use of the Postage Meter; (iv) You will comply with all applicable laws regarding Your use or possession of the Postage Meter; (v) the use of the Postage Meter is subject to the conditions established from time to time by the United States Postal Service; and (vi) the Postage Meter is to be used only for generating an indicia to evidence the prepayment of postage and to account for postal funds. It is a violation of Federal law to misuse or tamper with the Postage Meter and, if You do so, We may terminate this Rental Agreement upon notice to You. 3. Rental Fee, Term, and Taxes. The rental fee for the Postage Meter rental during the Initial Term is included in the Lease Payment. For each Renewal Term, You agree to pay Our then -current fee for the Postage Meter rental. The Postage Meter rental fee does not include the cost of consumable supplies. The term of the rental shall be equal to the term of the Lease and is NON -CANCELABLE. You agree to pay all applicable taxes related to Your acquisition, possession, and/or use of the Postage Meter including all property taxes on the Postage Meter. Furthermore, You agree to pay the applicable fee to cover Our expenses associated with the administration, billing and tracking of such charges and taxes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event You are tax exempt, upon providing Us a certificate, You will not be required to pay any taxes covered by such certificate. You agree that you will return the Postage Meter at the end of the Lease term and that You will do so in the manner set forth in Section 12 of the Lease. Furthermore, You agree that if you fail to return a postage meter within thirty (30) days of receipt of the ERA then You will pay a postage meter replacement fee of $1,000. 4. Postage Meter Maintenance, Inspections, and Location. We will keep the Postage Meter in good working condition during the term of this Rental Agreement. The United States Postal Service regulations may require Us to periodically inspect the Postage Meter. You agree to cooperate with Us regarding such inspections. We may, from time to time, access and download information from Your Postage Meter to provide Us with information about Your postage usage and We may share that information with Our distributors and other third parties and You hereby authorize Us to do so. You agree to promptly update Us whenever there is any change in Your name, address, telephone number, the licensing post office, or the location of the Postage Meter. 5. Postage Advances. We do not sell postage. In the event You require an emergency advance for postage, We, at Our sole discretion, may advance You money to reset the Postage Meter. If We do provide such an advance, You agree to repay Us within five (5) days from the time of such advance: (i) the amount of the emergency advance; and (ii) the then -current advance fee. 6. Default. In the event You fail to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in this Rental Agreement, or any other Agreement with Us or any of Our affiliates, including, but not limited to, MailFinance Inc., and Mailroom Finance, Inc., then We may, without notice: (i) repossess the Postage Meter(s); (ii) disable the Postage Meter; (iii) immediately terminate this Rental Agreement; and (iv) pursue any remedies available to Us at law or in equity. Furthermore, upon the return of the Postage Meter, You hereby authorize Us to offset any amount of postage remaining in the Postage Meter, prior to any refund to You, against any amount due to Us or any of Our affiliates. You shall also pay all of Our costs in enforcing Our rights under this Rental Agreement, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses that We incur to take possession, store, or repair, the Postage Meter, as well as any other expenses that We may incur to collect amounts owed to Us. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. 7. Rate Updates. A. MAINTENANCE OF POSTAL RATES. It is Your sole responsibility to ensure that correct amounts are applied as payment for mailing and shipping services. We shall not be responsible for returns for delivery delays, refusals, or any other problems caused by applying the incorrect rate to mail or packages. Page 3 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 96 4.4.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p B. Rate Updates with Online Services. If the Order Form indicates that You are enrolled in Our Online Services program, then We will make available periodic updates for Your covered Products and/or Postage Meter, including updates to maintain accurate USPS rates for the USPS services that are compatible with such Products or Postage Meter. The rate updates that are offered with Our Online Services program are only available for products that are Integrated (as defined below) into Your mailing machine. For the purposes of this section, "Integrated" means that the covered hardware cannot properly operate on a stand-alone basis and it has been incorporated into the mail machine. Products that are not Integrated including, but not limited to, all Software and scales with "ST-77," or "SE" in the model number will not receive updated rates as part of Our Online Services program (collectively "Excluded Products"). C. Rate Updates with Rate Change Protection and Software Advantage. If You have any of Our Excluded Products, You may have elected to purchase Rate Change Protection ("RCP") from Us for Your hardware products or Software Advantage for Your Software. If the Order Form indicates that You have selected RCP or Software Advantage, We will make available e the following updates for Your covered Products or Software: (i) updates to maintain accurate rates for the services offered by the USPS and other couriers that are compatible with Your covered Products or Software; and (ii) updates for major zip or zone changes that are compatible with Your covered Products or Software. If any reprogramming is required because You have moved the Products or Postage Meter to a new location, none of the services described in this Section cover the cost to do so. If You have not selected RCP or Software Advantage, You agree that We may send You periodic rate updates as needed and You agree to either: (i) promptly pay the then -current price for such update; or (ii) return the unused, update to Us within ten (10) business days of receiving it. Customers with an outstanding Accounts Receivable balance may not receive a rate update until the open balance is resolved. 8. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT. By signing this Postage Meter Rental Agreement, You acknowledge and agree that You have read the United States Postal Service Acknowledgement of Deposit (the "Acknowledgement") and will comply with its terms and conditions, as it may be amended from time to time. 9. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TERMS. A. To the extent that the activities for which the Postal Service is obligated to perform particular functions, those functions will be governed by the USPS Domestic Mail Manual, as may be amended from time to time, or its successor, in effect at the time of the obligation. Specifically, to the extent that the Postal Service provides refunds to customers using postage evidencing devices, the policy and procedure governing the payment of refunds will be conducted in accordance with the Domestic Mail Manual, as amended, in effect at that time. B. If the meter is used in any fraudulent or unlawful scheme or enterprise, or is not used for any consecutive 12 month period, or if the Customer takes the meter or allows the meter to be taken outside the United States without proper written permission of the U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-6807, or if the Customer otherwise fails to abide by the signs of postal regulations and this Rental Agreement regarding care and use of the meter, that this Agreement and any related postage meter rental may be revoked. The Customer further acknowledges that any use of this meter that fraudulently deprives the U.S. Postal Service of revenue can cause the Customer to be subject to civil and criminal penalties applicable to fraud and/or false claims against the United States. The submission of a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement can result in imprisonment of up to five (5) years and fines of up to $10,000 (18 U.S.C. 1001). In addition, a civil penalty of up to $5,000 and an additional assessment of twice the amount falsely claimed may be imposed (3 U.S.C. 3802). A false statement in this application or the mailing of matter bearing a fraudulent postage meter imprints are examples of violations of these statutes. C. The Customer is responsible for immediately reporting (within seventy-two hours or less) the theft or loss of the postage meter that is subject to this Rental Agreement. Failure to comply with this notification provision in a timely manner may result in the denial of refund of funds remaining on the postage meter at the time of the loss or theft. D. The Customer understands that the rules and regulations regarding use of this postage meter as documented in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual may be updated from time to time by the United States Postal Service and it is the Customer's obligation to comply with any current or future rules and regulations regarding its use. neoFunds/TotalFunds ACCOUNT AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. You acknowledge that You have entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc. (the "Lease") and a Postage Meter Rental Agreement with Neopost USA Inc. (the "Rental Agreement"). If you have an eliible postage meter, then you will have access to a neoFunds postage funding account (for Neopost POC accounts) or a TotalFunds® postage funding account (for Hasler TMS accounts) and this neoFunds/TotalFunds Account Agreement ("Account Agreement") shall govern Your use of such account. Any defined terms in the Lease or Rental Agreement shall have the same meanings in this neoFunds Agreement, except that "We," "Us," and "Our," refer to Mailroom Finance, Inc., an affiliate of Neopost USA Inc. Sections 14 through 20 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Account Agreement Page 4 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 97 4.4.a n ' TERMS & CO NOITI N eo �S� � S p except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refers to this Account Agreement. 2. Establishment and Activation of Account. You hereby authorize Us, to establish an account in Your name ("Account") for funding the purchase of postage from the United State Postal Service ("USPS") for use in the postage meter. Your Account may also be used to purchase supplies, pay for the Postage Meter rental, and obtain certain other products and services from Neopost USA. The establishment of Your Account shall be subject to Our approval of Your creditworthiness. Any use of the Account shall constitute Your acceptance of all the terms and conditions of this Account Agreement and all other documents executed or provided in connection with the Account. The Account may not be used for personal, family, or household purposes. 3. Operation of Account. Each time an employee or agent of Yours with the express, implied, or apparent authority to do so (each an "Authorized User") uses the Account to receive a postage meter reset or obtain other products or services that Neopost USA Inc. is authorized to provide, Neopost USA Inc. will notify Us of the amount to be applied to Your Account balance. If the Account is used to obtain postage, then We will transfer the requested amount of postage to the USPS on Your behalf and Your Account will be charged for the amount of postage requested and any related fees, if applicable. You can continue to pre -pay the USPS for postage and understand that pre -paid postage funds will be used first to pay for my postage meter resets. You further understand that neoFunds/TotalFunds will provide additional available postage funds when Your pre -paid account balance is zero (SO). When You request a postage meter reset, if You have the funds on account with the USPS, those funds automatically will be withdrawn first to pay for postage, and any additional amounts due for postage and related fees will be billed through the neoFunds/TotalFunds Account under the terms and conditions of this Account Agreement. If the Account is used to acquire products or services from that Neopost USA is authorized to provide, then We shall pay the applicable amount to Neopost USA Inc. and add such amount to Your Account balance. 4. Payment Terms. You will receive a billing statement for each billing cycle in which You have any activity on Your Account. Payments are due on the due date shown on Your billing statement. You may pay the entire balance due or a portion of the balance, provided that You pay at least the minimum payment amount shown on Your statement. However, if You have exceeded the Account Limit, then You must pay the entire amount of any overage, as well as the minimum payment amount shown on Your statement. Whenever there is an unpaid balance outstanding on Your Account which is not paid in full by the due date shown on Your billing statement, We will charge You, and You agree to pay, interest on the unpaid balance of the Account for each day from the date the transaction is posted to Your Account until the date the unpaid balance is paid in full, at the Annual Percentage Rate (as defined below). The Account balance that is subject to a finance charge each day will include outstanding balances, minus any payments and credits received by Us on Your Account that day. The Annual Percentage Rate applicable to Your Account will be equal to the lesser of eighteen percent (18.00%) per annum or the maximum permitted by law. Each payment will be applied to reduce the outstanding balance of Your Account and replenish the amount available to You. We may refuse to extend further credit if the amount of a requested charge plus Your existing balance exceeds Your Account Limit. 5. Account Limit and Account Fees. You agree that We will establish a credit limit on Your Account (the "Account Limit"). The exact amount of the Account Limit will be indicated on Your invoice. We may, in Our sole discretion, allow Your balance to exceed the Account Limit. In the event We do so, You agree to pay Us an additional fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount by which the Account Limit is exceeded for each transaction that You initiate after Your Account has reached the Account Limit. Such amount will be charged to Your Account on the date that the relevant transaction(s) occurs. Unless prohibited by applicable law, You agree to pay the amounts set forth in this Account Agreement, which may include, without limitation, the amounts specified above, a fee for a late payment, and a fee for any checks that are returned as a result of insufficient funds. Unless prohibited by applicable law, We may charge You and You agree to pay Our fees then in effect for copies of Your monthly statements. All such fees shall be added to Your Account balance. 6. Cancellation and Suspension. We may at any time close or suspend Your Account or temporarily refuse to allow further charges to Your Account. You can cancel Your Account at any time by notifying Us in writing at the address provided on Your Account statement of Your desire to do so. No cancellation or suspension will affect Your obligation to pay any amounts You then owe under this Account Agreement. We will notify You of the Account balance in the event of any termination and all outstanding obligations will survive the termination of this Account Agreement by either party. 7. Default. We may declare You in default if You: (i.) have made any misrepresentations to Us; (ii.) at any time, have done or allowed anything that indicates to Us that You may be unable or unwilling to repay the balance of Your Account as required under this Account Agreement; or (iii.) are in default under this Account Agreement or any lease, rental, or other agreement with Us, Neopost USA Inc., or their affiliates. If You are in default, or upon any cancellation of Your Account, We shall not be obligated to continue to provide the Account service or extend further credit under this Account Agreement. If We are required to take collection action or any other legal action under this Account Agreement, You shall pay upon demand by Us all court and collection costs, along with reasonable attorney's fees. These remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to Us. 8. Remedies. If We have declared that You are in default under this Account Agreement, then We may: (i) declare all agreements You have with Us in default and due and payable at once without notice or demand; (ii) refuse to make further advances on Your behalf to reset Your postage meter; and (iii) exercise any other rights that We may have. In addition, You agree that any default under this Account Agreement shall constitute a default under any agreement You may have with any of Our affiliates, including, but not limited to, Neopost USA Inc., MailFinance Inc. 9. Amendments. We may amend this Account Agreement, or any of its provisions, including without limitation any fees and charges and/or the Annual Percentage Rate, at any time by at least thirty (30) days written notice to You, and such Page 5 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 98 4.4.a n ' TERM & C NOITI N eo �S� 5 0 � S p written notice may be included in Your billing statement. Any such amendment will become effective on the date stated in the notice and will apply to any transactions after such date, as well as to any outstanding balance on Your Account. 10. Notice: Any notice required to be given under this Account Agreement by either party hereto shall be given if to You, at the address shown on Your Order Form, and if to Us at P.O. Box 30193, Tampa, Florida 33630-3193. 11. Miscellaneous. You understand that We may obtain credit reports in connection with Your Account now and in the future. This Account Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, without reference to its conflict -of -laws rules, and any applicable federal laws. The sole jurisdiction and venue for actions related to the subject matter hereof shall be in a State or Federal Court within the State of Florida. ONLINE SERVICES AND SOFTWARE AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Certain Terms. You acknowledge that You have entered a Government Product Lease Agreement with MailFinance Inc (the "Lease"). Any defined terms in the Lease shall have the same meanings in this Online Services and Software Agreement ("OSS Agreement"), except that "We," 'Us," and "Our," refer to Neopost USA Inc. Sections 13 through 21 of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this OSS Agreement, except that any reference in those sections to the "Lease" refer to this OSS Agreement. 2. License Grant and Additional Terms. In exchange for the license fees that are included in Your Lease Payment, We hereby grant to You a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the Software products, including related documentation, described on the Order Form solely for Your own use on or with the Products. You warrant and represent that You will not sell, transfer, disclose or otherwise make available such Software products or copies thereof to third parties; provided, however, that the Software products may be used by Your employees or independent contractors using the Products. No title or ownership of the Software products or any portion thereof is transferred to You. You acknowledge and agree that there may be additional terms and conditions that apply to Your use of any Software provided by Us. Such terms may be provided with the Software, or made available at www.neopostusa.com/softwareterms/ and may be supplemented by Us or third party licensors, from time to time, by notice to You. You acknowledge and agree that You have access to the appropriate version(s) of the applicable terms provided at the address above and corresponding to Software described on the Order Form at the time you enter this OSS Agreement. Such terms are incorporated herein by this reference and You agree to be bound by such terms as if they were fully stated herein. 3. Use of Websites. Neopost USA Inc. and/or any of Our affiliates, suppliers, including, but not limited to, MailFinance Inc. may, from time to time, make certain websites available to You in order to provide You with certain services ("Websites"). If You access any such Websites, You acknowledge and agree that Your use of the Website is subject to the terms of use and/or license terms in effect at the time You use the Website. Such terms are available on the Websites for Your review. You acknowledge and agree that such terms may be supplemented and modified from time to time ("Supplemental Terms"). Your use of a Website after Supplemental Terms have been issued will signify Your acceptance of those terms. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this OSS Agreement and the Supplemental Terms, the Supplemental Terms shall control. Page 6 of 6 Dealer Government Lease Version: DealerGovLease-06-13 NEOPOST USA 1 4?3 WHEELERS FARMS ROAD I MILFORD, CT 06461 I TEL: 203.301.3400 I FAX: 203.301.2600 Packet Pg. 99 4.4.b City of Edmonds 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3163 425 775-2525 WSCA/NASPO: ADSP011-00000411-4/WA 03415 To: MailFinance Inc. 478 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 800-881-6245 WSCA/NASPO - PURCHASE ORDER - LEASE SHIP TO: Denise Kenyon City of Edmonds 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3183 425 775-2525 P.O. DATE REQUISITIONER SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. POINT TERMS CITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 DS63ST1.5 1 ESP01 1 '/2 Station folder inserter Line Conditioner Includes maintenance for term. 60 month lease at $193.58 p/mo (invoiced quarterly) $193.58 $11,614.80 SUBTOTAL SALES TAX 9.8% SHIPPING & HANDLING OTHER TOTAL 1,138.25 $12,753.05 1. Order is governed under the terms and conditions of the WSCA/NASPO Master Price Agreement Contract Number ADSP011-00000411-4/WA 03415. Enter this order in accordance with the prices, terms, delivery method, and specifications listed above. 2. Payments will be sent to: MailFinance 25881 Network Place Chicago, IL 60673-1258 Federal ID Number: 94-2984524 3. Send all correspondence to: MailFinance Inc. 478 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 Phone 203-301-3400 Fax: 203-301-2600 Authorized by Print Name and Title Date Packet Pg. 100 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Authorization to release the salvage of unit 126-PRK to Evergreen Adjustment Service Staff Lead: Phil Williams & Mike Adams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History Evergreen Adjustment Services was contacted to receive the salvaged remains of a vehicle totaled in the fire at City Park on 6/8/16. Insurance has agreed to pay the city for its loss. Staff Recommendation Authorize Evergreen Adjustment to take salvaged vehicle. Narrative The parks truck unit #126 (2002 Dodge 3500 flatbed VIN # 3B6MC36502M262599) was totaled in the fire at City Park on 6/8/16. Insurance will pay the City $21,568.01 for the loss once they receive the title. Evergreen Adjustment Services will take the salvage. Packet Pg. 101 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Snohomish Health District's Proposed Per Capita Investment (15 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Representatives of the Snohomish Health District will present a proposal for a per -capita investment by Snohomish County cities to help finance the Health District. An interlocal agreement would be the intended outcome. Background and details to be provided in the presentation. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 102 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Public Hearing on a Concession Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog (10 min.) Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History In 2004, the City Council adopted modifications to regulations governing street vendors. The regulations required street vendors to have a mobile vending cart capable of being pushed by a single person that could be easily moved and not permanently located on city right-of-way. In 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3604 which allowed for concession agreements to be entered into for the lease of public right-of-way space. Over the past 10 years, the City Council has approved and renewed concession agreements with various vendors for the subject site, including Milltown Pizza, Shorts'N Slippas, and most recently, Hot Diggity Dog in 2014. Staff Recommendation Hold a public hearing and consider the merits of the concession agreement application. Narrative The attached application for a concession agreement was submitted by Dean Parmenter of Hot Diggity Dog. The applicant proposes to sell specialty hot dogs, chips, and drinks (bottled water and sodas) on City right-of-way located at James Street immediately east of the ferry holding lanes and adjacent to the SR104 park. Prior to 2014, concessionaires paid a monthly lease rate of approximately $100 for the use of the right- of-way. In 2014, the City Council approved an amended concession agreement with Hot Diggity Dog which reflected a lease rate of 10% of gross receipts. 2014 revenue records indicate that Hot Diggity Dog paid approximately $400 per month while operating on the James Street ROW. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the application submitted by Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog. Attached as Exhibit 2 is Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04, Concession Agreements, which states that concession agreements may be granted at the sole discretion of the City Council. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the proposed new concession agreement prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Attached as Exhibit 4 is the 2014 agenda memorandum and minutes regarding the Hot Diggity Dog concession agreement. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Hot Diggity Dog 2016 Exhibit 2 - ECC 4.04 Concession Agreements Packet Pg. 103 7.1 Exhibit 3 - Template Concession Agreement 2016 Exhibit 4 - 2014 agenda memo and minutes Packet Pg. 104 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION FOR CONCESSION AGREEMENT Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04 / APPLICANT: (� Date: Name of Applicant: 1�kr Business Name: Address:. to flq V 1 'Cw i...Ql1e. ci t rlkn wa ' !322A(D_ Street City State Zip Home Phone: 3(90 "(032-- 'q 1) L4 Business Phone: l y, _ Cell Phone: ��o� e— / PROPOSED LOCATION (attach map): Me, ` - - I 1 �- Awn-u ek TC'9 / DESCRIPTION OF VENDING UNIT AND SIGNAGE TO BE PLACED ON SITE (attach photo/diagram with dimensions): E 1 --. f it / DESCRIPTIONN OF FOOD/DRINKS 7OR SERVICES TO BE OFFERED: _��.i� / OPERATING HOURS (Include months, days of week, daily hours): rfw7 ature of / PLEAS, I;iCLUDE THP FO LOWING WITH YOUR APPLICATION: ,tC�+ 3 C• I. ritten approval of site rom abutting property owner/tenant. 2. Evidence of Snohomish County Health District approval. 3. Proof of Instn•ance ($1,000,000 pier p c��rrenee and $5,000,000 in the aggregate). Pr4Ditr, 0 A,L "�(.r+fvA ' 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY OF EDMONDS SITE APPROVED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Signature • APPROVAL BY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Signature • STREET USE PERMIT Signature • BUSINESS LICENSE FOR THE SITE Signature Date Approved Date Approved Date Approved Date Approved File No. Permit No. License No. CONCESSION AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Packet Pg. 105 7.1.a vet %"■va 4%.OfR*00ai ■ HEALTH DISTRICT W W W.SNOHD.ORG Annual Food Establishment Permit Application -Application must be completed in hell and submitted with fee and the RE6ltlIR D items listed liar processing., ❑ Menu (including beverages) ❑ Food Flow Sheet..(HACCP) . ❑ Ca mmissary.Let6erlFood Stand Concessions & ❑ Restroom lwetter J Mobile Food Vehicles only Submittal Complete- ENS Initials Establishment Name:^ O VC'� Site Phone:LVv lFi La "C� Establishment Address: 1;8 Yt City / ziip: U 41+0 Pl Owner Name: �-)e-'C'd\ _ Owner Phone: �SW -01- Mailing Address (if different): City/ St/ Zip: Email Address: ❑�f t ` Q�u�1 ]el` 2-OOS dl hot 1 ' i I , -CO 0-1 Signature of the owner or an officer of the legal ownership affirms the accuracy of the information provided in this application and that a penaitted lity will be operated in compliance with the rules of the Washington State Food Code. Signature: Date: Print Name:�{� ❑ New establishment ❑ Change of ownership (PLU 301)-- Must complete reverse side of application. GENERAL FOOD *0- 12 Seats (PLU 374) ❑ 13 - 50 Seats (PLU 375) ❑ 51 -150 Seats (PLU 376) ❑ 151 - 250 Seats (PLU 377) ❑ Over 250 Seats (PLU 378) MULTIPLE PERMITS RISK CATEGORY ❑ Grocery A (Low) ❑ Bakery ❑ Deli ❑ C (High) ❑ Meat / Fish ❑ Specialty Fish ❑ Other OTHER ❑ Catering Only (PLU 374) Mobile Food Vehicle exce t frozen foods) (PLU 303) Permits are valid through December 31 and are NOT transferable. New permits issued on or after the following dates are pro -rated: April 1- 75% of annual fee July 1- 50% of annual fee October 1- 25% of annual fee (Does not apply to flee for change of ownership.) PERMIT # m r OFFICE USE ONLY c N 0) 0 a Mailed / Delivered ! PU Date / Initials a� 2 0 x Da.te:07/06/16 R#:305 1:37 I Clerk: 407 Invoice# 3002790E x Sub -Total: 432. w Total: 432. m E Check # 1386-pa.rm enter 4325. iT:�i_:,,��l:J•:icitii5`Ti r•1 6i: i!;�"r�-;s!_ ca_ 4r.- P, ae: 4.�. 1 176. Q Environmental Health Division 374 1 256. 3020 Rucker Avenue, Suite 104 0 Everett, WA 98201-3900 ■ fax: 425.339.5254 0 tel: 425.339.5250 I-- Packet Pg. 106 17* SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT WWW.SNOHD.ORG •S a vr\x, rrU vJ ✓"kt' l U Y`�n�� c i� rv\-e 7.1.a General Food Plan Review Application ,application must be completed in full and submi«ed with fee and the items listed for processing: ❑ Menu (Including beverages ❑ HACCP Menu Review ❑ Plans & specifications Reviewed for completeness by I TYPE OF PLAN REVIEW (Check applicable box) EHS Initials ❑ $659 (FLU 333) New food service establishment ❑ $176 Base fee plus $176 per hour for each add'I hour PLU 311) Remodel of existing food service establishment or revision of approved plan $176 (PLU 335) Reopen former food service establishment ❑ $176 (FLU 334) New Limited Grocery ❑ $176 p lus lab fees (PLU 385) HACCP—when req'd by WAC for menu items ❑ $659 Base fee p1GS far each add'i permit (PLU 366fifi) New multiple permit food service establishment (large grocery store) Inspection is based upon requirements of WAC 246-215. Rules & Regulations of the State Board of Health for Food Service Sanitation. Other agency approvals requisite to your operation may include County or City Planning, Building, Plurnbing and Fire Departments, Water and Sewer Utilities. - C22 - APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE OFFIC yI e:L'F(fV, 16 R#: 05 Clerk: 407 Imeoice# Sub -Total: Total: Check # 1386-parmenter Change; 35 1 374 1 to 0 N O7 O r D O 2 T" 1 :37 pr � z 0r7?06t W 4a2.0 r 432. C z 432.( 0 °'C a 176.0 256.0 Environmental Health Division 3020 Rucker Avenue, Suite 104 0 Everett, WA 98201-3900 s fax: 425.339.5254 N tel: 425.339.5250 Packet Pg. 107 7.1.a SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 3020 Rucker Ave, Suite 104 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.5250 07/06/16 Invoice Invoice # 300279065 1:37 pm Sales Person: 407 Register #:305 Plan Rev Site Insp reopen form 1 @ 176.00 each 176.00 General Food - 0-12 seats - MR 1 @ 256.00 each 256.00 --------------------- --------------------- Sub-Total: 432.00 Total: 432.00 Check # 1386-parmenter: 432.00 ---------------------- ---------------------- Total Paid: 432.00 Change: 0.00 Packet Pg. 108 dE Foo stablishment Inspection Report Page of XfHealth. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY !�� OHOMmH --I-- �i�tSt;E'r/I�EA LLeN"� iI��L.;`�-L H 1_.)iI;"IkICT t''�St"' Wz:a�i:�Fi� EMAIL W20 f Loxer Aw,mie, suite 104, Evemtt, WA W?Ul,1 Y0'VW.SI`40F 0.06IRG 425.33_iA.2W NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT ADDRESS OR LOCATION CITY MEALS SERVED B L D C O 4RPOSE OF ElRoutine L)�Preoperational ❑ Reinspection ESTABLISHMENT TYPE RISK CATEGORY MEALS OBSERVED B L D C O INSPECTION El ElIOthe llness Investigation D Temporary ❑ Complaint �l Oi;), DATE ELAPSED TIME TOTAL POINTS RED POINTS REPEAT RED PHONE =TIMEN TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS .2 Temp nem Food Location °F Food Location •F' V Q r C d E O O L Q O OBSERVATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Item Violations cited in this report must be corrected within the time frames specified. y Poinl V Number 11 U C �° 1( E O � L d :.1 ` A V :Aye �. �,. _ q r• r:. ,- qiy.� T v co N 0) O F� r O 2 t K W r C d E Comments - O - a F� Person In Charge (Person In Charge )` A 5 nature Print Name L� i- AA I 4- i/} t CA Date Rogulstory Authority • ,� Regulatory Authority 1 , Si nature Print Name �a t' i n■ Follow-up Needed . Packet Pg. 109 uuN ooz-uoob t vr*a. Ray LU'I:i) r V 07-07-16;10:47AM;From: To:4257710266 ;3609300642 # CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDONYYY) 07/0712010 THIS CERTIFICATE 15 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, IMPORTANT: If the Certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be cndorsed. If SUSROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may roqulro an ondorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the ccrtiflcate holder In lieu of such endorsoment(s), PRODUCER CaNTAGT -- �9µH: PHONE 206-407-3757 IFAIt.NaL 360-930.064Z Chrystal Brewton-Easton(7913385) 19740 7th Ave NE Ste 114 E.MAIL A�vit�s�ceastan�taS17:1eraaQe�t, . INSU S AfEg9Q1NG (;OVERAGE NAIL 1! Poulsbo WA 98370.1 . _ 7571 _INSURER A : Truak Insurance E%Change 21709 INSURER 13: Farmers Insurance Exchan9a 21652 .. INSURED HOT DIGGITY DOG iNsunHR c : Mid Contuy Insurance Company 21687 2889 LONGWOUSE LN INSURER E CLINTON WA 98236 INSURERF: COVERAGF_$ CERTIFICATE NUMBER; REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Till; POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED $SLOW HAVE 13EEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY RECQtAREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, TMC INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN 15 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONOITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, LYKTYPE OF INSURANC[ VINDPourV NUMBER POL[ Y FF m'A yY LIMIYS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S 2,0401440 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 'b"AMA05YO RENTED 75.000 PREM� ZFsl:6Avcuirenoe]—? ..____.._.,.»__.. CLAIMS -MADE L• ' I OCCUR MED EXP (Au one rson S 5.000 C Y N 606281404 05/25/2016 05/25/2017 PE,RD NAL t: AOy INJURY s 2.000.000 GENERALAGG84GATe $ 4,000,000 G N'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER; YRODUCTZ - COMPIOP AGG S 2,000.000 X POLICY PRt� Loc — — $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY MSiNF-'o brNOLE LIMIT iI•`.n accieentf ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per pomon) $� ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS PHgP1;HTY OAMIAGE � Mw I'I�cltlg[It1 $ I UMBRELLA LIAD OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S CXCESSLIAe CLAIMSZAADE AcGRE_G_ArE s -.. OCD RETEHrIDNS $ WOR7<L-RS COMPENSATION WC 57ATU- O H- AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ER-• -.W- ANYP:tOP1iIi-mTDRIPARTt4CRIE%ECUTIVE OFFMERIMEIMain l:XCLUOED? N / A E.L. EACH ACCIDENT S (Mendetory to N!i) - If yyeB, desui6o ++ndor S.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYE S --.... 4F.SCRIPTION or OPERATIONS below E.L- DISEASC - POLICY LIMIT 13 DESCRIPTION OF OPQRATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD ia,, AddltlonNl Remarks Schedule, It mom epoco in raquired) 2889 LONGHOUSE LN, CLINTON, WA 98236 1- C_ERTIRInATF We'll ncclj CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVE N EDMONDS SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THC POLICY PROVISIONS — WA 98020 I AUTHORIZED ACORD 25 (2010105) r 4 I3-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reseZd. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Q Packet Pg. 110 IF M Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Hot Diggity Dog 2016 (1400 : Public Hearing on a Concession Agreement Application) 7/20/2016 Chapter 4.04 CONCESSION AGREEMENTS Chapter 4.04 CONCESSION AGREEMENTS Sections: 4.04.010 Concession agreements. 4.04.020 Concession agreements on public property. 4.04.030 Leases of public right-of-way. 4.04.040 Exemptions. 4.04.010 Concession agreements. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A concession agreement is a lease of public property or city right-of-way. Decisions to lease city property or public right-of-way are legislative decisions to be granted at the sole discretion of the city council. By way of illustration and not limitation, a concession agreement may provide for the lease of public property or right-of-way for private use to vend food, beverages, or merchandise, provide classes or other forms of instruction for a fee or other valuable consideration, rent bicycles, roller skates, fishing equipment or other uses which the city council, in its sole discretion, believes are consistent with the public's full use and enjoyment of park, public property or right-of-way, or enhance the general atmosphere of the community. [Ord. 3869 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3604 § 1, 20061. 4.04.020 Concession agreements on public property. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A. "Public property" shall mean any property in fee by the city of Edmonds. B. Concession agreements may be granted at the sole discretion of the city council from time to time as it deems appropriate, with the exception that the mayor shall have the discretion to grant certain seasonal concession agreements, subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (D) of this section. The revenue from the lease of public property shall accrue to the general fund; provided, however, that concession agreements for lease of property owned, purchased or utilized by a utility or other special purpose fund shall accrue to that fund. C. Such agreements shall be approved by the city council in a form created and approved by the city attorney. The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate, or as recommended by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, and shall fully indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. D. Concession agreements relating to park property shall comply in all respects with the park plan adopted as a part of the city's comprehensive plan. A concession agreement shall be approved only if, at the determination of the parks and recreation director, it is in line with the goals and objectives of that plan, and is appropriate for the particular park(s) in which the concession is to be located. Seasonal concession agreements, which are defined as those under which the vendor operates the concession only during the annual high season (usually May through September), may be granted by the mayor without city council approval or public hearing requirements. Seasonal concession agreements may be located in regional or community parks only, as defined in the park plan, and are subject to annual review and approval by the mayor and the parks and recreation director prior to renewal. E. Concession agreements relating to city property other than city park property shall be approved only after a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be posted at the site sought for lease by a concessionaire. Concession agreements for city park property are not subject to public hearing requirements. [Ord. 3869 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3604 § 1, 2006]. 4.04.030 Leases of public right-of-way. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... http://www.codepublishing.comMA/Edmonds/ Packet Pg. 113 7/20/2016 Chapter 4.04 CONCESSION AGREEMENTS A. "Public right-of-way" shall mean property held for street or alley purposes and shall typically be limited to unopened city right-of-way. The lease of public right-of-way developed for street purposes shall incorporate applicable terms from the street use provisions of Chapter 18.70 ECDC. B. Any concession agreement for the lease of unopened street right-of-way shall confer no vested right on the lessee. Any concession or lease agreement drafted by the city attorney shall provide that it may be terminable at the will of the city council with or without cause. On termination, a pro -rated portion of the lease payment shall be returnable to the concessionaire or lessee. C. The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate and shall fully indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. [Ord. 3607 § 1, 2006; Ord. 3604 § 1, 2006]. 4.04.040 Exemptions. Persons leasing property from the city through a concession agreement shall obtain a city business license. The use of property leased under a concession agreement shall be consistent with the uses permitted in the adjacent zone. "Adjacent zone" means that zoning, other than public zoning or right-of-way designation, which is closest to the area leased. In the event that differing zones are equidistant from the leased property, the more restrictive use provisions of an adjacent zone shall be applied. [Ord. 3604 § 1, 2006]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4026, passed May 3, 2016. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http://www.codepublishing.comMA/Edmonds/ I Packet Pg. 114 7.1.c CONCESSION AGREEMENT COMES NOW, the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and (hereinafter "Concessionaire") under the terms and conditions set forth herein: 1. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this Concession Agreement is to authorize the temporary use as described herein of [describe location]. This Concession Agreement is a legislative action of the Edmonds City Council, and as provided herein, may be terminated by the Council at any time. The Concessionaire is authorized to use the location to [describe purpose]. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to relieve the Concessionaire of obtaining the approval of any necessary state or local entity, including requirements to obtain any necessary business and street use permits as referenced in this Agreement. 2. Premises. This Concession Agreement authorizes the use of [location] (hereinafter the "Premises") by Concessionaire. This location is shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 3. Undertakings of Concessionaire. In consideration of the benefits of this Agreement, the Concessionaire promises and agrees to: 3.1 Utilize the leased Premises for the maintenance of a [describe any temporary or permanent structure to be placed on Premises], shown on the attached Exhibits B and C, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 3.2 Pay to the City a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of Concessionaire's gross receipts per month. Such sum shall be paid on or before the first day of each month. Any payment not received by the fifth (51h) business day of each month shall be subject to a twenty-five dollar ($25) service charge, and an additional service charge of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be added for every period of five (5) business days thereafter. Failure to remit this payment by the 151h day of each month shall be grounds for immediate termination of this Concession Agreement. 3.3 Obtain a business license from the City for this location in accordance with the Edmonds City Code. 3.4 Provide as part of the street use permit process a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional named insured. The policy shall provide public liability protection in the minimum amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. The insurance policy shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. It shall provide that the policy may not be cancelled except upon the provision of thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Packet Pg. 115 7.1.c 3.5 Refrain from sales of retail goods or services other than the goods or services covered by this Agreement. 3.6 Indemnify and hold harmless, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability of any kind or nature arising from or out of the use of the Premises and/or the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To the extent necessary to enforce this promise, the Concessionaire as a part of the negotiation of the provisions of this Agreement, waives the immunities of Title 51 RCW to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees. 3.7 Concessionaire may terminate this Agreement on the provision of thirty (30) days written notice to the City. 3.8 In the event of termination, Concessionaire shall restore the site to its original condition and remove all structures, temporary or permanent, by the date of termination. The City may, at its option, seize any personal property, temporary structure or other object or item left on the site and sell it in the event that it is not removed by the date of termination set in the notice from Concessionaire. The City may, at its option, restore the site and bill Concessionaire for the reasonable cost of restoration of the site to its original condition. If Concessionaire fails to pay the sum within thirty (30) days, the parties agree that the City may forward the sum to a collection agency for recovery. Concessionaire shall be responsible for any costs associated with such recovery, including reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and the charges of the collection agency. 4. Obligations of the City. The City agrees that it will: 4.1 Make available the Premises for the purpose of [describe use]; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to authorize the sale of other retail goods or services. 4.2 The City Council, in its sole legislative discretion, reserves the right under this Agreement to terminate its provisions at any time upon the provision of forty-eight (48) hours written notice. In addition, the City Council reserves the right to seek proposals for the leased Premises or any other property or unopened right of way of the City for competitive bids from other vendors at such time and through such a process as in its sole discretion shall determine appropriate. The Concessionaire shall be provided an opportunity in any such future process to make a proposal on the same terms as other proposals, but shall have no competitive advantage in the process. The lease payments provided in paragraph 3.2 above are specifically set at a lower rate than market rates to acknowledge that this Concession Agreement is terminable at will. In the event of termination by the City, the City shall return a pro-rata portion of any prepaid rent. 5. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the express approval of the Edmonds City Council, which may be withheld for any lawful reason or purpose. Packet Pg. 116 7.1.c 6. Term. This Agreement, unless earlier terminated as herein provided, shall expire on . The City may allow a holdover period to permit processing an application for renewal where, due to no fault of the applicant, the City is unable to complete its review, including a required public hearing, before the expiration date. 7. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. It shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the parties hereto. DONE this day of , 2016. [NAME OF CONCESSIONAIRE] Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath and stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of , to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: My commission expires: Packet Pg. 117 7.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS Dave Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Q Packet Pg. 118 7.1.d AM-6785 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 04/15/2014 Time: Consent Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Finance Type: Action "information 4. M. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of an Application for a Concession Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Concession Agreement included as Exhibit 1, with Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog, for a period of one year Previous Council Action In 2004, the City Council adopted modifications to regulations governing street vendors. The regulations required street vendors to have a mobile vending cart capable of being pushed by a single person that could be easily moved and not permanently located on city right-of-way. On September 18, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3604 which allowed for Concession Agreements to be entered into for the lease of public right-of-way space. Since November 2006, the City Council has approved and renewed Concession Agreements with various vendors for the subject site, including Milltown Pizza and Shorts `N Slippas. The City Council held a public hearing on April 1, 2014 and received comment on the Concession Application. The Council requested that staff research past Concession Applications to check consistency regarding the aggregate amount of insurance coverage required. The Council Finance Committee considered this application on April 8, 2014 and directed staff to research what the City charges other concession vendors such as food trucks, carts, park vendors, etc. Narrative The attached Application for a Concession Agreement was submitted by Dean Parmenter of Hot Diggity Dog. The applicant proposes to sell specialty hot dogs, chips, and drinks (bottled water and sodas) on City right-of-way located at James Street immediately east of the ferry holding lanes and adjacent to the SR104 park. The application has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director, Development Services Director, Public Works Director and City Attorney. Packet Page 2Packet Pg. 119 7.1.d No concerns were raised. Previous users of this site paid a monthly lease rate of approximately $100 for the use of the right-of-way. If approved, a rate needs to be established for the current applicant. The City Code requires that the applicant obtain a Street Use Permit (Engineering Division) City Business License (City Clerk's Office), Snohomish County Health District approval, and a Certificate of Insurance. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the application submitted by Dean Parmenter/Hot Diggity Dog. Attached as Exhibit 2 is Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04, Concession Agreements, which states that Concession Agreements may be granted at the sole discretion of the City Council. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the proposed new Concession Agreement prepared by the City Attorney's Office. The monthly lease amount is proposed at $100.00 plus a leasehold excise tax in the amount of $12.84 for a total of $112.84. In 2006, the City Council adopted a concession code stating that "The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate,..." (ECC 4.04.030(C), Ordinance 3604). However, between 2006 and 2011, adopted concession agreements required $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate. On July 13, 2011, the City approved a concession agreement with Shorts 'N Slippas (dba Da Hula Hut) which required a $1M/$5M amount per City code, but the certificate provided with the application reflected the lower $1M/$2M amount. After the City requested an updated certificate of insurance reflecting the required amount of coverage, the owner provided notice of intent to terminate the agreement. The concession agreement was terminated on or before December 30, 2011. In 2012, the City Council amended the code as follows: "The lessee shall provide proof of insurance in a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate, or as recommended by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority,..." (ECC 4.04.030(C), Ordinance 3869). Staff in the City Attorney's office consulted with WCIA in February 2014 and they agreed that a $2 million aggregate amount for this type of mobile vending unit is appropriate. However, the WCIA also reports that food -borne illness claims are increasing. On April 9, 2014, the City Clerk contacted a local insurance broker who provides the City with insurance certificates for many Edmonds businesses. The broker reported that an aggregate insurance amount of $5 million is highly unusual and would likely require out -of -market insurance for that level of coverage. In addition, it costs approximately $1,000 and is therefore cost -prohibitive for many businesses. For this reason, staff supports the $1M/$2M insurance coverage requirement as recommended by the WCIA. Incidentally, Parks concession agreements require the standard $1M/$2M for concessionaires that prepare food. Staff is not aware of other concession agreements with mobile vendors who lease City -owned right-of-way. Any vendor who wishes to contract must do so with permission of the property owner and acquire the appropriate City permits and licenses. For example, Terminal Caffeine, a non -mobile food vendor located at the ferry holding lanes, leases right -of way from the Washington State Ferries System (WSDOT). Concession agreements with vendors permitted to operate on City park property require payment of "an amount equal to 10% of concessionaire's Packet Page 3 Packet Pg. 120 7.1.d receipts." In 2012, one concessionaire operating an 8-week wilderness school during the summer paid $1,820 to the City; in 2013 they paid $1,821.50. For simplicity's sake, staff recommends a $100 flat rate for the proposed concession agreement because that is the amount users of this particular site have paid in the past. The Council always has the ability to reevaluate the agreement at the end of the term. Exhibit 1 - Concession App Exhibit 2 - ECC Chapter 4.04 Exhibit 3 - Draft Concession Agreement Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Scott Passey Final Approval Date: 04/10/2014 Reviewed By Dave Earling Scott Passey Attachments Form Review Date 04/09/2014 05:31 PM 04/10/2014 07:50 AM Started On: 04/09/2014 03:41 PM Packet Page 3 Packet Pg. 121 7.1.d COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item M be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested Items E and J be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #207893 THROUGH #208033 DATED APRIL 3, 2014 FOR $488,638.21 AND CLAIM CHECKS #208034 THROUGH #208176 DATED APRIL 10, 2014 FOR $244,068.88. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #60884 THROUGH #60898 FOR $463,165.63, BENEFIT CHECKS #60899 THROUGH #60908 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $389,960.77 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16, 2014 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2014. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #60909 DATED APRIL 9, 2014 FOR $34.60 C. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT D. QUARTERLY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REPORT F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONTRACT FOR ADA UPGRADES FOR THE 3RD AVE CURB RAMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT G. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 3, 2014 FOR THE SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,224,607.49 H. COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF A 40-FOOT STREET DEDICATION (243" PL W) AND 15-FOOT PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FACE OF PLAT DOCUMENTS I. 2014 FEBRUARY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT K. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO TEC CONSTRUCTION INC L. FAC EQUIPMENT SURPLUS N. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ANNUAL SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS ITEM M: APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CONCESSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND DEAN PARMENTER/HOT DIGGITY DOG Councilmember Petso explained the Finance Committee reviewed this item and scheduled it for approval on the Consent Agenda pending further research by staff of internal/external comparables. The original agreement included a fee of $100/month; research found comparable Parks Department agreements have a 10% minimum fee and ferry system agreements also have a 10% fee. Staff has prepared an alternative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 2 Packet Pg. 122 concession agreement with a 10% fee/month. The second issue is the amount of insurance; the City Attorney confirmed the code allows a $2 million aggregate insurance rather than $5 million. A third issue is the term of the agreement; the original agreement includes a 1 year term to April 15, 2014, the revised agreement with the 10% fee does not specify a term. She summarized the issues for Council consideration are, 1) a 10% fee or $100/month fee, with a 1 year term, or 2) reschedule this item for further discussion. Council President Buckshnis recalled the Hula Hut was charged $100/month. City Clerk Scott Passey responded the City no longer has a concession agreement with the Hula Hut. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas spoke in favor of a consistent fee for all concessions. She suggested a temporary agreement for this concession and having further research done by a Council committee. She was cautious about requiring 10% of the concessionaire's revenue as a fee as that could be thousands if the stand is popular. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE A 1 YEAR CONCESSION AGREEMENT AT 10% AND REQUEST STAFF REVIEW THE PROCESS FOR CONCESSION AGREEMENTS AND RETURN WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO AN APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed this would be the first concession agreement for that space that would charge a 10% fee. She suggested a $100/month fee until the issue could be vetted further. She did not support the 10% fee in the motion. Councilmember Peterson assumed the 10% fee charged by the Parks Department was to offset use of the park. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Council approved a code change a few years ago allowing concessions in parks. The goal was to offer amenities to citizens in response to requests for food in parks. The code changes were modeled after other cities that allow private business to partner with public entities to provide amenities in parks; a common model is a percentage of gross revenues, 10% is the minimum fee the Parks Department offers for concessions in parks. The City currently has 2 vendors that pay 10% and is negotiating a fee with 2 others. The goals are to provide amenities, use the revenue to enhance the park and for concessionaires to pay fair market value for use of the public land. Rights -of -way are treated differently in the Edmonds City Code. She suggested putting all concessions together in the code to be consistent. In the code changes the Council approved previously, concessions in parks are not subject to public hearing, do not come to Council for approval, and are at the discretion of the Parks Director. Concession agreements for rights -of -way are subject to public hearing and have always been a flat fee. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion to continue with the flat fee, noting a concession in a park was a much more valuable commodity for a concessionaire than a location in a right-of-way. Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, preferring to continue with the past practice of a $100/month fee for the space on James Street. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with consistency, pointing out this location will have a great deal of traffic, possibly more in a park. The $100/month fee was based on agreements in place years ago. Ms. Hite advised the two vendors the Parks Department is negotiating with, a kettle corn vendor and a snow cone vendor, would be located in the mini -park on the ferry holding lanes which is steps away from the right-of-way location. She summarized the concessions will have the same customer base and it is a very high demand area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 3 Packet Pg. 123 7.1.d Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented until a policy was developed for concessions in the right-of- way, she was uncomfortable with changing the fee structure. Ms. Hite explained the ECC contains a process for vending in rights -of -way and the Council is following that process — a public hearing and the City Clerk prepares the contract. Mr. Passey advised the code provides the Council broad discretion to enter into concession agreements in the right-of-way. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested by next spring drafting a policy similar to the policy for concessions in parks to ensure consistency. Ms. Hite offered to work with the City Clerk to provide recommended code changes to create consistency. Councilmember Petso clarified staff is negotiating with 2 vendors who would be located in the park immediately adjacent to this right-of-way location and who would pay at least 10 % and the right-of-way location was only steps from the park where those vendors would be located. Ms. Hite agreed. Councilmember Bloom suggested a shorter contract with Hot Diggity Dog. Ms. Hite answered the Council could choose to approve a shorter term; the high peak season at the ferry holding lanes is May — September/October. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, MESAROS AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. ITEM E: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT Councilmember Bloom explained this was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee last week; Councilmember Mesaros was not present. She agreed to schedule it on the Consent Agenda but also wanted a noticed presentation related to the full cost of the Five Corners roundabout in conjunction with tonight's presentation regarding the bid. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM FOLLOWING AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PRESENTATION REGARDING BIDS FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT (AGENDA ITEM 10). Council President Buckshnis did not support the motion, explaining the cost overruns have nothing to do with the engineering support services provided by David Evans and Associates. This contract was described at the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meeting and is appropriate for approval on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Bloom explained she emailed questions to Public Works Director Phil Williams about the supplemental agreement with David Evans and Associates. She would like those questions to be answered in conjunction with the presentation regarding the bids for the Five Corners Roundabout because it is related to the Five Corners project. There have been nine supplemental agreements with David Evans and Associates and she wanted answers to the questions she posed such as the original project cost for David Evans and Associates before the Council votes on the supplemental agreement. Mayor Earling clarified if Mr. Williams answers those questions along with his presentation regarding the Five Corners Roundabout bids, whether the intent is to vote on both issues tonight. He wanted to avoid Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 4 Packet Pg. 124 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Closed record review and action on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve a consolidated application for a conditional use permit and variance for the Downtown Public Restroom project (File Nos. PLN20160030 & PLN20160031) (20 min.) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Mike Clugston The City Council has not previously reviewed these two land use permits. They were required in addition to the associated building permit for the restroom because while local public facilities like the restroom are usually allowed outright in all zoning districts according to Section 17.100.050.A.1 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the Downtown Business (BD2) zone where City Hall is located specifically indicates that local public facilities are conditional uses subject to permit (ECDC 16.43.020.A). In addition to a conditional use permit, a variance is also needed in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.0 since the public structure and use cannot comply with elements of the underlying BD2 zoning code. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on July 14 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance for the Downtown Public Restroom (see Exhibit 2). Approve the land use permits and request the City Attorney prepare a resolution with findings for Council acceptance on a future consent agenda. The conditional use permit and variance reviews are considered Type III-B decisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003 and were consolidated for review under ECDC 20.01.002.B. When public projects like this require variances, the Hearing Examiner holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council, in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.C, holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision on the consolidated proposal. The associated building permit (BLD20160728) cannot be issued until the land use permits are approved. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Staff report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 2 - Hearing Examiner's approval recommendation Packet Pg. 125 8.1.a ''?c. I Ov CITY OF EDMONDS 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Downtown Public Restroom Requested Permits: PLN20160030 (Conditional use permit for local public facility in the BD2 zone) PLN20160031 (Variance for public structure and use which cannot comply with the zoning ordinance) Date of Report: J)uy 8, 2 1 Staff Contact: � ( �wG� Mike Clugsto , AICP, Associate Planner Public Hearing: July 14, 2016 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS The City of Edmonds is proposing to install a prefabricated public restroom building in a portion of the parking lot south of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N replacing two portable toilets that have been located in the lot for the past several years. There will be no change to the existing pedestrian or vehicular access points from 5th Avenue nor the alley. The existing parking stalls and landscaping will be reconfigured to provide space for a small plaza north of the restrooms, with a net loss of only one or two parking stalls. A downtown restroom facility has long been desired and is described in the City's current Capital Facilities Plan. In addition, a downtown restroom facility is the subject of Strategic Action Plan Action Item 3a.2. The City Council recently allocated money for its construction and a building permit application for the project was submitted on June 2 (Attachment 2). However, while local public facilities like this are usually allowed outright in all zoning districts according to Section 17.100.050.A.1 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the Downtown Business (BD2) zone where City Hall is located specifically indicates that local public facilities are conditional uses subject to permit (ECDC 16.43.020.A). In addition to a conditional use permit, a variance is also requested in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.0 since the public structure and use cannot comply with elements of the underlying BD2 zoning code. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 & PLN20160031 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 126 8.1.a The conditional use permit and variance reviews are considered Type III-B decisions pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003 and have been consolidated for review under ECDC 20.01.002.13. When public projects require variances, the Hearing Examiner holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council, in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.C, holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision on the consolidated proposal. As described in this report, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and variance, with conditions. II. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land use application 2. Plan sheets for associated building permit BLD20160728 (Sheets L1— L9) 3. Public notice documentation 4. Restroom element from Capital Facilities Plan 5. Technical comments III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.15A.080 and WAC 197-11-800, the proposed restroom facility is categorically exempt from SEPA threshold determination requirements. IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A "Notice of Application and Public Hearing" for the subject land use permits was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on June 29, 2016. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site (Attachment 3). The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. V. ZONING REQUIREMENTS — ECDC 16.43 (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS, BD2) 1. Use. As noted in Table 16.43-1, local public facilities require a conditional use permit when located in the BD2 zone. According to ECDC 21.55.007, a local public facility is: [A]ny community facilities operated by a unit of local, state or federal government (or by a third party on behalf of a unit of local, state or federal government) primarily sited, designed, constructed, and operated for the purpose of providing public health, safety and welfare services to the immediate area or neighborhood in which the facilities are sited. Local public facilities include, but are not limited to: police stations, fire stations, branch libraries, bus -stop shelters, electrical substations, water pump stations, community clubhouses, parks and recreation special use areas, branch administrative offices of a governmental entity, and associated storage and maintenance buildings and yards. A public restroom on City property adjacent to City Hall is a local public facility and therefore requires a conditional use permit since the parcel is zoned BD2. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 127 8.1.a 2. Bulk dimensional requirements. a. Setbacks. 0' from all property lines. The proposed building will comply (Attachment 2, Sheet 1-5). b. Height. 30' maximum. The proposed building will be about 11' tall (Attachment 2, Sheet L8). 3. Site development and design standards. The site development and design standards in the BD zones are applied to new commercial or mixed use construction to further the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to improve the appearance of the streetscape and walkability of the downtown area. However, because the public restroom is proposed to be a one- story pre -fabricated building that will only be about 11 feet tall and located adjacent to the sidewalk on 5th Avenue, there are a number of site development and design standards that the structure and use will not be able to meet. These elements are the subject of the associated variance request as noted in Section VII of this report. At the same time, there are specific design standards for conditionally permitted uses like this in the BD2 zone which are further discussed in Section VI of this report. The following site development and design standards would typically be applicable but cannot be met by this proposal: a. Ground floor height within Designated Street Front. 12' minimum since the parcel has designated street front on 5th Avenue as shown on Map 16.43.-1 (ECDC 16.43.030. B.2 ) b. Commercial uses within the designated street front - 45 feet depth from the street property line at 5th Avenue (ECDC 16.30.030.B.7) c. Access to commercial uses in the designated street front (ECDC 16.43.030.B.4) d. Type V parking lot landscaping (ECDC 20.13.030.E) e. Massing and articulation (ECDC 22.43.010) f. Orientation to street (ECDC 22.43.020) g. Ground level details (ECDC 22.43.030) h. Transparency at street level (ECDC 22.43.050) VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — ECDC 20.05 PLN20160030 — Conditional use permit for local public facility in BD2 zone According to ECDC 16.43.020.A, local public facilities in the BD2 zone require a conditional use permit. In addition to the regular conditional use permit criteria in ECDC 20.05, the specific criteria in ECDC 16.43.020 must also be considered. 1. Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, a conditional use permit may not be approved unless all of the following findings can be made: DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 128 8.1.a a. That the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The public restroom project is included in the Capital Facilities Plan (Attachment 4), which is an element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. A public restroom is also mentioned in Goal D.3 for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center (p 48) and in Goal E.6 for Economic Development (p 114) in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council recently allocated the funding for the project and a building permit has been applied for (BLD20160728). b. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. The restroom building meets the setback and height requirements of the BD2 zone but several of the site development and design standards regularly applicable to mixed use downtown development cannot be met. Some can be, however, and those are reviewed below. There are also specific criteria in the BD zoning code for conditional uses in ECDC 16.43.020.A including: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. As shown on Sheets L5 and L6 of Attachment 2, the restroom building would be located in the parking lot south of City Hall adjacent to 5th Avenue N. Existing pedestrian access from 5th Avenue and existing vehicular access from the alley to the west will remain. Regarding the number of stalls, no parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. There are currently 21 parking stalls in the surface lot south of City Hall. With the project, landscaping and restriping, 19 or 20 parking stall will remain after the restroom project in complete (Attachment 2, Sheets L2 and L5). 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details b. Artwork c. Landscaping DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 129 8.1.a As shown on Sheet L9 of Attachment 2, the restroom doors are oriented into the parking and plaza. There are three internally lit display cases at the street side which will include a rotating selection of art, event posters and the like. While several of the site development and design standards for the BD2 zone cannot be fully met by the project, two are met: awnings/canopies and signage in ECDC 22.43.040 and treating blank walls in ECDC 22.43.060. As seen on the elevation drawings (Attachment 2, Sheet 1-9), a structural canopy is proposed to be added to the pre-fab building to provide interest and weather protection on the north fagade by the plaza and the east fagade over the sidewalk along 5th Avenue. Several design details will be added to the building to provide additional interest on those facades: light fixtures, overlain brick at the parapet and base, and three illuminated Plexiglas display cases at 5th Avenue. c. Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. The downtown restroom is a public necessity. It will be regularly maintained by City staff and therefore will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor to nearby private property. d. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County auditor. The Hearing Examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property. The conditional use permit should be personal to the City of Edmonds. 2. With conditions, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the conditional use criteria for approval listed ECDC 20.05 and in ECDC 16.43.020. VII. VARIANCE — ECDC 20.85 PLN20160031— Variance for public structure and use A variance to any requirement in Titles 16 and 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (except use and procedural requirements) may be approved when all of the findings in ECDC 20.85 can be made. Because the variance is for a public structure and use, the process language in ECDC 17.00.030.0 also applies: All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 130 8.1.a As noted previously, the proposed structure and use cannot meet all of the site development and design standards for the 13D2 zone. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner will review the variance against the criteria in ECDC 20.85 and make a recommendation to the City Council who will make the final decision on the variance as well as the associated conditional use permit. Findings: A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property, e Public necessities like the downtown restroom are specifically identified special circumstances in the variance requirements in ECDC 20.80.010.A.1. B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; • The restroom is not a grant of special privilege because the project is an anticipated local public facility identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan. C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; The proposed facility is identified in the City's Capital Facilities Plan (Attachment 4). D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located, With approval of the conditional use permit and variance, the restroom structure will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the BD2 zone. This will be verified through review and approval of the associated building permit (BLD20160728). DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 131 8.1.a E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone, The downtown restroom will not be detrimental. In fact, it will be an amenity in the downtown area. Maintenance and upkeep will occur regularly and be done by City staff. F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposal, as shown in Attachment 2, is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate this local public facility. Vill. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, no public comments have been received. IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis in and the attachments to this report, staff believes the proposal is consistent with the conditional use approval criteria in ECDC 20.05.010 and ECDC 16.43.020, and the variance criteria of ECDC 20.85. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner should recommend that the City Council APPROVE the conditional use permit (PLN20160030) and variance (PLN20160031) for the Downtown Public Restroom with the following condition: 1. The conditional use permit shall be personal to the City of Edmonds and is not transferable. X. PARTIES OF RECORD Patrick Doherty City of Edmonds Community Services and Economic Development Director 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 DOWNTOWN PUBLIC RESTROOM PLN20160030 (CUP) & PLN20160031 (VARIANCE) Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 132 8.1.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT N�1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT �,(4-zo 03o FILE # PAN �E�k.� iL �NE I ' J HOME OCCUPATION DATE' J t REC'D BY L ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT El OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT E ❑STAFF El PB ❑ ADBCC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT X VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION i p L NW I bi303 I ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ■ PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION ' i . r �� 1 �� j r r �f PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Wu 11d � Li 11 •ter�L-•�{ —' PROPERTY OWNER ,I or PHONE # ADDRESS l 11 �y �rMAIL i L JC # Z- TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TwP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROMCP OR PR OSED USE ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY —3- ►. ��?� �CZ r 1 DGS RIBS HO THE P OJECT MFsFsTS A PLICABL£s OODF&ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECFSSAR ) �~ -L 1 0 - APPLICANT f PHONE# 4,2S'7I I ADDRESS E-MAIL t C GG V FAX # O Z�,6 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT ! c PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and a ibits her ith submit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applieatin tt l c �*hhalf % the nwnzr 'listed below. // I SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT `� DATE le f � V v Property Owner's Authorization 1, Nfm6t , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of WaAngibn that the tol[owing is a true n rrcct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the ublic officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds subject property for the purposespetrope Vtionanosting a C dant to this application.SIGNATURE OF OWNER I ` DATE .t I At Questions? 11 (425) 771-0220. PO PL tachment 1 420160030 � .N20160031 Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page 14, Packet Pg. 133 A � I Downtown Edmonds CXT �i site r Pm)W Win" Map Existing Conditions - Aerial Project Vicinity Map and Existing Conditions Site Images Proposed Condition T f 6xr7 d Site Plan 4 I t a New CXT Prefabricated 'Santiago' Restroom O 0 N a 3 0 0 0 DRAWING INDEX; v Li Coversheel L2 Survey L3 TESC / Demr —)Ian L4 Grading, Dral and L L5 Layoul Plan O L6 Enlarg9manl ' L7 Landscape PI LB Elevations 01 K L9 Elevations 02 W C CONTACTS: L 1C 01 ProjecWn Owrw: _ City of Edmonds Project Coordinator Contact: Thom Sull O aclft email: thorn SUIUM rondo tat- (425) 275.4516 O 121 5th Ave 0 Edmonds, WA 9W; y Or L Patrick Doherty, Ec t: D dw small: patrlck_dohei (5 trorr 1e1. (425) 771-0251 Cn Owner flepre"Ml -I sndl Barker Landscape) Ns Contact: John Bark star C 3002 NW 6MSt t Seattle, WA. 96107 W lei (206)783�2870 lax- (206)783.3212 0) ZONING: 13132 E t V PAACELf M8EA 34d0 _ Q LMAL DESCRIPT 60 FEET SOUTH C 'oND! LOT 3 TGW LOTS 41 38-51 Packet Pg. 134 GENERAL NOTES 1 1. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO SHOW POGW Sanitary• OF THE PLAT OF THE CITY OF EOMONDS, VOLUME 39, AA man hole { 2 OUR CLIENT, BARKER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Al EffY O, } MAPPING WITH A TITLE REPORT OF THE BOUNDAR OMBIN CONCERT WITH FOUND MONUMENTATION TO DETI THE W - - I EXISTENG EASEMENTS STATUS MAY VARY. - - 3. THIS SURVEY WAS BASED ON A RTK VRS SURVEY IOPCO SURVEY (USING TOPCON DS 203RC TOTAL SFATIC IS NEl' I SET DV WAG 332-130-090. I } � 4. ALL MONUMENTS WERE OCCUPIED OR OBSERVED iTHE I I 5, ALL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT I RTH19 .+ TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, 6. T-AS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISI AND. I- THE LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE 1J11LITIES ARE BP OBSEI r F THERE BY OTHERS. - I - - - - 0 ALL COORDINATES AND BEARINGS ARE BASED STATE Q COOK ATIOP (BASED ON NAD 03/2011, THE WASHINGTON STATE L COOR 1 FEET. N I 9 ALL VERTICAL ELEVATIONS ARE NAV000 BASED C FO SNC ❑IS KSETVERFICALLYONTHEWESTWALLOFTHE IDS ML BUILDING, APPROXIMATELY T ABOVE THE GROUN IPED-I { I I HE ELEVATION OF WHICH IS 69-04', AS PERT' IF E V EETFC SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE STANDARD DATA SHE � 1: 217E I I + t I 1 8I a ' ) 3 } + c I Ij I i I T I I f I r i..u.e..rr vl I I f9�,Igv'tp�F 10 �C I LU L '�$ I� / �I .4 4 d x_ .- I + W I " Q 7 6� I0' ens rid 3 s Z .63 > w l �� S t N J l a x Q I � s 'LINELINE �0 C6 E 7 G } m r: >r U G Sanitary i r 9 tD' 20 40' Lp man hole "id'st warrlrw� , m I $Cal@; 20" = 1'-0" S59'38' 03"E_ I (22" x 34" sheet) N N_ Packet Pg. 135 f f t!1 : f-' pt•:. r.l' .-.� V,iY175. YY,', rriJ.°<' i low an Preserve ex. landscape' j i Tree protection fencing t Remove curb, asphalt, shrubs, and cl ar and grub. Transplant ` trees hen possible Straw wattles Tree protection fencing Preserve ex. landscape~ ' 8.1.a Packet Pg. 136 8.1.a f ' i Now Asphalt Paving — +4 �.;_• 6" sanitary sewer, 1 Meet and match '_ min 2% slope to alley ex. grade, typ. YO �� Connect to ex 6" - � •�, k Preserve ex. storm side sewer . drain and catch basin - Clean out at elbow New Asphalt Pavirig Ex 6" side sewer -� —ems .: -��.w� �.. �:'f• �.�.�., -� 1'3" •-•S' W. rltIfi,�r V61 E 0 0 N ii d �- 69' LV 'L� 3 0 i 0 «6 o 0 Xi C N 0 0 L X W E s M Q Packet Pg. 137 V - r Side sewer --1 connection to 6" main Ex. 6" side sewer ` r �� rrrrrri fm�i{rrj�w'a - �� I •New parking striping Existing catch �■�■ Existing asphalt to remain basin to ■■i Meet and match ■Aip �'0■■46" sanitary sewer, 2% slope to Iley, minimum ■ifif■■ fi�e�i p J r t X W C W E ci Y Y Q Packet Pg. 138 0 X M rt tD 6,12/2016 9:58:29 AM, Barker Lancscape Architects 24�-6" E; � CD 0- 2. CO CL Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Staff report to the Hearing Examiner (1404: Downtown Public Restroom) PO 8.1.a I� 51 OCIS 8LILTIN(i New Hydrangea vine - New (or transplanted)^' Maple to match i a -tip E Ex. Evergreen shrub s O z~ O Ex. Vine Maple E Y - a v c 0 4 t I Ex. Vine Maple Ex. Evergreen shrub — i 0 • C 0 ' New Hydrange, E I Trees Size Qnty. Spc. Sybl. Latin Name Common Name Acer circinatum O(D Acer campestre Vine Maple Hedge Maple 2-3 gal. 2-3 gal. TBD TBD N/A N/A Shrubs SSybll. Latin Name Common Name Size 1 gal. 1 gal Qnty. 3 Spc. 18" o.c. Rhododendron spp. OViburnum spp, Rhododendron spp. Viburnum spp. ` 3 18" O.C. Vines _ Size Qnty. Spc. Sybl. Latin Name Common Name CDHydrangea _ integrifolia — Evergreen Climbing Hydrangea M New (or transpl W I) Maple to match New ground co, LM I ma d 2 d t O r� O L Cn t K lLl c d E s r Q Packet Pg. 140 EXTERIOR LED LTGHT FIXTURE EXHAUST FANS BROOM TEXTURE (TYP OF 3)' — — — — — -- II I 3068 li 3068 BEER DOOR W/VENT o I ® II W/VENT I I � II �I - - 3•�'• 3- 0' SMOOTH TEXTURE TYP ALL EXTERIOR WALLS it f 3003 f DOOR W/VENT 1i a I II I 3'•0• ! E 0 0 N d V I.L r i F 3 0 0 0 DEE] 0 � II Co { I I x LL T EX I w II •� I I j o ..1 yg_D- ✓ 3' N O Af{ ELEV� i0N i fC a+ CXT Prefabricated Santiago` Restroom Elevi or NTS W Q Packet Pg. 141 8.1.a Front (North) Elevation Sidewalk (East) Elevation Mass E arap O Meta so apy. .r kn N Extei W phn Fixtu c) rP. Brid 3 IQ d c O C O l7 0 Masonry Parapet. typ. Metal Canopy. typ- - Exterior Lighting Fixtures, typ. Plexiglas Display Case Brick Facing f Exterior Elevation$__ NTS x w c ku a �I a - i Packet Pg. 142 8.1.a �F F b u�a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for a conditional use permit and variance for a downtown public restroom in the parking lot south of City Hall. The site is zoned Downtown Business (BD2), which requires a conditional use permit for local public facilities. A variance is also requested per ECDC 17.00.030.0 because the proposed restroom is a public structure and use which cannot meet the requirements of the BD zoning code. PROJECT LOCATION: 1215th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds (Patrick Doherty, Community Services and Economic Development Director) FILE NUMBERS: PLN20160030 & PLN20160031 DATE OF APPLICATION: June 14, 2016 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: June 16, 2016 DATE OF NOTICE: June 29, 2016 REQUESTED PERMITS: Conditional use permit, variance OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL Building permit (BLD20160728) N/A DOCUMENTS: Critical area checklist (CRA20160064) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 14, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held by the City's Hearing Examiner on July 14, 2016 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The Hearing Examiner will take testimony during the hearing and make a recommendation on the consolidated request to the City Council who will make the final decision. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 1215th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance page. Search for permit PLN20160031. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 3 PLN20160030 0< PLN20160031 Packet Pg. 143 Downtown Edmonds CXT Prefabricated Restroom Baled vic4hq Moo ---- - - - • Edsang CardHore . A"" Project Vicinity Map and Existing Conditions_ Site Images Proposed Condition -- r - ExlsdngConditlow LooWgNoah Extanrq Corhmdorc - L.&.V Easi ORAWWORIDU'. GENERAL NOTES: L1 Covorshea 1 A fun size ropy of the approved construction documents zhat be on site L2 Surrr whenever construction Is in progress. L3 TM I Demolition Plan 2. All utilities shown have been estato lhed by field survey or available L4 Lading. Drdehaga, and u®q Plan records and should be considered appmdmate only and not necessarily La Erds ga orK Plan complete. It is the sole responsbnity, of the contractor to indeponiWhty L7 larrxt3c Plmr variFy the accuracy of all uBllty locations shown and to further discover t9 Eleva9as 01 r='- r*Ya� and avoid any otter uh-nGes not s1awn on the plan which may he affected L9 Elevators 02 by construction. C4W1 1-800.424-5555 prior to all undergroLi d work. a1 walkways deer and free of debris Paved surfaces that are damaged during consbuceon shall be repaired to the satdaction of the CDIITACM Pm1ecL manager at no cost to the owner. •' _ 4. Staiage of malerWa and equipment will be allowed only in areas Prefattbn Oorwr. PERMIT NUMI3EFj designated for ConehlChOn Or storage. Under n0 CIrClrnatanCeB eltan Cty of Edmonds —o•�^rx�L-•. ';� II matarlak be stored in pubic use areas of the project Profeat ovements scheduled to remain at are damaged during the 5. An enprthat Connect Than Sullivan. F-dirsoo monow course of execution of the contract work shall be replaced by the smell: 5) 2 S-4615 dad l ten (426) 275J575 omRa=Anti ra additional coil: to d* owner. 121 Sth Ave 6 Primary eases to ire srOs, Tor tie Contracmr, during ron6lnuL9lon shah be Fdmards, WA 9e020 coordinate with tie City Project Manager, Thom Sullivan: (425) 275-4514. a Paxtck Doherty, Econofdc dwAop mail Dhm= PROJECT DESCRIPTION; email: Pick ��, 1d (425) T714MJ FJhvionmontal Pmtartion, asphalt removal, clearing and grubbing, curb Own Rgxa iihakrN Larweape A "dIoCt removal, earthwork drainage, connection to side sewer. water service, Hanker Lahocaps Arc hlEoa electrical service, installation of prefabricated CXT restroan Gi6ng. Caraact: ,norm aerkhr or Pear Crones installation of hardscope, cast In place curbs. striping of parking wL asphalt 3002 MN 6 th St patching, planting, carpentry, placement of boulders, installation of iron, Seams, WA 98107 instalalion of new landsrspe- Pal- (206)793-2870 lax fM)783-W2 ■ ewsxaa PemiR Sea PROJECT AREAS: WIT UvrY Cover .Meet New CXT PrefalxirLed !• 2ONNG: am , •Sarfiago• Restroom New Restroom Budding: 520 st 1 QARCELra7MBER: 004344001DMW New Prinmors Pavralm¢ FIR= 643 sf RECEIVED New Asphalt Paving 803 sf JUN ,,2 Mf - LEr-AL_QMQW M- Total Landscape Area: 655 sf 60 FEET SOUTH OF EDMONDS RAT Or 5Lx soh o-0o LcT y Rae LVTSa e s s s 7e r IX urn 6 Total Parlctig Lot Area: Total Parking Lot Space : 5,ft 503 sf 20 (1 A9 Full, 10 Compare I , Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Staff report to the Hearing Examiner (1404 : Downtown Public Restroom) 8.1.a io 71 114, { 4 I • I• fr r'S Y I �� w :MO / r O Az a. ,i ON zo CD Ip W f O O 4 41 - ds LU E _ Is w ■ � + City of Edmonds 270 Feet 121 5th Ave N 300' Buffer N Edmonds, WA 98020 This document is for general information purposes only and Is provided on an 'as is' 6/ 1 4/20 1 and 'as available' basis. The data used comes from a variety of public sources and no warranty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Users of this document agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, ' 41-94 AM employees and/or agents from and against any claim, demand or action, arising Packet Pg. 145 put of any use or possession of this document . Repositionable i A Bend along line toAVERYO 551 Use Avery® Template 5160e Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge TM 1 S 104 5TH AVE S LLC 114.BUH DING LLC 130 FOURTH AVE N EDMONDS 4L 104 5TH AVE S 1610 9TH AVE, N 130 FOURTH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-3423 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 523 MAIN LLC 524 MAFN LLC ALTHOFF M Aitii PO BOX 1477 PO BOX 1208 217 5TH AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 KINGSTON., WA 98346. EDMONDS, WA 980? E 0 0 L 1.3AUER SUSAN P & BERNHMaNi APPLE ONE LLC BARCLAY-SHELTON DANCE CENTER � 14227 EVERGREEN WAY 413 BELL S'CEPIIFN A v STANWOOD, WA 98292 EDMONDS, WA 98020 .216 4'I H AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 a c 3 0 13E;E:SON PARTNERS THE BELL STREET BLDG ASSC LLC BELLINGHAM KENNETH & SAW 3 2003 WESTERN AVE #555 510 BELL STREET 1505 LOT14 PL N p SEAT'.CLE, WA 98121 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 E3ERNIIEIM IL1 N A & BAUER L BELLINGHAM MICHAEL .DAMES SUSAN SUSAN P BORGERT APARTMENTS LLC 1 18 4TH AVE N 751 LAUREL ST' E EEDMO>k'DS, WA 98020 /4AVE N EDMONDS. WA 98020 w 1r S, WA 9$b20-311G c L C AMWES'T INC COMSTOCK. BRIA.N & ERTN DAVIS-TURINER ANN = 2228 133RD ST SW 411 MA.fN ST 408 MAIN ST a� LYNNWOOD.. WA 0,8087. EDMONDS, WA 98020-3137 EDMONDS, WA g8024 0 0 Q. a� L EARLING DAVID O & SUSAN J F ED/S,NW��A981020 EDMONDS MAIN STREE' LLC a 17511 TALBOT RD 250I 17522 TALBOT RD � EDMONJDS, WA 98020 I D EDMONDS, WA 98026 ELSIA LLC; EVE;RE17 SUSAN J FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF 19411 AURORA AVE N 514 BELL ST EDMONDS SHORELINE, WA. 98133 EDMONDS.. WA 98020 404 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 9802d FISHER L.ARRY S & BILLIE 10 GLE:NIv JILL HIRSHBERG JIKOE14LER 207 5TH AVE N 518 BELL STREET' #102 LIH.IRSHBERG W TRUSTE 10101 SE 3RD #405 EDMONDS, WA 0$0#0-3146 EDMONDS, WA 9.020 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 .'-TOPPER HAROLD A KM -BOURN MARY JO LESLIE REALTY INC 1021 OL:YMPIC AVE 51S BELL ST UNIT 201 6104 324TH ST NW EDMONDS. WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 STANWOOD, WA 98292-71'-9 Packet Pg. 146 Repositionable ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; I oa:ra.._ :- ,..:,...:. nlksaove Slane Sens de reveler le rebord Pon-uom' ! 1-800-GO-A1 ERY Repositionable i A Bend along line to oAVERW 551 r Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT"" Use AveryQ Template 5160® 1 1 #l11R� f fldM 'L, ��& eI.�r111' tllyl, IMMIA YII�I' ^8 17 5`111 i �r��viarro. , w�i� �• SiTVES IULIL' M 1 1304Ti I .kV E .N TONIKINS RICHAR ] A & CYN-ITHA A 211 5111 AV I=' .N i ,49NDS. WA Q8D 0.= i'_4 ?jrl'I.I-1_R MA[tK C & I-I'T\-1 P L0, Jr�.NICL� 1.tf I A_iR RI.J',.ZI_ DR l'C3I�'1 'I{)E�YtiS1sVI3. W: W ILSON 13RLiVIN i IRREVOCABLE 1'RL?ST IBOX fN I3iG ONDS, WV:1 98[}2g Gl'II:SCiN'N L1'FIA?tiT I.. G IRR 41ty PC BOX 1298 I D-IN40N1)S. WA. �)S02)0 �s 11 ti ► L 4, 'fir ' : 1 • a ',! ' R e°xi vV 9 x I� . !b , o • I { �D *111Th JACK VANCC� 18131 I i-. S I' tjm-I 1 ilj EDMONDS, WA 0.02 T4.!f 2-. E O 0 r N O w V a c 0 c 3 0 0 v 0 v Packet Pg. 147 ; Repositionable ; Repliez 3 la hachure afin de 1 E w..re.AD CACAO Sens de rc.,alor In rohnrei ann.::nmc ± 1-80040-AVER I Repositionable I A Bend along line to QA►1'ERY@ 9516 Use AveryO Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge Tm E 0 0 (D 413 REQ� .2 F'DMONDS, M._ Mmk torL 0 5 10 BELL STREET 0 I DXwD WA 98026 BERNMILIM STFFI-W N-'M BAUTER MW C S LTS AN .Pi E 216 47-1-1 AVF N M M X IMONDS, WA. �?oqgo&D COMSTOCK BRIAN& 4.11 MAIN ST FDMOND, WA 980210-31371 VIP EM D 051 T TM WA 98 ErA �.�O 5Tfl AVENUE N PMONDS, WA 98U2Q. _F IV A Wbw F�J,fiJMEj,f SJJSAN j J 4 RELL STj M EMW MONW, A 9FO20 M bO Jj��. �_;J' W.'-fow 4 &D GLENN JML I I I IRSJ 1B ERG ETWI I wl_ E.. 10101 SE -MD ii4(f5 EDMO-kLD Q2, M�A MQ2Q j&I,LEVU1;_ 01,004 F-i1DbbRNMAVf_kJ_j7Sj,; J�j - _jf11 .. . I /1JJV PTO 1-5' BE-1 T.. S'1_ UNIT' 20 1. 6104 3241-11STTIAV, I,DMONDLS, WA99020-",1()4 S'IANWOOJ�, WA 902'-'717%) Packet Pg. 148 Repositionable A Repliez h la hachure afin de', 1-800-GO-AVERY ..§�nxldb GAGA®Sensde nsuhipw 1p rabord Pan-udmc Repositionable i A Bend along lint TM Use AveryO Template S160® �AAMRV® SS16 Feed Paper expose Pop up Edge �ENE 1' cv;�tli+51}1 i " ¢dal° 11 .4.1,. ; : as I ' I;I'��5.1,. a1Lti;ft�"� E.•."• try ii1� w iVi 4i I1ilt7- �I�.tiSc,. ! P55 1 G.R 'C t iz Y. 7& K A L WINt_7 jo1nv,4 U S DEER DR 9802l�-610 vi Nr'. �INI&I 3 E u 1. I. �'I I 1 f1 SSE • ; ppMohTDS, AN MOM W 1,1.E,R NIAIUk C:K V�!I LLER JANICF 3v1 170 Fj\1R 3Rr1 1k:' DR ILSf3� 131��Ati :I IR1�IVC][`.i1:I3L1� TRUST I'0 BOX 129.8 WR S(]N NATi=lANrTLI Ci IRR jrRIJS'i� EDMO NDS. WA 9,020 1 z, g- � 518 i3€ [A, S-l' (.JNq,I- ] O1 FDNIONi7.ci. M A 0802(1-3iF6�k 1"o 13OX.129 . ry E 0 0 r N w V d c 0 c 3 0 0 E Packet Pg. 149 Repositionable ; Replies h la hachure afin de; Sens de rbvbler le rebord Poo-uo"C 1-800-GO-AVE Y E 8.1.a 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 EDH708023 PLN20160030 & 031 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 06/29/2016 and ending on 06/29/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $87.72. f Subscribed and sworn before me on this k day of 11 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL AiPS 114101416 DIANE CUNNINGHAM DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Co` frilisibrf Ekplres October 31, 2017 Packet Pg. 150 8.1.a � I CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HF.AfiiNG gpaa PROJECT nvariance Forla downtown public restaroom In The Parr n ail south of City Hall, The site is zoned Downlewn Buslness (802), whicA valrianceiass is also requestedtse permit lor W ECDC 1local 0 030-C because the proposed rre�stroom Is a publlc structure and use which cannot most the rmpN0fomonts of Iho ED zoning cads. PROJECT NAME 4F APPLICANT: ory� ddmmonds dmonds. WA oe< rv,,_t,r rommvnini Services and Economic PLN201600307t.PLN20160031 June 14, 2016 June 16, 2016 June 29, 2016 Cond tional use permit, variance OTHER 0L]h1MEN75 OIJ PFi0P6Al- DUE:JuIy 14. 2016 Puoupc HE FIiNOgINFORMATIONld y:: qq gg Examiner on Jufy 414c 2016 al 3 p,m. InwI4 be the Counclli the ah' ambers fooaled at 250 testimony duringgnue l the hearinng and amonds. The Mp agrocommandalior will naon the tonaalidated request to 1. 0 city Councll who WVI make the final decision. Anyy pparson has the right io comment on this application during ppublic comment parlod, receive nollce and participals In any heatings, and request a copy of the decision on the application, 'rho Cily may accyl public comments at any tiros prior to the closing of the record of an Opan record prodacislon hearing, If any, or, it no open record predeclMon hyepaaring Is provided, prior to ltle ECDC E8 97 003 hjat is a�rdin aollnSGatesan of Lminis�allve onpyep oa lnlormatlon on Thipps project tame viewed or obtained al Shoo C[ly al Edmonda Edmonds WA 96020 betweement n Ihsohours of 8f00 A.M. nd 4r 0 P.M. Monday - Fridayy �6:90 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only On �Wednesda a) ar ontlne through the Clty's webslle at ,ggy through the Permit Asststanco page- Search or permit PLN201 03i. CITY CONTACT: Mike ClUggstun, AICR Assadaie Planner mlchasl.r:fugslon� odmends+va.gov 42018. EDH7QBa2 �ublished: June 29, 2619. Packet Pg. 151 8.1.a File No.: PLN20160030 & 0031 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 29th day of June, 2016, the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 29th day of June, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. Sig ned:Ag&- =ek� or I Packet Pg. 152 8.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20160030 & 31 APPLICANT: CITY DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF APPLICATION & PUBLIC HEARING 0 0 0 L r N On the 29th day of June 2016, the attached Notice of Application & Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above- .2 referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. a I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of o Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 29th day of June 2016 at Edmonds, 3 Washington. o 0 N v Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 153 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and maintain a downtown public restroom. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability of funds. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art —TOTAL1 $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Attachment 4 PLN20160030 & P LN20160031 15 Packet Pg. 154 8.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20160030 Ili 31 Applicant's Name: CITY OF EDMONDS Property Location: Parking lot South of City Nall - 121 5th Ave N Date of Application: 06.14.16 Date Form Routed: 06.23.16 Zoning: BD2 Project Description: Construct public restroom **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 1311E BY 7 1 2016 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff:_MI_KE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: r`. Title: / 1' 16)1 have reviewed this land use proposal ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments. My department may also comments or conditions below or review this project during the building attached. permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail: Attachment PLN20160031 P LN2016003) E Packet Pg. 155 8.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN2016 Applicant's Name: CITY OF EDMONDS Property Location: Parking lot South of City Hall - 121 5th Ave N Date of Application: 06.14.16 Date Form Routed: 06.23.16 Zoning: BD2 Project Description: Construct public restroom "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED, DUE BY 7 1 2016 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitti Title: Comments: d ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. FtI have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail: Packet Pg. 156 8.1.a Date: To: From: July 8, 2016 Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Subject: PLN20160030 — Conditional Use for Local Public Facility PLN20160031— Variance for Public Structures & Uses City of Edmonds — Restroom Project — 1215th Ave N Engineering has reviewed the subject applications for the City of Edmonds restroom project at 121 — 5th Ave N. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 157 8.1.b I 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Downtown Public Restroom FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMENDATION Variance (PLN20160031) and Conditional Uses (PLN2016003 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds requests a variance and conditional use permit to install a prefabricated 520 square foot 11-foot high public restroom building in a portion of the parking lot south of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N. The variance is to eight applicable development standards, including minimum height, allowed uses, access and landscaping as well as four design standards. The conditional use permit and variances are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Michael Clugston, associate planner, summarized the proposal. Patrick Doherty, City of Edmonds Community Services and Economic Development Director, noted that he called together an ad hoc design committee composed of a member of the design review board, a member of the historic commission and a member of the arts commission. They made recommendations on design based upon the intent of the ECDC. The committee made several suggestions that have been integrated into project design, including brick facade, marquee awning, storefront appearance, and ability to integrate artwork into the facade. The restroom facility is a CU and Variance p. 1Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 158 8.1.b I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pre -fabricated building and the ad hoc committee's design suggestions will be added to the building. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated July 8, 2016 w/ 5 attachments (listed on page 2 of the staff report) FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. City of Edmonds. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject application on July 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Public Safety Complex. Substantive: 3. Site and Proposal Description. The City of Edmonds requests eight variances and a conditional use permit to install a prefabricated public restroom building in a portion of the parking lot south of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N. The proposal will replace two existing portable toilets. The restroom will be a 520 square foot 11 foot tall prefabricated building with after -market design treatment to conform to design suggestions made by an ad hoc design committee formed by the Edmonds Community Services and Economic Development ("CSED") Director. There will be no change to the existing pedestrian or vehicular access points from 5t' Avenue or the alley. The existing parking stalls and landscaping will be reconfigured to provide space for a small plaza north of the restrooms, with a net loss of only one or two parking stalls in the surrounding parking lot. The City Council recently allocated the funding for the project and a building permit has been applied for (BLD20160728). The staff report identifies that the applicant needs a variance to the eight development standards addressed below: a. ECDC 16.43.030.B.2 imposes a 12 foot height minimum for the proposed building since the subject parcel has street front on 5th Avenue. The proposed height is 11 feet. b. ECDC 16.43.030.B.7 only authorizes commercial uses within 45 feet of 51h Avenue. The proposal is not for commercial use. c. ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 requires the entrances to commercial buildings on street fronts to be within seven inches of sidewalk grade. The administrative record CU and Variance p. 2Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 159 1 8.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doesn't clearly identify the proposed grade separation — as far as can be discerned from the project drawings the grade separation is only six inches. If the grade separation does exceed that required by ECDC 16.43.030.B.4, it is minor. Note that in any event ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 arguably doesn't apply because the proposed use is not commercial and also does not front 5th Avenue. d. For parking lots with less than 50 parking stalls, ECDC 20.13.030.E requires at least 17.5 square feet of landscaping with a list of design standards for landscaping features. The staff report doesn't identify the net loss in landscaping area created by the proposal or what design standards are subject to the variance. The project plans show three planting areas that will be removed by the project, but some of this loss will be off -set by some new plantings to the 5th Ave. street entrance to the parking lot. The removal of planting areas from the parking lot appears to be motivated by a desire to reduce the loss of parking, but that issue was not expressly addressed by staff in the administrative record. e. ECDC 22.43.010 requires that buildings convey a visually distinct base and top and also requires that building facades respect and echo historic patterns. It isn't apparent how the proposal fails to meet these design standards. Nonetheless, it is clear from the elevation drawings in Ex. 1, att. 2 that the City has done all it reasonably can to design the modest sized building with a top that is visually distinctive from its base. The use of brick materials for the fagade also appears to provide some consistency with the historic development patterns of surrounding buildings. f. ECDC 22.43.020 requires buildings to be oriented towards the adjoining street. The applicant proposes to have the restroom doors face to the north, perpendicular to 5th Avenue. If the building had to face 5th Avenue it would significantly reduce the width of the access point to the surrounding parking lot. g. ECDC 22.43.030 requires a list of minor design features to improve visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. The proposed building is simply too small to reasonably accommodate all of these features. h. ECDC 22.43.050 requires transparent windows for buildings facing the street. That clearly is not appropriate for a restroom facility. 4. Characteristics of the Area. City Hall is located to the north. Surrounding uses are a mix of government buildings and commercial uses. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse impacts anticipated from the proposal. The ECDC does not require any parking for the CU and Variance p. 317indings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 160 1 8.1.b 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposal. The proposal will result in the loss of one or two parking spaces from the City Hall parking lot. It is unclear from the record whether the proposal will detract from any parking required for the site, so a condition of approval will require that parking not be reduced below minimum applicable parking standards. The staff report notes that restrooms will be regularly maintained by the City, which addresses concerns about garbage and odor. As further noted in the staff report, the proposal will not interfere with any vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Seven of the eight development standards subject to the variance request are primarily designed to address aesthetic impacts. The requested modifications to these design standards should not result in any loss of aesthetic appeal as staff has ensured that the proposed design is fully compatible with surrounding uses. As testified by the CSED director, the restrooms were subject to the design suggestions of an ad hoc design review committee that ensured that the proposed design would be compatible with surrounding development. As a result of this design review, a structural canopy is proposed to be added to the pre -fabricated building to provide interest and weather protection on the north fagade by the plaza and the east fagade over the sidewalk along 5th Avenue. Several design details will be added to the building to provide additional interest on those facades: light fixtures, overlain brick at the parapet and base, and three illuminated Plexiglas display cases at 5th Avenue. See Ex. 1, att. 2, Sheet L9. The display cases will include a rotating selection of art, event posters and the like. As designed and with the proposed plaza and landscaping, the proposal will not result in any significant adverse aesthetic impacts. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides that the hearing examiner will hold a hearing and issue a final decision on conditional use permit applications. ECDC 17.00.030(C) requires that examiner decisions on variances be recommendations to the City Council for public structures and uses. The conditional use application is consolidated with the variance application as recommendations to the City Council per ECDC 20.01.002(C). Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. The proposal is located in the Downtown Mixed Commercial (BD2) zone. 3. Permit Review Criteria. ECDC 17.100.050(A)(1) requires a conditional use permit for public facilities in the BD2 zone. Conditional use criteria are governed by ECDC 20.050.010. Variance criteria are governed by ECDC 20.85.010. All applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. CU and Variance p. 4Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 161 1 8.1.b I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. The public restroom project is included in the Capital Facilities Plan (Ex. 1, att. 4), which is an element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. A public restroom is also mentioned in Goal D.3 for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center (p 48) and in Goal E.6 for Economic Development (p 114) in the Comprehensive Plan. ECDC 20.05.010(B): Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. 5. The staff report analysis of Zoning Ordinance compliance, located at pages 4-5 of the staff report, is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.05.010(C): Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts. Consequently, it is concluded that the proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to nearby properties or improvements. ECDC 20.05.010(D): Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property. 7. The conditional use permit shall be personal as requested by the applicant. The use should be personal because the proposal is designed to facilitate public events and services to which the applicant is uniquely qualified as a public entity to sponsor and/or facilitate. CU and Variance VARIANCE p. 5Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 162 1 8.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I: ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010(A) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; The criterion is met for all eight variance requests because the restroom is a public ;essity as determined by the City Council in its decision to include the restroom ility in the capital facilities plan of the comprehensive plan. The variance is not ;essary due to any factor personal to the City of Edmonds. ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 9. The City of Edmonds needs the variance in order to provide restroom facilities to persons who are participating in outdoor City events and/or who are exploring the downtown area. The City just wishes to provide restroom facilities to the persons it serves in the same manner that any other allowed use in the vicinity and zone is authorized to provide restroom facilities to its patrons. In this regard the granting of the variance would not be a granting of special privilege. ECDC 20.85.010(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 10. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 4. ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; CU and Variance p. 6Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 163 1 8.1.b I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the BD2 zone and the purpose of the Zoning Code. ECDC 16.43.000(A) provides that one of the purposes of the downtown business zone is to promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office and entertainment supported by Edmonds residents and visitors from throughout the region. The proposed outdoor restrooms will facilitate the provision of outdoor events in the downtown area, ultimately assisting in the promotion of the downtown area as contemplated by ECDC 16.43.000(A). ECDC 16.00.010(B) provides that one of the purposes of the zoning code is to protect the character and the social and economic stability of the various uses authorized by the zoning code. The public restrooms implement this purpose by facilitating community events and making it easier for persons to explore the downtown area by foot. ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; 12. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 6 ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 13. As noted previously, the applicant wishes to provide restrooms to its patrons, which is an amenity that all surrounding uses is able to provide. Given the small scale of the proposal, the requested variances are the least necessary to accomplish this objective. The proposed building is simply too small to reasonably accommodate the design features required by the development standards subject to the variance request. Other reasons why the variance is the minimum necessary are outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, which generally identifies the necessity for each variance request. RECOMMENDATION The proposed conditional use and variance applications are consistent with all applicable development standards as outlined in this decision. The conditional use and variance requests should be approved subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The conditional use permit shall be personal to the City of Edmonds and is not transferable. 2. The proposal may not result in the loss of parking spaces to the extent that such reduction in spaces would violate applicable parking standards. CU and Variance p. 7Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 164 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 20th day of July, 2016. Plu'r A.01brechts E City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner This document serves as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision on the permit applications based upon evidence admitted into the administrative record by the hearing examiner. Please contact the Edmonds Planning Division, 425-771-0220, to determine when the recommendation will be considered by the City Council and how citizens can participate in the City Council review. CU and Variance p. 8Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Packet Pg. 165 1 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Refunding 2007 Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (15 min.) Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History In 2007, the City issued $5,230,000 of LTGO bonds to finance general City purposes to provide funds with which to (a) repay and redeem the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Anticipation Note, 2005 and its Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2006; (b) pay or reimburse the City for HVAC improvements to City facilities; (c) pay or reimburse the City for the Anderson Center seismic project; (d) pay or reimburse the City for energy conservation measures; (e) pay or reimburse the City for utility improvements. The 2007 Bonds are callable any time after December 1, 2016, and the City has the ability to refinance these bonds, saving the City taxpayers some money. The par amount of the 2007 Bonds that can be refunded is $3,120,000. The City's Financial Advisor, Northwest Municipal Advisors, formally A. Dashen and Associates, estimates that the savings from this refunding can total $349,000. Staff Recommendation Staff asks Council to: 1) confirm support for refunding these bonds 2) confirm support for the City to engage Northwest Municipal Advisors for their financial advisory services. Northwest Municipal Advisors' Engagement letter for Financial Advisory Services is attached, and 3) confirm support for the City to engage Foster Pepper and Bond Counsel services to draft the bond refunding documents as outlined in the attached Foster Pepper Engagement for Bond Counsel Services letter. Narrative The City can either refinance the 2007 Bonds through a bond issue or through a bank loan. Typically, bond issues work better for larger par amounts. Given the size of the 2007 Bond refunding, Northwest Municipal Advisors has recommended pursuing a bank loan. Additionally, if the City were to use the bank loan to refinance the bonds, we could lock in interest rates in the next 2 to 4 weeks vs. late November to early December if we were to issue new bonds to refinance the bonds. If Council approves the bond refunding via a bank loan, Northwest Municipal Advisors will conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to secure the best interest rate/fee option for the City. Attachments: Packet Pg. 166 9.1 Agreement to Serve as Financial Advisor - Edmonds - Bond Financing Foster Pepper Engagement Letter for Bond Counsel Services for 2016 Packet Pg. 167 9.1.a A/VNORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS 11900 NE I" Street, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 July 18, 2016 Mr. Scott James Finance Director City of Edmonds 12151" Avenue N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: ENGAGEMENT LETTER FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES Dear Scott: This letter and proposal specifies the terms of the engagement between Northwest Municipal Advisors and the City of Edmonds (the "City") for financial advisory services related to capital planning and funding for the City. If acceptable to the City, this engagement shall become effective upon acceptance by the City. INTRODUCTION TO NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS Northwest Municipal Advisors ("NWMA") is a financial advisory firm that specializes in assisting public entities finance projects. We have significant experience in general government and special purpose district financing. As a firm we do not sell or underwrite securities or bonds but only serve in an advisory role. This allows us to avoid a potential conflict of interest in providing advice to a bond issuer. NWMA is a registered municipal advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"). As such, NWMA has a fiduciary dutyto our clients and shall act and provide advice in a manner it believes to be in the best interest of its clients. As financial advisor, our most important responsibility is to provide sound advice to our clients, and our preference is to be involved in all aspects of a financing, ranging from up -front planning and identification of financing options to the actual sale, pricing and closing of a bond issue or other financing. We work with all of the bond counsel and underwriter firms in the Northwest, with many of the national underwriting firms, with regional and national banking institutions, and have good relationships with the bond rating agencies. Packet Pg. 168 9.1.a A/V SCOPE OF SERVICES NWMA will serve as financial advisor for the City's financing needs and provide the following services: • Provide advice on all aspects of any proposed capital financing. Develop practical solutions to the City's financing requirements in order to achieve the most advantageous financing. • Assume overall responsibility for developing and implementing any financing undertaken by the City, in close coordination with the City and the City's bond counsel. • If it is determined that the best financing for the City is a bond issue, recommend whether the bonds should be sold through a competitive sale or negotiated sale. Such recommendation will take into account the complexity of the financing, conditions in the bond market, and other factors that may affect the results of the bond sale. • If a commercial bank loan is the best form of financing, assist the City in the selection of a commercial bank. Interest rates and terms and conditions can vary significantly from bank to bank, so contacting a number of banks in this process will be beneficial to the City. • When applicable, recommend whetherthe City should sell revenue bonds or general obligation bonds. • Make recommendations on the timing, sizing, maturity structure, call provisions and other details of bond issues. • Assume responsibility for coordinating the City's bond rating and bond insurance (if applicable) applications and presentations. • When appropriate, analyze alternatives and make recommendations relative to interim financing. Assist with interim financing when requested by the City. • Provide comments to the City's bond counsel related to the bond ordinance and other financing documents. Review and provide comments to the official statement for the bonds. • Provide complete sets of preliminary and final bond financing numbers to the City, in a format readily usable by City staff. • In the event of a negotiated bond sale, represent the City during the bond pricing by the underwriter, and assist in "negotiating" the terms of the financing, including interest rates, yields, call provisions, fees & charges and other parameters related to the sale of the bonds. Recommend to the City whether or not to accept the offer of the underwriter to purchase the bonds. • To the extent that variable rate bonds are issued, assist the City in negotiating the letter of credit and other parameters of the variable rate financing. • If acting in the capacity of an Independent Registered Municipal Advisor ("IRMA") with regard to the IRMA exemption of the SEC Rule, NWMA will review all third party recommendations submitted to NWMA in writing by the City. • Provide other services typically expected of a full service financial advisor on a bond sale. Packet Pg. 169 9.1.a A/V On an ongoing basis, NWMA will maintain debt service records on all outstanding City debt. As we monitor the market, we will: • Review and analyze implications for the City's debt profile in response to proposed changes to federal, state, and local tax and finance laws (if any); • Keep tabs on current interest rates and bond structures in the market; and • Bring to the City's attention when market conditions allow for the City to best take advantage of refunding opportunities. From time to time, the City may receive unsolicited proposals from investment bankers. We will conduct analyses to ensure that the structures, terms, costs, and parameters of any proposed issues are consistent with the City's best interests, and in line with industry practices. FEES AND CHARGES For bond financing services, our fee for services is dependent on our involvement as financial advisor and the fees shown below are not -to -exceed amounts. We do not want to duplicate work done by the underwriter on a bond sale. To the extent the underwriter, if a negotiated sale, or bond counsel does more of the work, our fees would be adjusted accordingly. For a fee schedule, we are proposing that our work as financial advisor be separated into two categories: bond financing services and general financial advisory services. We prefer to bill based on a fee basis for the bonds, but would consider all hourly billing at the preference of the City. Bond Financing Services For competitive and negotiated bond sales where we have primary responsibility for coordinating the financing, working with the rating agencies and structuring the bond issue, the fee schedule would be as follows. These are not -to -exceed amounts and can be reduced depending on the difficulty of the issue and the time involved. Also, if the City does a bank placement in lieu of a bond issue, the fees would be reduced. • For issues up to $40 million, $1.00 per $1,000 par amount of bonds, with a minimum fee of up to $15,000 (subject to reduction for small issues). • For issues from $40 million to $60 million, $40,000 plus $0.50 per $1,000 par amount of bonds over $40 million. • For issues over $60 million, $50,000 plus $0.25 per $1,000 par amount of bonds over $60 million up to an agreed upon cap. • For preparing the preliminary and final official statements, the fee will not exceed $10,000. NWMA will be reimbursed for direct out-of-pocket expenses. These expenses may include, but are not limited to: mileage; long distance charges; travel expenses; overnight delivery charges; printing; and photocopying. Packet Pg. 170 9.1.a A/V General Financial Advisory Services Compensation for other services shall be on an hourly basis. However, no work on an hourly basis shall be commenced without prior approval by the District. We charge $295 per hour for principals and $195 for financial advisor staff. FIDUCIARY DUTY NWMA is registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC. As such, NWMA has a Fiduciary duty to the City and must provide both a Duty of Care and a Duty of Loyalty that entails the following. Duty of Care a) exercise due care in performing its municipal advisory activities; b) possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the City with informed advice; c) make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to the City's determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for any advice provided to the City; and d) undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that NWMA is not forming any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information; NWMA must have a reasonable basis for: any advice provided to or on behalf of the City; ii. any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the City, any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, or investors in the City securities; and iii. any information provided to the City or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement. Duty of Loyalty NWMA must deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with the City and act in the City's best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of NWMA. NWMA will eliminate or provide full and fair disclosure (included herein) to the City about each material conflict of interest (as applicable). NWMA will not engage in municipal advisory activities with the City as a municipal entity if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts in a mannerthat will permit it to act in the City's best interests. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND OTHER MATTERS REQUIRING DISCLOSURES • As of the date of the Agreement, except as disclosed below NWMA is not aware of actual or potential conflicts of interest that NWMA that might impair its ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty, except as discussed. If NWMA becomes aware of any other potential conflict of interest that arise after this disclosure, NWMA will disclose the detailed information in writing to the City in a timely manner. • NWMA is compensated for municipal advisory activities to be performed that is contingent on the size or closing of any transactions as to which NWMA is providing advice which can be a conflict of interest. Packet Pg. 171 9.1.a A/V • The fee paid to NWMA increases the cost of investment to the City. The increased cost occurs from compensating NWMA for municipal advisory services provided. • NWMA does not have any other engagements or relationships that might impair NWMA's ability either to render unbiased and competent advice to or on behalf of the City or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City, as applicable. • NWMA does not act as principal in any of the transactions related to this Agreement. • During the term of the municipal advisory relationship, this agreement will be promptly amended or supplemented to reflect any material changes in or additions to the terms or information within this agreement and the revised writing will be promptly delivered to the City. • NWMA does not have any affiliate that provides any advice, service, or product to or on behalf of the client that is directly or indirectly related to the municipal advisory activities to be performed by NWMA. • NWMA has not made any payments directly or indirectly to obtain or retain the City's municipal advisory business. • NWMA has not received any payments from third parties to enlist NWMA recommendation to the City of its services, any municipal securities transaction or any municipal finance product; • NWMA has not engaged in any fee -splitting arrangements involving NWMA and any provider of investments or services to the City. • NWMA does not have any legal or disciplinary event that is material to the City's evaluation of the municipal advisory or the integrity of its management or advisory personnel. • NWMA is not involved in the underwriting of bonds and is not associated with any underwriting firm which eliminates any conflicts of interest related to underwriter selection or underwriter compensation. • NWMA serves as financial advisor to Snohomish County and Mukilteo School District. LEGAL EVENTS AND DISCIPLINARY HISTORY NWMA does not have any legal events and disciplinary history on its Form MA and Form MA-1, which includes information about any criminal actions, regulatory actions, investigations, terminations, judgments, liens, civil judicial actions, customer complaints, arbitrations and civil litigation. The City may electronically access NWMA's most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA -I filed with the Commission at the following website: www.sec.govzedgar/searchedgar/companysearch.htmi. There have been no material changes to a legal or disciplinary event disclosure on any Form MA or Form MA -I filed with the SEC. RECOMMENDATIONS If NWMA makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product or if the review of a recommendation of another party is requested in writing by the City and is within the scope of the engagement, NWMA will determine, based on the information obtained through Packet Pg. 172 9.1.a A/V reasonable diligence of NWMA whether a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is suitable for the City. In addition, NWMA will inform the City of: • the evaluation of the material risks, potential benefits, structure, and other characteristics of the recommendation; • the basis upon which NWMA reasonably believes that the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is, or is not, suitable for the City; and • whether NWMA has investigated or considered other reasonably feasible alternatives to the recommendation that might also or alternatively serve the City's objectives. If the City elects a course of action that is independent of or contrary to the advice provided by NWMA, NWMA is not required on that basis to disengage from the City. RECORD RETENTION Effective July 1, 2014, pursuant to the SEC record retention regulations, NWMA is required to maintain in writing, all communication and created documents between NWMA and the City for 5 years. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by either party. In the event of termination, NWMA shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred to the date of termination. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Liability of NWMA under this agreement shall be limited to fees paid. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT If this agreement is satisfactory to the City, please sign and return to NWMA. We look forward to working with the City to meet your financing needs. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Accepted and approved by the City of Edmonds This _____ day of .......... __. 2016. 0 Packet Pg. 173 9.1.b FOSTER PEPPER,.,, July 20, 2016 Mr. Scott James Finance Director City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Phone (206) 447-7888 E-Mail marc.greenough@foster.com Re: Engagement for Bond Counsel Services for 2016 Dear Scott: We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") from time to time as Bond Counsel and as Special Counsel. This letter confirms our representation of the City in connection with the proposed refunding of the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2007 and other bonds that may be issued during 2016. Scope of Engagement and Fees. As Bond Counsel, we would expect to perform the duties set forth in the attached "Bond Counsel Scope of Services" (Attachment 1). Each bond opinion will be based on facts and law existing as of its date. In rendering our bond opinion, we will rely upon the certified proceedings and other certifications of public officials and other persons furnished to us without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation, and we will assume continuing compliance by the City after the Bonds are issued with applicable laws relating to the Bonds. Upon the closing of the Bonds we will prepare and distribute to the participants in the transaction a transcript of the proceedings pertaining to the Bonds. During the course of this engagement, we will rely on the City to provide us with complete and timely information on all developments pertaining to any aspect of the Bonds and their security. We understand that officials and employees of the City will cooperate with us in this regard. For work performed as Bond Counsel, we normally charge the City a flat fee based on our standard bond counsel fee schedule, which takes into account the size and complexity of the transaction. For bonds issued in 2016, our fees would be based on the formulas in the table below, which are unchanged from 2015: General Obligation Bonds Par Amount Base Fee Fee per additional $1,000 par amount Under $1 MM $ 9,500 $1 MM to $4.99 MM 11,200 + $2.50 per $1,000 above $1 million $5 MM to $9.99 MM 21,200 + $1.85 per thousand above $5 million $10 MM to $24.99 MM 30,450 + $1.50 per thousand above $10 million $25 MM to $49.99 MM 52,950 + $0.90 per thousand above $25 million Above $50 MM 75,450 + negotiable 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98101-3299 tel: 206.447.4400 fax: 206.447.9700 51538434 1 foster.com I Packet Pg. 174 9.1.b Mr. Scott James July 20, 2016 Page 2 Utility Revenue Bonds Par Amount Under $1 MM $1 MM to $4.99 MM $5 MM to $9.99 MM $10 MM to $24.99 MM $25 MM to $49.99 MM Above $50 MM Base Fee Fee per additional $1,000 par amount $ 12,350 14,550 + $3.25 per $1,000 above $1 million 27,550 + $2.40 per thousand above $5 million 39,550 + $1.95 per thousand above $10 million 68,850 + $1.15 per thousand above $25 million 98,050 + negotiable Fees would be rounded to the nearest $50. For refunding bonds, we would add 10% to the fee as calculated above. We will charge the bond counsel fee only if and when the bonds are issued. If the bonds are not issued by the end of 2016, we would expect to be compensated on an hourly basis at our normal hourly rates for the work that we have performed in an amount not to exceed the fees calculated using the tables above. If we are requested by the City to perform additional services beyond those described in the Scope of Bond Counsel Services, or if for any reason the financing represented by the Bonds is not closed or is completed without the delivery of our bond opinion as Bond Counsel or our services are otherwise terminated, we would expect to be compensated at our normal hourly rates for time actually devoted to handling such matters for the City. Conflicts of Interest. As you know, our firm represents many political subdivisions, companies and individuals. It is possible that during the time that we are representing the City, one or more of our present or future clients will have transactions with the City. As the City is aware, we have in the past represented the Edmonds Public Facilities District as bond counsel and on general matters, pursuant to written waivers by the City and the District. In addition, as we have noted in our prior engagement letters for bond counsel services, the land use and real estate lawyers in our firm may from time to time represent other clients on matters relating to projects located in the City of Edmonds. Typically, these are matters that do not involve our municipal or public finance lawyers and are unrelated to our bond counsel work. Nevertheless, such representations might be viewed as conflicts of interest under the Rules of Professional Responsibility applicable to attorneys. We are not aware of any currently active matters involving the City of Edmonds for which land use and real estate lawyers in our firm are representing other clients, but it is possible that such matters could arise in the future. Finally, from time to time we represent the underwriters who may underwrite the City's bonds or financial institutions who may purchase the City's bonds in transactions involving issuers other than the City. The Rules of Professional Conduct allow clients to waive conflicts of interest when a lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. We have considered the potential for future conflicts of the type described above, and we believe that it is appropriate to ask for confirmation of the waivers described above. One of the primary risks associated 51538434 1 Packet Pg. 175 9.1.b Mr. Scott James July 20, 2016 Page 3 with waivers of conflicts of interest is the risk that confidential information of one client will be disclosed to the other client, to the disadvantage of the first client. We believe that risk will not be present in any future land use and real estate work because the lawyers in our firm who may assist those clients in the future are not the same lawyers who will work with the City on this bond issue or other public finance matters. With respect to our representation of underwriters, when we serve as bond counsel to the City, we rarely obtain confidential information that could be disclosed to the disadvantage of City in connection with an underwriter in an unrelated transaction. Such information generally is shared with the City's underwriters or investors pursuant to state and federal securities disclosure laws and regulations. However, we will consult with you prior to proceeding with any such representation where the City's interests may be adverse. If the terms of this letter are acceptable and the City is also willing to waive the conflicts (or potential conflicts) described above, I would appreciate it if you would have the enclosed copy of this letter signed by you or another appropriate City official and returned to me at your convenience. We look forward to working with all involved in this financing. Please call whenever there are questions, or if we might be able to assist the City. Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Marc R. Greenough cc: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF EDMONDS 51 Title: 51538434 1 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment 1 BOND COUNSEL SCOPE OF SERVICES FOSTER PEPPER PLLC A. BOND COUNSEL SERVICES The services that Foster Pepper PLLC will provide as bond counsel to the City include: 1. Advising the City and its consultants on legal requirements applicable to a proposed financing and, when requested, participating with those consultants and the City's staff in structuring the financing of the project; 2. Reviewing the transcripts relating to the prior issuance by the City of related outstanding obligations to assure conformity of the Bonds with applicable covenants and conditions; 3. Based on facts provided by the City and its consultants, performing the necessary legal analysis to determine whether interest on the Bonds will qualify for an exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and preparing tax exemption and nonarbitrage certificates; 4. Drafting the documents necessary to authorize the Bonds; 5. Attending certain meetings and participating in conference calls relating to the issuance and sale of the Bonds; Forwarding financing documents to bond rating agencies and bond insurers, when requested by the City, and explaining those documents to agency and insurer representatives; 7. When requested by the City or its consultants, reading those portions of drafts of the official statement, offering circular or other sales material relating to the Bonds prepared by the City or its consultants necessary to assure the accuracy only of the description of the Bonds, the source of payment and security for the Bonds, any continuing disclosure undertaking and the federal tax treatment of the interest on the Bonds; Preparing closing papers necessary to support the issuance of the Bonds and assembling the transcript after the closing; and 9. Subject to the completion of proceedings to our satisfaction, furnishing the firm's approving bond opinion regarding the validity and binding effect of the Bonds and the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. B. OTHER SERVICES The services described above do not include the following additional bond and project -related work for the City, which we would be pleased to perform on request. The provision of these services involves appropriate fee arrangements. 1. The drafting or review for sufficiency of any environmental impact statements or other evidence of compliance with the state and federal environmental laws and regulations; 2. The drafting or review for accuracy of portions of any official statement, offering circular or other sales material relating to the issuance of the Bonds prepared by the City or its consultants or otherwise used in connection with the Bonds, other than the review of those portions of the official statement describing the Bonds, the source of payment and security for the Bonds, any 51538434 1 Packet Pg. 177 0 Attachment 1 continuing disclosure undertaking and the expected federal tax treatment of the interest on the Bonds included in our services as bond counsel (See item A.7 above); 3. Providing advice to the City or its consultants regarding the applicability of the registration requirements under federal or state securities laws or regarding federal and state securities disclosure requirements or due diligence review; 4. Drafting of bond purchase agreements; Negotiation and drafting of repurchase agreements, investment contracts, custodial agreements, swap agreements, credit enhancement or liquidity facilities (other than bond insurance), and contracts, or disputes or litigation in connection therewith; 6. Preparation of supplemental opinions; 7. Attending rating agency meetings in connection with the issuance of Bonds; 8. Drafting or obtaining state or federal legislation; 9. Drafting entity formation documents; 10. Participating in administrative proceedings, trial or appellate litigation; 11. Work in connection with seeking or obtaining governmental assistance or approvals from governmental agencies other than the City necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Bond issue; 12. Providing services relating to public works bidding, negotiating design or construction contracts, or carrying out the acquisition of property or the construction of the project; 13. Representing the City in Internal Revenue Service examinations or inquiries, or Securities and Exchange Commission investigations; 14. After closing, providing continuing advice to the City or any other party concerning any actions necessary to assure that interest paid on the Bonds will continue to be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes (e.g., our engagement as bond counsel does not include rebate calculations for the Bonds or dealing with changes of use or delay in the expenditure of proceeds); 15. Assisting the City with any continuing disclosure obligations consistent with applicable securities laws; or 16. Addressing any other matter not specifically set forth above that is not required to furnish our bond opinion. C. FILE MANAGEMENT After the transaction is concluded, we will deliver to the City a complete copy of the transcript of the transaction. A transcript is delivered generally within 30 to 60 days after closing. We then close our files regarding the matter, and our representation on the transaction is completed. Additional services after closing would be addressed under Part B above. 51538434 1 Packet Pg. 178 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2016-2017 (5 min.) Staff Lead: Jim Lawless Department: Police Services Preparer: James Lawless Background/History The agreement has been renewed annually since 1988. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends and requests that this ILA be carried forward to the August 2, 2016 Council Business Meeting for approval and authorization of the Mayor's signature by full Council via Consent Agenda. Narrative Since January 1988, the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, the City of Edmonds, and numerous other Snohomish County entities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (SRDGTF). Edmonds was one of he original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit. In more recent years, Edmond, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF, Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the SRDGTF through a financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the SSCNTF. The SRDGTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the SRDGTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating entities. For fiscal year 2016-2017, the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, twenty municipalities, DSHS/CPS, the Washington State Patrol and the Snohomish Health District, are pledging matching funds to the SRDGTF. Edmonds' share for July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 is $13,463 (5 quarters to align with federal funding schedule). Funding for this item is included in the 2016 Edmonds Police budget. The inter -local agreement and the funding received from participating entities, is set forth in the operation framework for the SRDGTF, and has been so since 1988. The SRDGTF and the SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally, the SRDGTF can be called out to dismantle the lab. This assistance can literally save us thousands of dollars in overtime training, hazardous materials removal/disposal and equipment expenses. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with investigations in which the two task forces assist one another with large scale investigations that may also involve common suspects. Packet Pg. 179 9.2 This ILA has been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. Attachments: Task Force ILA Signature Page 7.19.16 2016-2017 Task Force Interlocal Agreement AATF Packet Pg. 180 9.2.a ATTEST: APPROVED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION: 'Citle ATTEST: Jurisdiction Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: rafiction Attorney Dated Jurisdiction of Dated Packet Pg. 181 9.2.b INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE This Interlocal Agreement Establishing the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force ("Agreement"), is entered into by and among Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the following jurisdictions (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Participating Jurisdictions"): City of Arlington City of Bothell City of Brier City of Darrington City of Edmonds City of Everett City of Gold Bar City of Granite Falls City of Index City of Lake Stevens City of Lake Forest Park City of Lynnwood City of Marysville Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force -- Page 1 City of Mill Creek City of Monroe City of Mountlake Terrace City of Mukilteo City of Snohomish City of Stanwood City of Sultan DSHS, Child Protective Services Washington State Patrol Snohomish Health District Packet Pg. 182 9.2.b WITNESSES THAT: WHEREAS, the State of Washington Department of Commerce (hereinafter "Commerce"), has received funds from the U.S. Department of Justice under authority of the Anti -Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to provide grants to local units of government for drug law enforcement; and WHEREAS, eligible applicants include cities, counties and Indian tribes; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 RCW permits one or more public agencies to contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking that each public agency is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County and Commerce have entered into a Narcotics Control Grant Contract (hereinafter "Grant Contract") whereby Snohomish County will use specified grant funds solely for a regional task force project consistent with the task force grant application submitted to Commerce on or before July 1, 2016, upon which the Grant Contract is based (by this reference both the Grant Contract and the grant application are incorporated in this agreement as though set forth fully herein); and WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions recognize the above -mentioned Grant Contract between Commerce and Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions desire to participate as members of the multi jurisdictional task force with Snohomish County administering task force project grants on their behalf, and WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions desire to enter into an agreement with Snohomish County to enable Snohomish County to continue to be the receiver of any grant funds related to the task force project; and WHEREAS, each of the Participating Jurisdictions represented herein is authorized to perform each service contemplated for it herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: lnterlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 2 Packet Pg. 183 9.2.b 1.0 TASK FORCE CONTINUATION, TERM, AND PURPOSE 1.1 The countywide multi jurisdictional task force, composed of law enforcement, prosecutor, and support personnel, known as the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force"), was created pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement Among Participating Jurisdictions dated January 18, 1988. The Task Force has operated on a continuous basis since that time under a series of interlocal agreements, the most recent effective from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. This Agreement shall serve to continue the operation of the Task Force. 1.2 The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, unless earlier terminated or modified as provided in this Agreement. 1.3 The purpose of the Task Force is to formally structure and jointly coordinate selected law enforcement activities, resources, and functions in order to disrupt illegal drug trafficking systems and to remove traffickers through a cooperative program of investigation, prosecution, and asset forfeiture. The parties do not intend that this Agreement create a separate legal entity subject to suit. 1.4 The Task Force agrees to perform the statement of work indicated in the Task Force Abstract set forth in the application for funding between Commerce and Snohomish County. Therefore each Participating Jurisdiction adopts the following Task Force goals: • Reduce the number of drug traffickers and gang members in the communities of Snohomish County through the professional investigation, apprehension and conviction. • Efficiently attack, disrupt and prosecute individual and organized mid to upper level drug traffickers and street gang members who do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries or limitations, and by doing so, impact drug trafficking organizations previously impregnable. Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force -- Page 3 Packet Pg. 184 9.2.b • Enhance drug enforcement cooperation and coordination through multi -agency investigations, training of local jurisdictions and the sharing of resources and information. • To address these issues with the foremost consideration of safety for both law enforcement and the community. 1.5 The Task Force will follow a management system for the shared coordination and direction of personnel as well as financial, equipment and technical resources as stated in this Agreement. 1.6 The Task Force will implement operations, including: a. Development of intelligence b. Target identification c. Investigation d. Arrest of Suspects e. Successfal prosecution of offenders, and f. Asset forfeiture/disposition 1.7 The Task Force shall evaluate and report on Task Force performance to Commerce as required in the Grant Contract. 2.0 ORGANIZATION 2.1 Exhibit "D", incorporated herein by this reference, sets forth the organization of the Task Force. 2.2 The Task Force Executive Board shall be comprised of the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, the Snohomish County Sheriff, the Everett Police Chief, the Everett City Attorney, and one (1) chief of police from the remaining Participating Jurisdictions chosen by the chiefs of police of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions. The Snohomish County Sheriff shall serve as Chair of the Executive Board. The Task Force Executive Board may adopt bylaws providing for appointment of alternates to attend Executive Board meetings in the absence of members. At such meetings the alternate shall have the same Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 4 Packet Pg. 185 9.2.b rights as the appointing member. Any action taken by the Task Force Executive Board under this Agreement shall be based on a majority vote. 2.3 Personnel assigned to the Task Force shall be directed in their Task Force duties by the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) through the Task Force Commander. The Task Force Commander will be an employee of Snohomish County for all purposes and, if not a regular SCSO deputy, will hold a special commission for that purpose. 2.4 Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by this reference, sets forth the personnel currently assigned to the Task Force by each Participating Jurisdiction. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the ability of the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish County Sheriff, Everett Police Chief, or chief law enforcement officer of any Participating Jurisdiction to reassign personnel now or later assigned to the Task Force. 2.5 Participating Jurisdiction Employees: Personnel assigned to the Task Force by Participating Jurisdiction shall be considered employees of that Participating Jurisdiction. All rights, duties, and obligations of the employer and the employee shall remain with that individual jurisdiction. Each Participating Jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, and/or civil service rules and regulations, with regard to its employees. 3.0 FINANCING 3.1 Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the estimated Task Force Grant Contract budget. Participating Jurisdictions agree to provide funds that in the aggregate will allow for at least a one-third match of the fiends awarded under the Grant Contract ("Local Match"). 3.2 Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the Local Match breakdown for the period from July 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. Although State and/or Federal Grant funds may vary from the amount initially requested, Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 5 Packet Pg. 186 9.2.b each Participating Jurisdiction agrees to provide funding that is no less than the amount indicated in Exhibit "C", and to pay its funding share to Snohomish County as administrator of Task Force funds promptly upon request. 3.3 As required by the Grant Contract, each Participating Jurisdiction agrees that the funding it contributes shall be provided in addition to that currently appropriated to narcotics enforcement activities and that no Task Force activity will supplant or replace any existing narcotic enforcement activities. 3.4 Except as modified by section 5.3 below, all revenues collected or generated by or for the Task Force shall be forwarded to the Snohomish County Treasurer and placed in a designated special account for the purpose of supporting Task Force operations, and all real or personal property of the Task Force will be held in Snohomish County's name for the benefit of the Task Force. 3.5 Upon termination of the Task Force, all funds remaining in said special account shall be disbursed pro rata to the then -current Participating Jurisdictions in proportion to the percentage of their most recent contribution to the Local Match indicated in Exhibit "C". 4.0 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Snohomish County agrees to provide Commerce with the necessary documentation to receive grant funds. 4.2 By executing this Agreement, each Participating Jurisdiction agrees to make any certified assurances required by the Grant Contract that are within its particular control, and agrees to make all its records related to the Task Force available for inspection consistent with the Grant Contract. 4.3 All Task Force contracts and agreements executed on behalf of Participating Jurisdictions under this Agreement must first be approved on motion of the Task Force Executive Board. By executing this Agreement, each Participating Jurisdiction agrees that, for the purpose of administering the assets and Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 6 Packet Pg. 187 9.2.b resources available to the Task Force, Snohomish County is hereby granted the authority to execute on behalf of the Participating Jurisdictions all agreements and contracts signed as approved by the Task Force Executive Board, by and through its Chair, including but not limited to all contracts for professional services. Agreements and contracts executed in this manner shall have the same legal effect as if they were executed by each Participating Jurisdiction. No such agreement or contract may impose or waive liability with respect to a Participating Jurisdiction in a manner that is inconsistent with the hold harmless provision in section 10.0 of this Agreement.. 4.4 Any dispute arising under this Agreement will be forwarded to the Task Force Executive Board for arbitration. The determination made by the Executive Board shall be final and conclusive as between the parties. This provision shall not apply to issues of indemnity and liability governed by the hold harmless provision in section 10.0 of this Agreement. 5.0 ASSET FORFEITURE 5.1 The Participating Jurisdictions shall refer all potential asset forfeitures initiated or investigated by officers assigned to the Task Force during the pendency of this Agreement to the Task Force for disposition at the discretion of the Task Force Executive Board or prosecuting authority (Prosecuting Attorney or United States Attorney). Any such referred asset forfeiture that is pursued in state court will be prosecuted in the name of Snohomish County on behalf of the Task Force and its Participating Jurisdictions. 5.2 The Task Force Commander, under the direction of the Task Force Executive Board, shall manage the acquisition and disposition of assets seized or forfeited as a result of this Agreement in compliance with law and Task Force procedures. 5.3 A portion of the net monetary proceeds of each asset forfeiture made by the Task Force shall be distributed to the involved investigating agencies Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 7 Packet Pg. 188 9.2.b commensurate with their participation as determined by prior agreement between the Task Force Commander and said agencies, or in the absence of such agreement, by the Task Force Executive Board, prior to dedication of the remaining proceeds to the Task Force as specified in section 3.4. As long as the personnel assignments stated in Exhibit "A" remain unchanged, distributions to Snohomish County and the City of Everett under this subparagraph shall be 40 percent each of the net monetary proceeds remaining after distributions under this subparagraph to Participating Jurisdictions other than Snohomish County and the City of Everett. If assignments change from those stated in Exhibit "A", the Task Force Executive Board may modify the relative percentage allocations to Snohomish County and the City of Everett on a case -by -case or permanent basis. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "net monetary proceeds" means cash proceeds realized from property forfeited during the term of this Agreement that is not retained for use by the Task Force after deducting all costs and expenses incurred in its acquisition, including but not limited to the cost of satisfying any bona fide security interest to which the property may be subject at the time of seizure, the cost of sale in the case of sold property (including reasonable fees or commissions paid to independent selling agencies), amounts paid to satisfy a landlord's claim for damages, and the amount of proceeds (typically ten percent) payable to the State of Washington under RCW 69.50.505(9) or similar law. 5.4 The Task Force may retain funds in an amount up to $250,000.00 from the net proceeds of vehicle seizures for the purchase of Task Force vehicles and related fleet costs. 5.5 Any Participating Jurisdiction receiving a distribution of assets forfeited under RCW 69.50.505 shall use such assets in accordance with RCW 69.50.505(10), which limits use to the expansion and improvement of controlled substances related law enforcement activity and prohibits use to supplant preexisting funding sources. Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 8 Packet Pg. 189 9.2.b 5.6 Upon termination of the Task Force, the Task Force Executive Board shall dispose of the Task Force's interest in assets seized or forfeited as a result of this Agreement in accordance with applicable federal, state and county requirements, and shall distribute proceeds in accordance with sections 5.3 and 3.5. 6.0 ACQUISITION AND USE OF EQUIPMENT 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Equipment" shall refer to all personal property used by the Task Force in performing its purpose and function, including but not limited to: materials, tools, machinery, equipment, vehicles, supplies, and facilities. 6.2 In the event that any Equipment is acquired with grant funds, the Participating Jurisdictions agree that the Task Force will use that equipment only for specified law enforcement purposes for the term of the grant. 6.3 Personnel assigned to the Task Force may use Equipment that is provided or acquired for Task Force purposes as directed by the Task Force Commander. 6.4 Upon termination of the Task Force, any Equipment provided to the Task Force by a Participating Jurisdiction will be returned to that jurisdiction. 6.5 Upon termination of the Task Force, the Task Force Executive Board shall dispose of all acquired equipment in accordance with applicable federal, state and county requirements, and shall distribute proceeds in accordance with section 3.5. 7.0 MODIFICATION Participating Jurisdictions reserve the right to amend this Agreement in the future from time to time as may be mutually agreed upon. No such amendment shall be effective unless written and signed by all then -contributing jurisdictions with the same formality as this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 9 Packet Pg. 190 9.2.b 8.0 NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISION There shall be no discrimination against any employee who is paid by the grant funds or against any applicant for such employment because of race, color, religion, handicap, marital status, political affiliation, sex, age, or national origin. This provision shall include, but not be limited to the following. employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training. 9.0 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 9.1 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement, any party may withdraw from the Agreement as it pertains to it by providing written notice of such withdrawal to all other parties, specifying the effective date thereof at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. A withdrawing party may take with it any Equipment it has provided to the Task Force, and shall be entitled to distributions under section 5.3 of this Agreement with respect to asset forfeitures initiated before the effective date of withdrawal. 9.2 If there is a reduction in funds by the source of those funds, and if such fiends are the basis of this Agreement, Snohomish County may unilaterally terminate all or part of the Agreement, or may reduce its scope of work and budget. 10.0 HOLD HARMLESS Each party hereto agrees to save, indemnify, defend and hold the other parties harmless from any allegations, complaints, or claims of wrongful and/or negligent acts or omissions, by said party and/or its officers, agents, or employees to the fullest extent allowed by law. In the case of allegations, complaints, or claims against more than one party, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right to seek contribution from each of the other parties in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each of the other parties. Moreover, the parties agree to cooperate and jointly defend Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 10 Packet Pg. 191 9.2.b any such matter to the extent allowed by law. An agency that has withdrawn assumes no responsibility for the actions of the remaining members arising after the date of withdrawal, but shall remain liable for claims of loss or liability arising prior to the effective date of withdrawal. 11.0 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington without reference to choice of law principles, and venue of any suit between the parties arising out of this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington. 12.0 INTEGRATION With the exception of necessary operational agreements between law enforcement agencies of the Participating Jurisdictions and agreements pursuant to section 5.3 hereof, this Agreement constitutes the whole and entire agreement among those parties as to the Task Force and no other understandings, oral, or otherwise, regarding the Task Force shall be deemed to exist or bind the parties. 13.0 EXECUTION OF MULTIPLE ORIGINAL COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be reproduced in any number of original counterparts. Each party need sign only one counterpart and when the signature pages are all assembled with one original counterpart, that compilation constitutes a fully executed and effective agreement among all the Participating Jurisdictions. In the event that fewer than all named parties execute this Agreement, the Agreement, once filed as specified in section 15.0, shall be effective as between the parties that have executed the Agreement to the same extent as if no other parties had been named. Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 11 Packet Pg. 192 9.2.b 14.0 SEVERABILITY If any part of this Agreement is unenforceable for any reason the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 15.0 POSTING/RECORDING This Agreement will be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor or posted on the County's or Participating Jurisdiction's interlocal agreements webpage, in compliance with RCW 39.34.040. In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement. THE COUNTY: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington LOW Name: Title: Approved as to Form: ty Pro cuting Attorney interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force — Page 12 Packet Pg. 193 9.2.b EXHIBIT A Snohomish Regional Drust & Gang Task Force Personnel Assigned by Jurisdiction July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDING 1 Lieutenant Everett PD 1 Sergeant Everett PD 1 Detective Everett PD 1 Detective Everett PD 1 Detective Everett PD 1 Detective Everett PD I Detective Everett PD 1 Detective Everett PD 1 Support Personnel Everett PD SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FUNDING 1 Task Force Commander Justice Assistance Grant 1 Lieutenant Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Sergeant Justice Assistance Grant 1 Sergeant Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Information Deputy Snohomish County Sheriff 1 K9 Detective Snohomish County Sheriff 1 Support Staff Snohomish County Sheriff SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT FUNDING 1 Local Health Officer Snohomish Health District SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FUNDING I Deputy Prosecutor Seizure Funding 1 Support Staff Seizure Funding STATE OF WASHINGTON FUNDING I Detective Washington State Patrol 1 Case Worker DSHS, Child Protective Services 1 Agent Department of Corrections VACANT VACANT VACANT Packet Pg. 194 9.2.b WA STATE GAMBLING COMMISSION 1 Agent NATIONAL GUARD 1 Intelligence Analyst BURF_AU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES l Agent DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY l Agent INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 1 Agent ICE / H.S.I. 2 Agent NAVAL CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICE I Agent FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS I Agent FUNDING Washington State VACANT FUNDING Washington National Guard VACANT FUNDING ATF VACANT FUNDING Drug Enforcement Agency VACANT FUNDING Internal Revenue Service VACANT FUNDING Immigration And Customs Enforcement FUNDING NCIS VACANT FUNDING FBI Packet Pg. 195 9.2.b EXHIBIT B Snohomish Re 'oral Drug & Gang Task Force Byrne/JAG Grant Estimated Operating Budget for July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 FEDERAL LOCAL FUNDS MATCH TOTAL Salaries 111,500 192,856 324,356 Benefits 21,500 58,600 60,100 Contracted Services 0 0 0 Goods and Services 0 0 0 Travel 0 0 0 Training 0 0 0 Equipment 0 0 0 Confidential Funds 0 0 0 TOTALS $133,000 $251,456 $384,456 Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Packet Pg. 196 9.2.b EXHIBIT C Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Local Contributions for July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 2016 OCT 2016- CONTRACT BRIDGE SEPT 2017 GRAND JURISDICTION POPULATION AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL Arlington 18,490 $ 1,230 $ 4,918 $ 6,148 Bothell 17,230 $ 1,146 $ 4,583 $ 5,729 Brier 6,500 $ 432 $ 1,729 $ 2,161 Darrington 1,350 $ 90 $ 359 $ 449 Edmonds 40,490 $ 2,693 $ 10,770 $ 13,463 Everett 105,800 $ 7,036 $ 28,142 $ 35,178 Gold Bar 2,115 $ 141 $ 563 $ 704 Granite Falls 3,390 $ 226 $ 902 $ 1,128 Index 160 $ 11 $ 43 $ 54 Lake Stevens 29,900 $ 1,988 $ 7,953 $ 9,941 Lake Forest Park - $ - $ - $ - Lynnwood 36,420 $ 2,422 $ 9,687 $ 12,109 Marysville 64,140 $ 4,265 $ 17,061 $ 21,326 Mill Creek 19,760 $ 1,314 $ 5,256 $ 6,570 Monroe 17,620 $ 1,172 $ 4,687 $ 5,859 Mountlake Terrace 21,090 $ 1,403 $ 5,610 $ 7,013 Mukilteo 20,900 $ 1,390 $ 5,559 $ 6,949 Snohomish 9,385 $ 624 $ 2,496 $ 3,120 Snohomish County 330,260 $ 21,962 $ 87,847 $ 109,809 Stanwood 6,585 $ 438 $ 1,752 $ 2,190 Sultan 4,680 $ 311 $ 1,245 $ 1,556 DSHS, CPS - $ - $ - $ - Snohomish Health District - $ - $ - $ - Washington State Patrol - $ - $ - $ - PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS' $ 50,294 $ 201,162 $ 251,456 TOTALS: Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Packet Pg. 197 EXHIBIT D 9.2.b SRDGTF Executive Board Chief of Everett (Asst Chair), Chief of Lynnwood, Snohomish County Sheriff (Chair), Snohomish County Prosecutor, City of Everett Attorney, SRDGTF Commander Sno County Gang Community Commander Community Mobilization /Sno' Response Team (G-CRT) Co Drug Action Team Gang — — ---- - Liason Officer (GLO) Operations Lt. 1 Criminal Admin Assistant Admin Lt. SCSO Deputy EPD EPD Prosecutor Operations Sgt Operations Sgt Legal Secretary Admin Sgt EPD SCSO SCSO 4 EPD Det. 3 SCSO Det. 1 WSP Det. 1 Financial Det - CPS/DEC Everett PD Invest - P/T 1 SCSO Det 1 Tech Det - Volunteer P/T LE Secretary - National Guard SCSO SCSO Analyst WA State Educational Educational DOC Agent Gambling Det - ICE Agent Officer/ K9 P/T Deputy - SCSO Arlington PD Reserve Det Lab Team IRS Agent P/T SCSO FBI Agent Drug Take Back Health District Packet Pg. 198 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Police Coverage at Athletic Events (5 min.) Staff Lead: Jim Lawless Department: Police Services Preparer: James Lawless Background/History This is a renewal of an Inter -local Agreement that has been in place for 10+ years. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends and requests that this ILA be carried forward to the August 2, 2016 Council Business Meeting for approval and authorization of the Mayor's signature by full Council via Consent Agenda. Narrative This is the renewal of an Inter -local Agreement (ILA) between the Edmonds Police Department and the Edmonds School District, which allows for the Police Department to provide security at the district football stadium. Costs incurred while providing security are reimbursed by the District. This agreement will commence September 1, 2016 and shall expire on August 31, 2019, and covers the terms, services to be provided and responsibilities of the off -duty police working this special detail. This ILA has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. Attachments: ILA Ci of Edmonds for Football Games 2016 to 2019 Packet Pg. 199 9.3.a INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT and CITY OF EDMONDS for POLICE COVERAGE AT ATHLETIC EVENTS THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made by and between Edmonds School District No. 15, hereafter referred to as the "District", and the City of Edmonds, a Washington State municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as "Edmonds", and collectively, the "Parties". RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW, Interlocal Cooperation Act, permits agencies to enter into agreements to engage in cooperative activities; and B. WHEREAS, the District and Edmonds desire to cooperate pursuant to the Act to make the most efficient use of their respective governmental powers within their jurisdictions; and C. WHEREAS, Edmonds and the District desire to have police coverage at District athletic events to provide security, promote safety, and serve as a positive resource to the District; and D. WHEREAS, Edmonds is desirous to assign one or more uniformed Police Officers (the "Officer") to provide police coverage at athletic events, in return for a rate of compensation that is agreed upon by the Parties; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representation and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: TERMS 1. Purpose. This Agreement is intended to provide police coverage at all football games as scheduled by the District, plus any post -season games to be determined, at Edmonds-Woodway High School located in the District through the assignment by Edmonds of one or more experienced commissioned Edmonds Officers to service that location at the specified rate of compensation herein. 2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2016 and shall expire on August 31, 2019, unless otherwise terminated under the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. This Agreement is subject to funding, and either party may terminate with proper written notice due to lack of funding. Packet Pg. 200 9.3.a 4. Duties of Officer(s). Edmonds shall assign the Officer(s) to provide police coverage at athletic events. The duties and responsibilities of the Officer(s) include, but are not limited to, the following: • Support game management with crowd control and enforce the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds. • Arrive at the stadium at the time indicated on the sign-up sheet, which is 45 minutes prior to the start of the game. Officer will report to the District Event Manager in the Stadium Office. • The Officer's primary function is to support the efforts of the game staff in providing a safe surrounding for students, parents, game participants and other attendees. • The District will provide Officers with a portable radio with District staff frequency to monitor for any requests by the stadium staff for police assistance. • If two Officers are working a game, one will be at each of the two ticket booths until game time or until notified by the Event Manager. If only one Officer is working, the Officer will alternate between the two ticket booths. • During the game, one Officer will be at each end of the grandstand. It is important that Officers are generally easy to spot in case a need arises. • At half time, at least one Officer will report to the east side of the grandstand to assist with crowd control. • At the conclusion of the 2nd and 3rd quarters, one Officer will assist the ticket sellers as they transport gate receipts back to the Stadium Office. At game end, the Event Manager may ask for assistance on the field to ensure that the crowd does not enter the field or to safeguard officials to their locker room. • Enforce rules pertaining to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs on public school property. The Officer(s) will periodically monitor the restrooms, the concession stands and walk behind the grandstands. The Officer(s) shall take enforcement action (juvenile referral or citation) when probable cause exists for any violations. Officers will notify the appropriate school administrator and /or the School Resource Officer of the arrest of any student during District sponsored event. • After the game, the Officer(s) will report to the game management office to sign out or be assigned other duties as directed by the Event Manager. 5. Independent Contractor. Edmonds and the District understand and agree that Edmonds is acting as an independent contractor under the terms of this Agreement. 6. Supervision of Officer(s). The Officer(s) shall remain an employee of Edmonds and is not an employee of the District. The Officer shall remain responsive to the supervision of the chain of command of the Edmonds Police 2 Packet Pg. 201 9.3.a Department. Edmonds shall be solely responsible for Officer's training, discipline, or dismissal. 7. Compensation. Officer's rate of pay shall be compensation at the rate of one and one-half (1.5) times the Officer's regular straight time hourly rate of pay, plus applicable employer contributions for state retirement, FICA equivalent, and state industrial insurance. 8. Payment. District shall pay Edmonds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a proper invoice. 9. Insurance and Indemnification. The parties shall separately maintain their own appropriate liability and casualty insurance policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The parties further agree that no indemnification shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth below, and that the respective liability of the parties to each other and to third persons shall be deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The District will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, employees, officials or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, wrongful acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees, or agents. The District waives immunity under Title 51 RCW, the Industrial Insurance Act, but only for purposes of fulfilling its indemnification obligations towards Edmonds under this provision, and acknowledges that this waiver has been specifically negotiated. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive any other immunities established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities. In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party. 10. District Responsibility for Safety and Security. The parties understand and agree that the District retains its legal responsibility for the safety and security of the District, its employees, students and property, and this Agreement does not alter that responsibility except as provided by paragraph 9 above. 11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between Parties and supersedes and merges with any prior agreements of the Parties, written or oral. This Agreement shall be amended only in writing with the written consent of the Parties. 13. Notice. Edmonds Assistant Chief of Administrative Services shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement for Edmonds and the Director of Athletics shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement for the District. Packet Pg. 202 9.3.a Notices to Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds Police Department ATTN: Assistant Police Chief of Administrative Services 250 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the District shall be sent to the following address: Edmonds School District #15 ATTN: Director of Athletics 20420 681h Ave W., Lynnwood, WA 98036 14. Duty to File Agreement with County Auditor. The District shall, within 10 days after this Agreement is executed by both parties, file this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency's website or other electronically retrievable public source as allowed in RCW 39.34.040. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS By: By: Stewart Mhyre Dated: Dated: Its: Executive Director Business and Operations 4 Packet Pg. 203 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Ordinance Adding Public Indecency Sections to ECC 5.38 (Offenses Against Public Morals) (10 min.) Staff Lead: Jim Lawless Department: Police Services Preparer: James Lawless Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Staff recommends and requests that this draft ordinance be carried forward to the August 2, 2016 Council Business Meeting for adoption by full Council via Consent Agenda. Narrative Over the past several years, the City of Edmonds, along with many other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region, has experienced an increase in the number of citizen complaints related to the activities associated with "Bikini Barista" coffee stands. These complaints relate to the state of dress/undress of the barista's, the fact that the barista's can be viewed by passing traffic, alleged sexual misconduct at the stands, etc. Edmonds City Code currently does not adequately address these types of behaviors/situations, either in ECC 4.52 (Regulations for Adult Entertainment Facilities) or ECC 5.38 (Offenses Against Public Morals). The proposed additions to ECC 5.38 would create two new sections: a Public Indecency section (5.38.150) that details what actions are prohibited more clearly defines nudity, what is considered obscene and what would be categorized as a public place; and, a Soliciting for an act of Public Indecency section (5.38.160) These additions and clarifications will clear up several ambiguities that exist in the current language and assist in the charging and criminal prosecution of the barista, the individual engaging the barista for the activities, and the coffee stand owner (should they be aware of or complicit to the activities taking place in their business). If/when formal charges have been filed, the City may then proceed with the revocation of the business license, should that be warranted. This ordinance has been prepared and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. Attachments: DRAFT Ordinance Adding Public Indecency Sections to ECC 5.38 Packet Pg. 204 9.4.a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 5.38 (OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC MORALS) TO ADD SECTIONS PROHIBITING PUBLIC INDECENCY AND THE SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC INDECENCY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that it is appropriate to include in the Offenses Against the Public Morals Chapter of the Edmonds City Code, ECC 5.38, provisions relating to public indecency; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds wishes to amend ECC 5.38 to add such provisions; NOW, THEREFORE, AS FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN Section 1. The following Subsections .150 and .160 are hereby added to ECC 5.38 Offenses Against the Public Morals to read as follows: 5.38.150 Public indecency. A. Public Indecency Prohibited. Notwithstanding anything in the Edmonds City Code to the contrary, a person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place: 1. Engages in actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or other ultimate sex acts; or 2. Engages in excretory functions in other than a restroom or other facility intended for such purpose; or 3. Appears in a state of nudity in a public place other than a public place provided or set apart for nudity; or 4. Fondles the genitals of himself, herself or another person; commits the crime of public indecency. Public indecency is a misdemeanor. -1- Packet Pg. 205 9.4.a B. Exemptions. This section shall not be construed to prohibit: 1. Plays, operas, musicals or other dramatic works that are not obscene; 2. Classes, seminars and lectures held for serious scientific or educational purposes that are not obscene; 3. Exhibitions or dances which are not obscene; or 4. Adult entertainment activities operating pursuant to Chapter 4.52 ECC. C. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following words or phrases shall have the meanings set forth herein, as follows: 1. "Nudity" means the showing or display of: a. Human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering; or b. Any portion of the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks. Attire that is insufficient to comply with this requirement includes, but is not limited to, G-strings, T-backs, thongs and any other clothing or covering that does not completely and opaquely cover the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks; or C. The portion of the human female breast directly or laterally below a point immediately above the top of the areola with less than a fully opaque covering. This definition shall include the entire lower portion of the human female breast, but shall not include any portion of the cleavage of the human female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bathing suit, or other clothing, provided the areola is not exposed. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk shall not be considered "nudity" or "public indecency"; or d. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. 2. "Public place" means any location, place or business frequented by the public, or where the public is present or likely to be present, or where a person may reasonably be expected to be observed by members of the public. The term includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, parking lots, parks, automobiles, whether moving or not, and business and commercial establishments (whether for profit or not for profit, whether open to the public at large, or whether entrance is limited by a cover charge or membership -2- Packet Pg. 206 9.4.a requirement), including businesses contained in structures which can serve customers who remain in their vehicles by means of a drive -up window or door. 3. "Public place provided or set apart for nudity" means a public place such as public restrooms, enclosed functional shower, locker or dressing room facilities, enclosed motel and hotel rooms designed and intended for sleeping accommodations, doctor's offices, portions of hospitals, and similar places in which nudity or exposure is necessarily and customarily expected outside of the home and the sphere of privacy constitutionally protected therein. 4. "Obscene" means an activity which: a. Taken as a whole by an average person, applying contemporary community standards, appeals to a prurient interest in sex; b. Depicts patently offensive representations, as measured against community standards, of: i. Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or ii. Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area; or iii. Violent or destructive sexual acts, including, but not limited to, human or animal mutilation, dismemberment, rape, or torture; and C. Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. 5.38.160 Soliciting for an act of public indecency. Every person who solicits another to engage in an act of public indecency in a public place shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 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. -3- Packet Pg. 207 9.4.a 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: Im JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 208 9.4.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, 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 ECC 5.38 (OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC MORALS) TO ADD SECTIONS PROHIBITING PUBLIC INDECENCY AND THE SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC INDECENCY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY -5- Packet Pg. 209 9.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Discussion and Potential Action on Ordinance Amending the Sign Code (30 min.) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council received a briefing on the Planning Board's recommended sign code changes on July 5, 2016, and held a public hearing on July 19, 2016. The Planning Board had several discussions on options for temporary portable signs downtown, including their meetings of April 27 and May 11, 2016. A Public Hearing was held on May 25, 2016 to gather input on three options dealing with temporary (e.g. A -frame) signs in the Downtown area, including (1) banning temporary portable signs such as A -frames, (2) allowing them as temporary signs for 60 days only (same as current code), or (3) allowing them as a form of permanent signage with restrictions on time, place and manner. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary portable signs, the draft amendments address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. At the June 8, 2016 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board indicated a preference for Option 3 and requested staff prepare a recommendation to City Council for Option 3 and the other clarifying amendments. Staff Recommendation After considering potential amendments (see Narrative discussion, below), adopt the ordinance amending the Edmonds sign code (Exhibit 1). Narrative Following the public hearing on July 19, 2016, the Council voted to use the Planning Board's recommended ordinance as a basis for discussion and further amendment. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider any amendments to the Planning Board's recommendation and arrive at a final ordinance for adoption. As previously discussed, the Planning Board's ordinance would implement "Option 3" which regulates "pedestrian signs" in the following way: "Pedestrian signs" are allowed as a form of permanent signage with restrictions. Pedestrian signs require a permit and the sign area counts against the total sign area allocated for a business. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor entrance. The sign is only allowed to be displayed while the business is open. Businesses may rotate their signs. Packet Pg. 210 9.5 The sign must be located within 10 feet of the entry. Minimum 5 feet of pedestrian clearance; the preferred locations are within 2 feet of the building or curb and would be specified in the permit. Maximum sign area for pedestrian signs is 6 sq. ft. Per sign. Two potential amendments were specifically suggested by individual council members for staff to review: 1. In the interest of more uniformity and consistency of application, modify the code to state a preference for pedestrian signs to be located within two feet of the building face while providing an exception process to handle situations where the better location might be at the curb. 2. Allow temporary pedestrian signs for 60 days for "new" businesses. These signs could be located off - site to provide enhanced visibility for the 'new' business. (1) If the Council wishes to make a change to the ordinance following the first suggestion this could be done by proposing the following amendment to the draft code: Amend section 20.60.055.1.e to read: "The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. The preferred location is within two feet of the building face, or within two feet of the curb if staff determines that the curb location will better preserve pedestrian access. The distance shall be measured from the closest part of the sign to the building/curb." (note that we have added the last sentence to clarify how the distance is measured; this would be a good addition to the ordinance regardless of how the Council decides on the rest of the amendment language) (2) Temporary signs for new businesses are a feature of the existing code; they can be displayed as on -site signage for up to 60 days. There are a number of concerns about expanding this type of provision to allow temporary off -site signage. For example, the current sign code is predicated on the idea that off -site commercial signage is not allowed. Carving out a special exception for downtown businesses could lead to pressure to make exceptions for other types of signage in other locations in the City. Another concern is that an existing business may not like the idea of another business located somewhere else placing a sign on the sidewalk in front of them - or at a corner where pedestrian traffic may be the most busy. If the Council wishes to pursue this idea, we recommend considering it during the legal review of the sign code to see if it could be accomplished in a content -neutral way which doesn't open the sign code to unintended outcomes. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Draft Sign Code Ordinance Exhibit 2: Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 211 9.5.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city's planning board was asked to review the sign code, and particularly the regulations relating to temporary portable signs; and WHEREAS, the planning board had several discussions on options for temporary portable signs, including their meetings of April 27 and May 11, 2016; and WHEREAS, the planning board held a public hearing on May 25, 2016 to gather input on three options dealing with temporary (e.g. A -frame) signs in the downtown area, including (1) banning temporary portable signs such as A -frames, (2) allowing them as temporary signs for sixty days only (same as current code), or (3) allowing them as a form of permanent signage with restrictions on time, place and manner; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments also address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates; and WHEREAS, at the June 8, 2016 planning board meeting, the planning board indicated a preference for Option 3 and requested that staff prepare a recommendation to city council for Option 3; and WHEREAS, the city council received a briefing on the planning board's recommended sign code changes on July 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on the recommended sign code changes on July 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing on July 19, 2016, the city council voted to use the recommended changes as a basis for discussion and any further amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Pg. 212 9.5.a THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 20.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Sign Code," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strive through). 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: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :• JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Packet Pg. 213 v Fw I 3 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Draft Sign Code Ordinance (1406 : Discussion and Potential Action on Ordinance Amending the Sign Code) 9.5.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 Arl CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 215 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Attachment A Chapter 20.60 Sections: 20.60.000 Purpose. 20.60.005 Definitions. 20.60.010 Permit required. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. 20.60.030 Wall signs— Maximum area and height. 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs— Regulations. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. 20.60.055 Pedestrian signs. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. 20.60.070 Construction signs. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 20.60.100 Administration. Page 1 /18 20.60.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to enact regulatory measures to implement those goals and policies stated in the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan and to achieve the following objectives: A. Protect the public right-of-way from obstructions which would impair the public's use of their right-of-way. B. Minimize the hazard to the public represented by distractions to drivers from moving, blinking, or other similar forms of signage or visual clutter. C. Provide for distinct signage for each distinct property. D. Encourage the use of graphics/symbols to reduce the visual clutter associated with overly large letters or extensive use of lettering. E. Minimize potential for view blockage and visual clutter along public rights -of -way. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.005 Definitions. For the purposes of the enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Attached sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building. Attached signs include wall signs, projecting signs, and window signs. "Boxed cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly rectangular in shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the message of the sign by replacing a single transparent or translucent material such as a Plexiglas/lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign, or an "outline cabinet sign." Packet Pg. 216 9.5.a Edmonds Page 2/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE "Building ID/historic sign" is a permanent sign that identifies or names a building and assists in creating landmarks in the city. Examples include dates, "1890"; names, "Beeson Building"; or addresses. "Campaign sign" is a temporary sign displaying a message relating to a candidate, political party, or issue that is registered or certified for an upcoming election. "Commercial sign" is a sign displayed for the purpose of identifying a commercial use, or advertising a service, product, business or venture that is offered for trade or sale. "Community event banner" is a noncommercial sign composed of cloth, fabric, canvas or similarly flexible material that promotes a temporary community event endorsed, operated or sponsored wholly or in part by a local public entity the jurisdiction of which includes the city of Edmonds. "Community events" are nonprofit, governmental or charitable festivals, contests, programs, fairs, carnivals or recreational contests conducted within the city. "Construction sign" is a permanent or temporary sign displayed on premises where any physical excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work is currently occurring, pursuant to a valid building permit. "Directional symbols" are small in size (two square feet or less) and intended to provide on -site directions to specific locations or areas (such as parking areas, drive -through facilities, ATMs and entries and/or exits), hours of operation, parking limitations, warnings of hazards, prohibition of activities (such as "no parking"), historical markers and similar public information. Directional symbols are not considered to be signage as regulated in this chapter. "Fixed sign" is any sign attached or affixed to the ground or any structure in such a manner so as to provide for continuous display for an extended or indeterminable period of time. Fixed signs include, but are not limited to, freestanding signs and wall signs. "Freestanding sign" is any sign that is not attached or affixed to a building. Freestanding signs can be further described as "monument signs" or "pole signs." "Governmental sign" is a sign owned, operated or sponsored by a governmental entity, and which promotes the public health, safety or welfare. Governmental signs include, but are not limited to, traffic signs, directional and informational signs for public facilities, publicly sponsored warning or hazard signs, and community event banners displayed by a governmental entity on public property. "Group sign" is a sign or signs on one sign structure serving two or more businesses sharing a parking facility. "Halo sign" is a sign where the light source is concealed behind an opaque face and the rays of illumination are projected outward around the edges of the sign or directed against the surface behind the sign forming a silhouette or halo effect. Halo signs are not considered to be internally illuminated signs for the purposes of this chapter. "Identification structure" is a structure intended to attract the attention of the public to a site, without the use of words or symbols identifying the businesses. Examples include fountains, sculptures, awnings, and totem poles. "Internally illuminated signs" include any sign where light shines through a transparent or semi -transparent sign face to illuminate the sign's message. Exposed neon is considered to be a form of internal illumination. "Marquee" or canopy is a permanent roofed structure attached and supported by the building. Packet Pg. 217 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 3/18 "Marquee sign" is any sign attached to or made a part of a building marquee. A marquee sign is a form of projecting sign. "Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base. "Noncommercial sign" is a sign that is intended to display a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic message, that is not primarily associated with a good, product, or service offered for sale or trade. Noncommercial signs include signs advertising incidental and temporary commercial activities conducted by churches and nonprofit businesses, clubs, groups, associations or organizations. "Off -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting, that is offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at some location or premises other than that upon which the sign is posted or displayed. Off -premises signs include all signs posted or displayed in the public right-of-way. "On -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting that is lawfully permitted to be offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at the location or premises upon which the sign is posted or displayed. On -premises signs also include signs not related to any particular location or premises, such as signs displaying religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic messages that are intentionally displayed by the owner of the property or premises upon which the sign is displayed. "Outline cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that roughly follows the shape of the text or symbology of the sign and provides for internal illumination. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a rectangular box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be treated more like an "individual letter sign" where the area of the sign is calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign. "Permanent sign" is a fixed or portable sign intended for continuous or intermittent display for periods exceeding 60 days in any calendar year. "Pole signs" are freestanding signs where the structural support for the sign is one or more aexposed pole(s). Pole signs may include community event banners where the banner is supported by at least two poles that are permanently attached to the ground ("pole -mounted community event banners"). However, pole signs with two poles that are not more than six (6) feet in height are considered to be monument signs. "Portable sign" is any sign that is readily capable of being moved or removed, whether attached or affixed to the ground or any structure that is typically intended for temporary display. Portable signs include, but are not limited to: 1. Signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; Packet Pg. 218 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 4/18 2. Pedestrian signs, including signs such as A -frame (sandwich board), stanchion, easel, or post -style signs 8. "A" and „T„ fFaFne signs; 4. Wooden, metal, or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs; S. Posters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees, hedges, or other structures or vegetation, except for pole -mounted community event banners; 6. Signs mounted upon vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of the business, and except for signs advertising for sale the vehicle upon which the sign is mounted; 7. Searchlights; 8. Inflatables. "Premises" is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the boundaries ef the BC or BD ZORe iR the dewRtewn aetivity eenteF aS defined in the WMPFehensive plan, where 11 pFemises" shall Include any portion of the publie sidewalk which fronts upon the 'at. "Projecting sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall. "Reader board sign" is a sign that is designed to allow for a change in the message, either by adding or removing plastic letters, or by means of electronics and lights. Reader boards do not include signs which have a changeable message where the sign does not change more than once per day and where the changeable features are integrated with the background and overall design of the sign, including the sign's typefaces, colors and symbology. Individual letters or numbers placed on a solid colored background is considered to be a reader board. Packet Pg. 219 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Two signs at left: Acceptable changeable message sign; Two signs at rieht: A reader board. '��y r.A {J�J OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER It to-4 SOULAR POWERED BY THE SOH COME IN AMC WORSHIP PASTOR REV HARRY H JUNKS ill Page 5/18 "Real estate sign" is a sign displaying a message relating to the sale or rent of real property. "Sign" is any structure, device or fixture that is visible from a public place, that incorporates graphics, symbols, or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message to public observers, including wall graphics or identification structures. "Sign area" is the Fnaximum actual area of a sign that as visible from any SiRgle point of observation from any public vantage point. SUPPOFting Strue-A-Hre-S vOlhieh aFe paFt ef a sign display shall be n the caleulation of the sign area area of a sign on which copy is to be placed, as set forth in ECDC 20.60.020(A). "Temporary sign" is an allowed per a sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 are not regulated as temporary Signs. "Wall graphic" is a wall sign, including murals, in which color and form, and primarily without the use of words, is a part of the overall design on the building(s) where the wall graphic is proposed. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed one-half inch in thickness) to a building as a part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted. Internally lighted assemblies, including those which project from the wall of the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site, shall be considered wall signs and comply with the requirements of this chapter. "Wall sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a wall and that is parallel to and not projecting more than 12 inches at any angle from such wall. Wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall. "Window sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a window, or a sign displayed within 24 inches of the inside of a window in such a manner as to be visible from any public place. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3631 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 8, 2007; Ord. 3561 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3514 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.010 Permit required. A. Except as provided in this chapter, no permanent sign may be constructed, installed, posted, displayed or modified without first obtaining a sign permit approving the proposed sign's size, design, location, and display as provided for in this chapter. B. Design approval is not required for the posting of permanent signs in residential zones; provided, that the restrictions and standards of this chapter are met. If additional signage is requested for conditional or nonconforming uses in residential zones, the property owner shall apply for design review. Design review is not required for any sign which does not require a building permit. Packet Pg. 220 9.5.a Edmonds Page 6/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. A sign modification shall include, but is not limited to, relocations, modifications to size, design, height or color scheme, or the replacement of 25 percent or more of the structural material in the sign area. Normal and ordinary maintenance and repair, and changes to the graphics, symbols, or copy of a sign, without affecting the size, structural design, height, or color scheme, shall not constitute modifications for purposes of this section. [Ord. 3514 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteria set forth On ECDC 20.10.070, and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the Hearing Examiner.~^ ^^yiahle aass a Type II appeal (See ECDC 20 n1 005) established On Chapter 20.105 ECDC fE)F appeal of sta4 decisions and signs reviewed under subsection (A)(!) of this seectie-in. are appealable as provided theFeimn-. 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed below in subsection (B)(1) and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. Fecluirements of this chapteF. The decision of the architectural design board on any sign permit application may be appealed te the city eeuneil PUFSHant te the preeedUFe established in ECDC 20.10.080 feF appeal ef ff&iteetuFal design board decisiens. 1. The ADB shall review any AFy-sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that meet all of the foll.,,.,in Uiter+a that arise from one of the following two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: ea. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; Packet Pg. 221 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 7/18 db. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; c. Material/color samples; d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Packet Pg. 222 9.5.a Edmonds Page 8/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. A. Sien Area. The area of a Bien shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a sien is maximum actual area of a sien that is visible from anv single point of observation from any public vantage point. The sign area is normally the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire copy area of the sign. 2. Individual letters, numbers or symbols applied directly to a wall or structure and used to form the sign shall be calculated individually; 3. Supporting structures which are part of a sign display shall be included in the calculation of the sign area, except that the supporting structure of a monument sign or pole sign shall not be included when calculating the sign area. STORE ? NAME 1 140S Left: Sign Area = X * Y Right: Applied individual letters are calculated separately Monument sign: the base is not included in the calculation of sign area (dashed rectangle) A. When located on a wall or mansard roof, no sign may extend above the highest point of the wall or mansard roof when the mansard roof is on a one-story building., eF above the eave eF dFiP line of a patched Fof ^^ ..,b;,.b of gated. Other than a mansard roof on a one-story building, Xa sign may not be attached above the eave or drip line on a pitched roof. B. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, no sign or any part of a sign may be designed or constructed to be moving by any means and shall not contain items such as banners, ribbons, streamers and spinners. Signs with type that is movable to change the message (reader boards) are allowed, subject to the specific requirements detailed elsewhere in this chapter. C. No signs shall Signs that extend into or over a public right-of-way unless an encroachment permit has been apprised {3eeshall comply with -Chapter 18.70 ECDC). D. Exposed braces and angle irons are prohibited unless they are part of a decorative design that is integral to the design of the sign. Guywires are prohibited unless there are no other practical means of supporting the sign. E. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs that conform in all other respects to this chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have messages that change, however, moving messages are not Packet Pg. 223 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 9/18 allowed. Messages that change at intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not allowed. F. No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or adjacent property. G. No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer than eight inches on center. H. No commercial sign shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. unless the commercial enterprise is open for business and then may remain on only as long as the enterprise is open. I. No window signs above the first floor shall be illuminated. J. Sign height shall be determined as follows: 1. For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point on the sign to the average finished grade. 2. For freestanding signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point of the sign area or its support to the average elevation of undisturbed se4the finished grade at the base of the supports. K. Portable signs may not be used as permanent signage; only fixed signs are permitted. L. The following matrix summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city: Sign Type Downtown' SR-99' Westgate/SR-1043 Neighborhood Commercial (BN BP and FVMU Zones) Business Uses in RM Zones Wall -mounted P P P P P Monument C P P C C Pole N P N N N Projecting P P P P P Internal Illumination C P P C N Reader Boards C C C C C Individual Letters P P P P P Boxed Cabinet N P C C N Building ID P P P P p 5;A1q(a,.0i,h PARF,JS Pedestrian P N N N N Wall Graphics C C C C C ' Downtown includes all properties within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the Comprehensive Plan. SR-99 includes all properties within the Medical -Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Westgate/SR-104 includes all properties within the Westgate Corridor, the Edmonds Way Corridor, and within the Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Pg. 224 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 10/18 Note: In the above table, P = Permitted; N = Not permitted; C = Conditionally permitted through design review if consistent with the standards itemized in ECDC 20.60.020(M). M. The following standards clarify how some signs identified as "conditionally permitted" must be installed to be permitted in the city of Edmonds. 1. Monument signs over six feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. 2. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial areas may only light the letters or logos/symbols. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated. 3. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas must be mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning. 4. Internally illuminated signs that use exposed neon may only be located in the interior of buildings in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas. 5. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height. 6. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only. 7. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Public uses and places of assembly include, but are not limited to, schools and churches as well as local and regional public facilities. 8. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and compliment the colors used on the building. 9. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination to shine through. [Ord. 3631 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, CW and CG). 1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance to the primary building or structure located upon a separate legal lot. 2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the CG zone shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area shall be computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be accumulated to yield a total allowable sign area greater than that permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses choosing not to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their allowable freestanding sign area for additional attached sign area. Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the architectural design board. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less and Windew window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. A site with more than one street frontage Packet Pg. 225 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 11/18 is allowed a maximum of five (5) signs. Pro[ecting (including blade) signs of four square feet or less and Wandew-window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total number of permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites are allowed one additional group sign per street frontage identifying the individual subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. 5. Where permitted, pedestrian signs do count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. B. Residential Zone Districts (RS, RM). 1. The maximum allowable signage area for individual residential lots shall be four square feet per street frontage, except as provided in subsection (13)(2) of this section. 2. The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. Signage in excess of that provided in subsections (13)(1) and (2) of this section for lawful nonconforming or conditional nonresidential uses in residential zones may be approved through the issuance of a sign permit pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010, subject to the maximum area and height limitations established for signs in the BN zone. 5. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is one, except that multifamily sites with more than one vehicular entrance may have one permanent sign per entrance. The total sign area of all signs (excluding incidental signs) permitted on -site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. [Ord. 3805 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3628 § 9, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height. A. The maximum area of any wall sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall B. The maximum height of any attached sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGL 14 feet or the height of the face of the WMU, FVMU building on which the sign is located, consistent with ECDC 20.60.020(A) [Ord. 3628 § 10, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Packet Pg. 226 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 12/18 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. The maximum area of any window sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BPBC, BD, CW, CG, WMU,FVMU 1 square foot per each lineal foot of window frontage [Ord. 3628 § 11, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. A. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BP BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 16 square feet CG 32 square feet B. The maximum height of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BPBC, BD, CW, CGS WMU, FVMU 34 fecEHeight of the wall to which the sign is attached C. The bettem of the sign area of projecting signs shall be at least eight feet in height and at least 1-1- feet in height if at projects ever a vehicle traveled right of- a-y The sign area of a marquee sign may not exceed two feet in vertical dimension. [Ord. 3628 § 12, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations. A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative signage methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement. B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 10 square feet (subdivision, PRD, multifamily) 4 square feet (individual residence sign) BN 313 24 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) BC, BD, WMU, 32 square feet (single) FVMU 48 square feet (group) CW 32 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) CG Sign area shall be governed by subsection (C) of this section Packet Pg. 227 9.5.a Edmonds Page 13/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on general commercial sites shall be 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area. Multiple business or tenant sites shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial tenant or occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet. D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign R5, RM 6 feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 14 feet CG 25 feet E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, freestanding signs may not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage. Monument signs not more than six feet in height may be located in a zoning setback, but not less than five (5) feet from a property line. F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the restrictions on area contained within this chapter. G. Landscaping. 1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the size of the sign area at the base of the sign. The landscaping and sign base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing. 2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of the landscaping, or $1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 3631 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 13, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.055 Pedestrian signs. Pedestrian signs are only permitted on private property and in the adjacent right-of-way in the BC, BD, CW, and CG zones located within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian signs are only permitted if they meet the following requirements. 1. Pedestrian signs may be permitted to be located either (1) between the business storefront and the public right-of-way, or (2) on the sidewalk in front of the business storefront if the pedestrian sign meets the following standards. a. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor storefront; b. Businesses may make arrangements to rotate their pedestrian signs provided they meet the one sign -per -storefront standard: Packet Pg. 228 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 14/18 c. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access: d. A business located on a corner property shall have no more than one pedestrian sign, regardless of the number of streets the business fronts on; e. If located on or near a sidewalk, building entry or pedestrian way, the sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles; f. Pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. Pedestrian signs are limited to six (6) square feet in area and 3-1/2 feet in height for A -frame or sandwich board signs, or six (6) square feet in area and 4-1/2 feet in height for stanchion, easel or other types of pedestrian signs. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. A. On -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in all zones, subject to the maximum sign size limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in the public right-of-way; provided, that the following requirements are met: 1. All campaign signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B). 2. All off -premises campaign signs shall be removed within 10 days after the primary, general, or special election to which they pertain. 3. Off -premises campaign signs shall be posted and displayed no earlier than upon declaration of candidacy in accordance with Chapter 29.15 RCW, or other formal registration or certification of the candidate, party, initiative, referendum or other ballot issue for an upcoming election, or 60 days prior to the election, whichever time period is greater. C. There is no maximum number of off -premises campaign signs that may be posted. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. A. On -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage, subject to the following requirements: 1. Two and only two types of off -premises real estate signs shall be permitted: a. An off -premises real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and either a company or logo, or an indication that the property is for sale by its owner, and installed for the purpose of directing the public to the property. b. An off -premises open house sign is a form of temporary off -premises sign indicating the property is currently open for viewing. 2. All off -premises real estate signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B ). Packet Pg. 229 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 15/18 3. The maximum number of off -premises real estate signs allowed per property shall only be the number reasonably necessary to direct people to the premises. An agent or owner shall be permitted no more than one off -premises real estate directional sign per intersection and five in total. No more than one off -premises open house sign shall be displayed per intersection and no more than five in total. a. Each off -premises real estate directional sign shall bear a legible tag located on the sign or supporting post indicating the date of posting and the address of the property to which it pertains. b. Off -premises real estate open house signs shall only be posted during daylight hours when the real estate agent or owner is in attendance at the property for sale or rent, and shall be removed immediately upon the termination of an "open house" or other similar property display event. 4. No off -premises real estate signs shall be fastened to any traffic control device, public structure, fence, rock, tree or shrub. C. All on -premises and all off -premises real estate directional signs shall be removed within seven days after the closing of the sale or lease of real property to which the sign pertains. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.070 Construction signs. Construction signs shall, irrespective of their duration, conform to the general regulations for permanent signs specified under ECDC 20.60.020. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum area of a construction sign in any zone shall be 32 square feet. No sign permit is required for the posting of construction signs; provided, that all construction signs shall be removed from the premises within 10 days of the cessation of the excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work on site. Zone Maximum Area of Signage (per Street Frontage) RS 16 square feet, or 32 square feet if one sign is displayed for a project consisting of building permits issued for four lots or more. Only one sign may be displayed per project. All other 32 square feet zones The preceding square footages shall be in addition to any other temporary signage permitted by ECDC 20.60.080. [Ord. 3514 § 3, 20041. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. A. On -Premises Temporary Signs. On -premises temporary signs are permitted in residential and commercial zones, in addition to any allowed or permitted permanent signage, subject to the following restrictions and standards: 1. Residential Zones (RS, RM). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used as temporary signage. b. Commercial on -premises temporary signage is not permitted, except for real estate signs as defined by ECDC 20.60.065. c. Maximum number is one attached or freestanding sign. 2. Commercial Zones (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, FVMU, CW, CG). a. Only portable, freestanding er attached signs may be used for temporary signage; provided, that „» frame portable signs shall only be permitted In the BC, BD and PAI zener. "Attached" signs may be affixed to any existing building or sign structure that is permitted as a Packet Pg. 230 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 16/18 permanent structure on the property. New temporary structures whose sole purpose is to display the temDorary sien are not otherwise permitted. b. Maximum duration of display is 60 days in any calendar year for the cumulative posting of all temporary commercial signage upon each commercial location or premises. A permit is required, specifying the duration and location of display. c. Maximum number of temporary signs is one freestanding sign per property street frontage, and one attached sign per building. 3. The total maximum area of on -premises temporary signage shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW. WMU, FVMU 20 square feet CG 30 square feet 4. The total maximum area for each allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, 6 squape feet (freestand ng) CW, WMU, 20 square feet (attached) FVMU CG 6 square feet (freestanding) 30 square feet (attached) 5. The maximum height of any allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 3 feet (freestand ng) 14 feet (attached) 6. In no case shall temporary signage be posted, located, or displayed in violation of the regulations for permanent signs set forth in ECDC 20.60.020 through 20.60.050. B. Off -Premises Temporary Signage. Off -premises temporary signs are allowed in residential and commercial zones, in accordance with the restrictions and standards set forth below: 1. Commercial off -premises temporary signage is prohibited, except for real estate signs as permitted by ECDC 20.60.065; provided, that such off -premises real estate signs shall be posted, displayed, and removed as provided for in that section, in addition to the provisions of subsections (13)(5) through (9) of this section. 2. Noncommercial off -premises signs are permitted in the public right-of-way; provided, that the posting and display of off -premises signs in the public right-of-way shall require a street use permit where required pursuant to Chapter 18.70 ECDC. Packet Pg. 231 9.5.a Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 17/18 3. Maximum duration of display for all temporary off -premises signs is a cumulative of 60 days in any calendar year, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs. Display may be continuous or intermittent, except as otherwise provided in this section. 4. Except for campaign signs as provided in ECDC 20.60.060, all off -premises noncommercial signs relating to a specific meeting, event, or occurrence shall be removed within 48 hours following the conclusion of the meeting, event, or occurrence to which they relate. 5. Only portable freestanding signs may be used as temporary off -premises signage; provided, that the following types of portable freestanding signs are prohibited from use as an off -premises sign: a. Signs with a vehicular chassis or support with or without wheels; b. Posters and banners; c. Signs mounted upon vehicles; d. Searchlights; e. Inflatables. 6. Maximum number of allowed off -premises signs to be displayed simultaneously shall be one sign per sign poster except as provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs and in ECDC 20.60.065 for real estate signs. 7. Maximum allowable sign area for all temporary off -premises freestanding signs is six square feet. 8. Maximum allowable sign height for all permitted off -premises signs is three feet. 9. All off -premises temporary signage shall be posted and displayed in accordance with the following restrictions: a. Off -premises signs may not be placed in any portion of the public right-of-way typically used by motor vehicles in a lawful manner. b. Off -premises signs shall be placed so as not to impede pedestrian, bicycle, or handicapped travel or access. c. Off -premises signs shall not be posted in a manner or location which impairs traffic safety by unreasonably blocking line of sight at intersections. d. Off -premises signs shall be constructed of suitable material and design to adequately withstand the reasonably expected normal or average weather conditions during the intended display period of the sign. e. Off -premises signs shall be regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been damaged or destroyed by natural forces or vandalism. Damaged and destroyed signs shall be immediately removed or repaired so as to avoid threats to public health and safety or the accumulation of unclaimed refuse upon the public rights -of -way. f. Off -premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the public right-of-way, and shall further not be posted within or upon planter boxes and flower beds within the publicly maintained landscaped portions of the public right-of-way. [Ord. 3628 § 14, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. A. General. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited. Packet Pg. 232 9.5.a Edmonds Page 18/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE B. Hazards. Signs which the director of public works determines to be a hazard to vehicle or water traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage, are prohibited. These signs shall be removed if they already exist. C. Confiscation of Prohibited Signs in Public Rights -of -Way. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation. D. Any signs confiscated by the city shall be held for 10 working days after which such signs may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The owner of any confiscated signs may recover the same upon payment of a $25.00 fee to cover the cost of confiscation and storage. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. The following types of signs are exempted from regulations of this chapter, except that the dimensional and placement standards shall apply unless variance is required by other provisions of local, state or federal law: A. Governmental signs. B. Signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law. C. Official public notices required by provision of local, state, or federal law. D. Signs not visible from a public location. E. Seasonal and holiday displays not incorporating the use of written copy or graphics to convey a message. F. Gravestones. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.100 Administration. A. General. The community development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. Fees shall be as stated in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Installation Permits. Many signs require installation permits under Chapter 19.45 ECDC and may require plan checking fees as well. C. Notice of Violation. Whenever the planning director becomes aware of a violation of the provisions of this chapter, the planning director shall cause a notice to be sent to the alleged violator informing him or her of the violation, the applicable code section, and a time within which to remedy the violation. The notice shall also advise of the penalties for continued violation of the code as specified in this chapter. If the violation has not been corrected within the time limit specified, the planning director shall refer the matter to the city attorney's office for institution of appropriate legal action. D. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of $25.00 for each day of continued violation. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Packet Pg. 233 9.5.b handling, etc. Council concurred with staff s recommendation to implement an administrative fee; the amount discussed was $50 per impact fee for a single family structure and $100 on a commercial or multifamily structure and if a builder chooses to defer an impact fee, an additional $50 fee would be due. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the administrative fee for multi -family would be $100 per unit. Ms. Hope answered it is per unit for single family or townhomes and one per building for multi -family. The impact fee is per housing unit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FEE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. PRESENTATION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED SIGN CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope commented there have been discussions for some time about updating the sign code, the particular focus of this amendment has been on A -frame and similar type signs in the downtown area due to concerns with clutter versus the benefit signs provide. There have been a couple public open houses on the topic as well as several Planning Board meetings. Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed photographs and described sign types: • Pedestrian signs (new term) o A -frame, easel, stanchion and similar signs intended to attract the attention of pedestrians • Projecting / blade signs o Usually found under awnings but may project off a wall or hanger • Monument signs o Free standing o Lower than a pole sign Mr. Chave reviewed Planning Board public hearing options: Option 1: No Option 2: Pedestrian Option 3: Pedestrian Portables (A -frames) Signs as Temporary Signs as Permanent Signs (Existing Code) Signs with restrictions Pedestrian Sign No Yes Yes Permitted? Size Allowed No 6 s . ft. 6 s . ft. Location Allowed No w/in 2 ft. of building or w/in 2 ft. of building or street edge; 4 ft. clear street edge; 4 ft. clear zone zone How Many No 1 per business 1 per storefront Duration No 60 days per year When business is open Benefits of approach? ? ? ? He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation: • Option 3 for pedestrian signs: o A form of permanent signage with restrictions, and counts against overall sign area (no longer classified as "temporary") o Only one per ground floor entrance o Only allowed while business is open Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 234 9.5.b o Businesses may rotate their signs o Locate within 10 feet of entry o Minimum 5 feet of pedestrian clearance; prefer within 2 feet of building or curb o Maximum 6 sq. ft. in size Mr. Chave said although pedestrian signs generated the most comments and debate, other code modifications are needed to address the 2015 Supreme Court decision related to signs being content neutral. He reviewed other proposed code modifications: • "Directional Symbols" allowed for directions 0 Symbols can be illuminated (not just letters) • Halo signs specifically allowed • Sign height tied to actual finished grade • Monument signs better defined, minimum setback • 1-story buildings with mansard recognized • Sign area practice codified (calculate outlines) • ADB can grant modifications due to unique architectural elements of a building Mr. Chave advised a public hearing is scheduled in two weeks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the distance for ADA accessibility. Mr. Chave answered 44 inches. The Planning Board made that more restrictive, recommending an increase to a 5-foot clear zone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented enforcement is an issue; while walking on Main Street tonight, she noticed outdoor dining that was so far out into the sidewalk, sign poles, etc., there was only approximately 18 inches remaining. If outdoor dining blocking the sidewalk was not enforced, she questioned whether signs blocking the sidewalk could be enforced. She preferred blade and stanchion signs, noting if A -frame signs are not placed appropriately they prevent ADA accessibility. Ms. Hope acknowledged outdoor dining is not part of the sign code but whenever the City receives a call regarding something affecting ADA accessibility, staff visits the site and either moves the object or requires the manager move it. If there are repeated offenses, the City can withdraw their permission to have outdoor dining. Items blocking accessibility are generally moved when brought to the store/restaurant's attention. On occasion, individual diners will move the tables/chairs. She summarized staff addresses situations when they learn of them but do not patrol for them. With regard to signs, because there is no permitting process, it is very difficult to oversee placement of the signs. With a permit process, it would be simpler as the sign location would be identified in the permit. If the Council approves a permit process, staff plans to contact business owners to inform them how to seek a permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for requiring signs be within two feet of the building or street edge. While in Port Townsend recently, she noticed they have markings on the sidewalk in front of businesses that identifies the area where nothing can be located in an effort she assumed to protect sidewalk accessibility. She suggested something like that, noting signs are great for businesses, but she was concerned with signs wandering similar to the outdoor dining. Ms. Hope staff has also discussed having outdoor dining designated by poles inserted into the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said when pedestrian signs are treated as permanent signage, they require a permit like other types of signs. When a business applies for a permit, they need to identify where the sign will be located. That allows staff to identify other things that may be in the area such as street furniture. A permit provides significantly more information before placement of the sign and regulates where the sign is supposed to be which assists with enforcement. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with having a permitting process but did not like the visual pollution that signs cause. Trip Advisor, Yelp, etc. are the new ways to get around and determine what to see, eat, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 235 visit, etc.; social media is the new way of advertising. She does not see A -frames in other cities she visits as a tourist. One of the options considered should have been a 90-day moratorium to see if businesses really need A -frame signs. Councilmember Tibbott expressed interest in six square feet as a requirement, understanding that the shape could vary with total square footage of six feet. Mr. Chave agreed there are different sign types; the easel sign is likely okay because the sign area is determined by the surface area, not the base although the easel may be too tall. The proposed code includes a 3.5-foot height limit for A -frames and 4.5-foot limit for stanchion signs. Councilmember Tibbott concluded as long as the easel was under four feet and the sign area was under six square feet it would be okay. Mr. Chave said that was the intent of "pedestrian signs;" although there are different forms, they serve the same purpose so the intent was to treat them the same. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the pedestrian sign regulations applied to an office building with one entrance and 6-7 offices; whether the building was allowed one sign or 7. Mr. Chave answered one per entrance. Councilmember Tibbott observed the businesses could collaborate and rotate the signs. Mr. Chave agreed the businesses could rotate signs and/or they could also list more than one business on a sign. Buildings also have other options such as a monument sign with space for individual businesses. In one instance, those are not really used which raises the question whether businesses were making the best use of the signage available. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a way to incentivize the use of that type of sign. Mr. Chave answered blade signs 4 feet or less are free and do not count against a business' sign area, a significant incentive. Pedestrian signs not allowed elsewhere in the city but are often displayed, particularly by businesses that are setback on a site. A -frames tend to be displayed near the road. If monument signs are more accessible, businesses may feel less need to supplement them with an A -frame sign. Councilmember Tibbott observed one of the photographs Mr. Chave presented was an office building with multiple signs for the businesses. He asked if there was any ability to regulate color choices. Mr. Chave said it is problematic to regulate sign colors as well as sign content. Mr. Chave commented whatever is decided with regard to pedestrian signs, the Council may want to revisit the sign code related to uniform signage. There may be an opportunity via collaborating with the BID to develop a sign system. Testimony at the Planning Board indicated new businesses or businesses not on 5th & Main feel the need for an A -frame sign on the main street. Once electronic media, websites, etc. gain momentum and fulfill that purpose, businesses may find A -frames are no longer needed. One of potential projects for Western Washington University is a website or app providing information regarding local businesses. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the blade signs and asked whether buildings with interior businesses can display blade signs. Mr. Chave said they can. Councilmember Tibbott suggested incentivizing that. Mr. Chave said currently blade signs have a maximum height of 14 feet; to accommodate buildings with a second floor, the 14-foot limit was removed which allows blade signs to be displayed on the wall as high as the business in the building. Councilmember Tibbott observed a startup business was allowed a sign in their window for 60 days and asked if they could be allowed an A -frame on a corner for up to 60 days to introduce their new business. Mr. Chave answered that is not in the current code and may be tricky. Sign codes need to have narrow exceptions and treat everyone the same. If an offsite sign were allowed for 60 days, anyone would be allowed to have an offsite sign for 60 days. Councilmember Tibbott said his suggestion was to limit it to new business. Mr. Chave said that would need to be figured out. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 236 9.5.b Councilmember Teitzel said he was not particularly a fan of A -frame signs, agreeing they contribute to visual clutter in the wonderful downtown business area. Having said that, he believes it behooves everyone to have healthy businesses downtown because healthy and vibrant businesses attract visitors who spend money. When meeting with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance last month, he asked them how important A -frame signs were to them; the unanimous response was they were very important, particularly for walk-in businesses as they believe the signs encourage people to visit their store. With that information, now is not the time to abandon A -frame signs but he agreed they needed to be restricted and controlled better and this was a good step in that direction. Assuming Option 3 was tacit approval for placement of A -frame signs either near the building or the curb, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the City was liable if a sign flew up in windstorm and injured someone. City Attorney Jeff Taraday deferred to the standard negligence analysis; is the City acting reasonably in permitting of the sign which what would be the analysis a court would look to. The Public Duty Doctrine also protects the City from negligence type liability. Although it was difficult to say definitively whether the City would have liability, certainly the ability to travel safety on the sidewalk would be factored into any analysis of a sign permitting scheme. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether this change would affect all business districts or only the downtown core. Mr. Chave answered the provisions mentioned earlier other than pedestrian signs would affect all zones; pedestrian signs are specific to commercial zones in the downtown -waterfront area which includes downtown as well as Harbor Square and the waterfront. Pedestrian signs are not allowed outside that area currently and would not be permitted under the proposed code. Councilmember Mesaros asked about real estate A -frame signs and directional real estate signs. Mr. Chave answered that is related to the overall code review regarding the Supreme Court decision; an in- depth review will be necessary. The City Attorney's office has begun that review but it is beyond the scope of this amendment. Councilmember Nelson commended the Planning Board and staff for developing the proposed code, recognizing there are many competing interests. With regard to uniformity, everyone wants the City to be beautiful, for people to visit and be informed but also avoid visual pollution. When he visits a small city for the firsts time, although he may use his phone for directions or a review, he likes to wander around and look at the stores. He asked for further information regarding uniformity. Mr. Chave answered there is a lot of creativity related to signage; no sign looks the same. Even in areas with specific design controls, there is a lot of room for creativity. A -frames are such a simple construction, it would be difficult to regulate uniformity other than requiring a dark background, etc. The problem with signage is as soon as an idea is developed for what looks good, someone will propose something they think looks equally as good but is totally different. Uniformity is one of the most difficult things to regulate; it is generally done by regulating size, location, etc. and everything else takes care of itself. Uniformity would be more in the BID's purview such as a bulk buy with a fabricator where there is a discount for a preferred sign choice. There are options other than a regulator scheme; like most things related to design, it is in the eye of beholder and extremely difficult to write regulations that do a good job. Councilmember Nelson said that may be something to explore in the future via a task force, how the downtown should look; signs play a part in that. Mr. Chave said a BID representative came to Planning Board; they were interested in working with the City on cooperative programs that would obviate the need for A -frame signs. For example, developing a signage program that the BID could help fund that addressed uniformity, recognized the needs of new business, directional signage for new businesses, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the sign code regulated sign color. Mr. Chave answered no, other than lighting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked the Planning Board's Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 237 recommendation; she was not interested in allowing A -frames to be located a distance from the business due to the clutter that creates. She liked the wayfinding signs that the BID has installed. Mr. Chave agreed that may be the future; A -frames are an older style sign. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also liked the blade signs, commenting she is seeing more blade signs in other cities. Mr. Chave said if Council adopts amendments to the sign code, that would provide an opportunity to inform businesses of the new regulations, inform them that blade signs are free, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also liked the stanchion signs. Mr. Chave said those could be somewhat expensive initially; the BID could contract with a fabricator to provide a discount which may encourage businesses to use that type of sign as well as address the issue of uniformity. Councilmember Teitzel referred to 20.60.055.1.c "The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access" and 20.60.055.1e, "The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles," observing allowing the sign to be placed by the curb adds to the visual clutter seen in Edmonds today. He proposed A -frame signs be required to be within two feet of the building face and not allow them to be placed by the curb. This would be easier to enforce, reduce visual clutter, and make the sign look like part of the building. Council President Johnson recalled this issue arose a few years ago when Ms. Shippen spoke to the City Council about visual clutter. She asked how many code enforcement complaints about pedestrian signs there have been since then. Ms. Hope answered not a lot, there are usually 2-3 people who watch the signs and make a complaint. Staff immediately responds to any complaints about ADA accessibility. If the Council approved the Planning Board's recommendation, Council President Johnson asked how staff would implement it. Ms. Hope recognized big changes take time; the intent is to begin with an educational program to inform of expectations, opportunities and the date for compliance; the program would include a mailing, press releases, working with the BID to get the word out, etc. Council President Johnson encouraged residents to speak to the Council at the public hearing regarding their opinions. Councilmember Tibbott said he recently met an out-of-town friend downtown on a sunny Saturday when the sidewalks were crowded and his friend had no problem navigating his wheelchair downtown. He was concerned with the recommendation for a 5-foot pedestrian clear space, observing the 44-foot minimum provides approximately 6 inches on each side of a wheelchair. In his experience there was no problem navigating on a busy Saturday. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented disability is her life and she likes the 5-foot requirement. She wondered whether Councilmember Tibbott was able to walk beside the person in a wheelchair through an area with outdoor dining. She thanked the Planning Board for recommending the additional space. Mr. Chave said engineering is also looking at Chapter 18.70 related to rights -of -way, permitting, street furniture, etc. and may also present ideas to the Council. 2. 2016 2" QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Scott James presented the 2nd quarter budget amendment: • 9 decision packages • (847,431) reduction in revenues • ($494,402) reduction in expenditures for items previously discussed by Council • $40,180 are new items for Council to consider expenditures Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 5, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 238 9.5.b Council President Johnson acknowledged a number of FD1 staff in the audience, relaying her understanding Fitch & Associates had provided FD1 management a briefing. FD1's annual report to the City is scheduled on March 22, the next opportunity for the Council and FD1 to discuss this issue publically. Councilmember Nelson inquired about the distribution of ALS responses in Edmonds. Dr. Knight said the report maps out all call volumes and concentrated demand. There were 2 areas of concentration; he recalled they were Stations 20 and 17. A GIS component of the report maps where stations should be located, one uses current stations so there is no capital outlay and another identifies optimized station locations which the City and FD1 may find useful because current performance could be provided from 2 station in the future if they were relocated. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether citizens could expect a higher survivability rate from enhanced ALS coverage. Dr. Knight answered the majority of calls are BLS but ALS calls are very time sensitive and enhanced coverage would allow ALS units to arrive sooner, a reallocation of service to provide better service. For BLS calls there would not be much difference because the clinical condition does not require that level of service. Mayor Earling commented on the value of having FD1 personnel present. He recognized the FD1 union will be interested in interacting with Councilmember and there was nothing inappropriate about that. He invited Mr. Taraday to comment on that dialogue. Mr. Taraday said if Councilmembers were contacted by union members, they should feel free to discuss the matter with them but requested they forward any questions and/or concerns to him, Mayor Earling and Mr. James to ensure they get forward to Fitch & Associates and are addressed in the report. He wanted to ensure the Council has the ability to make a fully informed decision whether to implement one of the alternatives and has the best information. Mayor Earling commented Fitch & Associates have been stupendous in providing information and thorough analysis. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope provided a project overview: • Development Code updated intended to: o Provide more readability, accuracy, consistency o Make inadequately addressed code topics more complete o Address new issues as appropriate (for example, stormwater LID techniques) o Clarify roles and processes o Resolve conflicts/overlaps • Planning Board criteria for update: o Public Process: ■ Open & broad -based o Principles: ■ Consistency w/ state laws ■ Consistency w/ Comp Plan ■ Predictability + some flexibility ■ Recognition of property rights ■ Clear, user-friendly language & format ■ Enforceability o Key Objectives: ■ Reasonable & clear processes ■ Expanded & up-to-date definitions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 239 9.5.b ■ Protection of critical areas & shorelines ■ Recognition of diverse neighborhoods & their characteristics ■ Pedestrian -friendliness & biking access ■ Low impact stormwater management Ms. Hope reviewed: • Project budget: o $150,000 allocated by City Council o $110,800 used by end of 2015 o Remaining $39,200 to be requested as 2016 carryforward in next quarterly budget amendment Influencing factors o Staff resources ■ Amount of time remaining after regular ongoing work (development review, etc.) and special projects (e.g., SMP) o PB principles & objectives o Public process & input o Stormwater LID integration o Changing legal environment (new laws, court cases) John Owen, MAKERS, reviewed current code topics: Land Division "Subdivisions" Types Current Code Proposed Code Short subdivisions Short subdivisions Formal Subdivisions Formal subdivisions Binding site plan (commercial) He provided details regarding short subdivisions: • Proposed concept: Define as 8 lots rather than 4 (state allows up to 9 lots) while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria • Why? Eliminates incentive for property owners to do 2 side -by -side 4-lot ("short") subdivisions and instead have unified design Mr. Owen reviewed design options: Current Code Proposed Code Conventional Conventional Planned Residential Development (PRDs) PRD (?) Modification Requests Low impact design (LID) He explained the LID concept allows greater flexibility to cluster lots & achieve more conservation or enhancement for: • Existing trees • Natural areas • Stormwater LID features • Native vegetation or • Solar access Mr. Owen described standards for LID of subdivisions (conceptual): May Must Width and area for individual lots may vary to Provide additional protection or enhancement of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 240 9.5.b certain extent trees, critical areas, natural features, LID stormwater management, or solar access Side & rear setbacks may be somewhat reduced Limit total impervious surfaces to certain % of lot when interior to the development (not adjacent to neighboring lots) Provide careful protection to trees being retained Not result in overall density greater than allowed for zoning district Mr. Owen identified other concepts for updating the subdivision code: • Allow "fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes • Require sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions • Require access directly from a public ROW or from a shared driveway or private street meeting updated City standards • Clarify language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. He described the subdivision review process: • Short plat (8 or fewer lots) o Administrative review o Appeal to Hearing Examiner ■ Same as current short plat process Formal plat (9 or more lots): o Hearing Examiner decision on preliminary then Council decision on final plat o Appeal to courts ■ Same as current formal plat process He emphasized this would provide: • Clearer standards re coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. • Less need for staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods • More "internal site flexibility" to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, provide greater buffers around property, etc. Mr. Owen identified another current code topics, Signs: • Sign standards issue: o How to calculate sign area o What counts as sign area? Entire sign board counts o Entire sign structure counts o Entire cabinet counts Mr. Owen reviewed: Proposed clarification #1 o Only the area of the individual letters count Sign Area Calculations: o Concept: Update the way maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings o Current: Maximum allowed sign area is now consolidated for all businesses in the building: 1 sf of sign area per 1 lineal foot of building frontage containing the main public entrance Proposed clarification #2 o Apply measurement to individual storefront (and not whole multi -tenant fagade) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 241 9.5.b He described: Design concept for wall mounted signs: o Signage to be centered, proportional, and shaped to architectural features of the buildings o Signage not to exceed 2/3 of individual storefront dimension. This standard also applies to upper level businesses o Drawings of examples o Allow face of mansard roof on existing 1-story buildings to serve as wall for wall sign Concepts for temporary signs downtown o Allow stanchion (aka portable post -style) signs as an alternative to A -frame signs o Require a permit for stanchion or A -frame signs so they can be tracked o Refine requirements for A -frame or "stanchion" signs in the ROW downtown o Other standards: o One sign per business o Must be temporary — not limited by # of days, but must be removed after business hours o Must have a city permit 0 3% foot height limit o Place sign within 2 feet of building and 10 feet of business entry o Place signs to maintain at least 4 feet of clearance or pedestrian traffic o Otherwise — a blade sign could be used to advertise the additional business • Downtown directional signs concept o Up to 4 locations o Master sign plan (subject to design approval from Architectural Design Board) o City permit o Maintained by entity that sponsors master sign plan • Pole signs o Many Washington cities no longer allow new pole signs o Along Highway 99 ■ Highway 99: only place in City where pole signs are currently allowed ■ Consider options to limit new pole signs • Sign code concepts for Highway 99 o Prohibit NEW pole signs altogether (or prohibit them only on properties smaller than a certain size) o Allow monument sign within setback, if sign is not taller than 6' and not blocking views for traffic safety • Other sign code issues o Legal issues under review based on recent court decisions about signs o Miscellaneous clean-up Ms. Hope recognized there are a lot of topics to be addressed; priorities proposed in the 2016 schedule are: • Subdivisions • Signs • Stormwater LID Ms. Hope identified next steps: • City Council questions/comments - Feb. 23 • Planning Board - Feb. 24 • Finalization of Critical Area Ordinance - TBD • Draft code language for subdivisions and signage - spring 2016 • Continued integration of stormwater LID practices • Preparation of additional code updates - 2016 schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 242 9.5.b Ms. Hope highlighted other code updates that were not part of original discussion but need to be completed by July 2016: • Building and Fire Code update (every 3 years) • Impact fee process as a result of legislation changing the process for single family homes Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what is considered temporary in the sign code. Ms. Hope answered temporary is something that is not permanent or attached. The code refers to temporary as A - frame signs, banners, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could determine the length of time for a temporary sign. Ms. Hope answered a temporary sign can be up during the day and taken down at night, displayed for a certain number of days, etc., there are several options. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to stanchion signs as an alternative to A -frame signs, recalling the stanchions used to designate outdoor dining impacted ADA access on sidewalks. She was concerned with the use stanchion signs on the sidewalk. Ms. Hope clarified the concept was allow one A -frame or one stanchion, not both, located next to the building and there would need to be ADA access. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented many of the sidewalks downtown are not considered ADA accessible due to their width. Ms. Hope commented the rationale for the stanchion sign as an alternative to the A -frame sign is it takes up less space on the sidewalk. For example, Mill Creek allows stanchion signs but does not allow A -frame signs. The disadvantage of stanchion signs to the business is they are more expensive than an A -frame sign; an advantage is they do not take up as much sidewalk area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in the past she rarely saw A -frame signs, they have proliferated downtown. Ms. Hope agreed there are a lot of A -frame signs; the intent of the proposal is to reduce the clutter. For example there are A -frame signs located around the corner from a business which would not be allowed. If the Council chose, another option is no A -frame signs although there would be pushback from businesses who believe A -frames and other signage provide visibility. She recognized the importance of an active, pedestrian friendly downtown, pointing out successful businesses contribute to that environment. Mr. Owens shared the concern with stanchion and A -board signs; the current proposal includes requirements to avoid blocking the path, providing ADA accessibility, etc. The primary change is requiring a permit for A -board signs. A proliferation of A -frame signs has been seen everywhere, in part because they are so easy. Requiring a permit will allow enforcement, ensures concerns with ADA access are addressed, and encourages more attractive, well-built signs. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Natalie Shippen's concerns with signage. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed A -board signs are clutter and need to be regulated as they are not temporary. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his interest in LID in subdivisions. He inquired about maintaining more natural vegetation in a subdivision and how that may relate to the CAO. Ms. Hope responded the CAO will apply regardless of the subdivision method. The idea of LID is providing more flexibility on internal dimensions of lots to preserve special features (not a critical area) on a property without reducing the number of lots and retaining the same perimeter requirements. Councilmember Tibbott said incorporating native vegetation into the design of a subdivision versus requiring a percentage on each lot would result in a better design for the neighborhood and potentially better habitat and sustainability. Ms. Hope agreed, relaying her understanding of Councilmember Tibbott's comments that the City should encourage preservation or planting of native vegetation even if it is not required. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with that emphasis and asked to what extent LID helps accomplish that. Ms. Hope said that the intent of LID is to provide ways to retain trees, native vegetation, solar access, etc.; the standard rectangular approach does not provide those additional values. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 243 9.5.b Councilmember Buckshnis commented which she agrees LID is a great idea and a trend in the future, it may be difficult to educate Edmonds citizens that it is good for the environment. She often receives complaints about houses that occupy the entire lot. She did not like zero lot line but has seen that used in other cities. Ms. Hope clarified the proposal does not include zero lot line but possibly less setback in the interior between properties. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his awareness of the controversy over A -frame signs and visual clutter on streets in Edmonds especially downtown. He asked whether staff has talked to businesses and/or the Chamber about A -frame versus blade signs. Ms. Hope answered yes; there is strong support from the business community for continuing to allow A -frame signs although some like blade signs. There was a lot of pushback on not allowing any A -frame signs. Councilmember Teitzel commented Carmel, California, allows blade signs and wall -mounted signs but not A -frame signs. It is very pleasant to stroll through Carmel; the sidewalks are wide and uncluttered allowing 2-3 people to walk abreast. He was not a fan of A -frame signs and suggested the City consider either strict regulations or banning them. Ms. Hope offered to provide options for more regulation if A - frame signs are allow or not allowing them which is a policy decision for the Council to make. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. I. CONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided highlights of the CAO update: Update stated in fall 2014, with review of existing code and BAS • 12 Planning Board and City Council meetings regarding the CAO Council adoption January 26, 2016 and Mayor veto • December 15, 2015 code in Exhibits 1 and 2 He reviewed the intent of tonight's discussion and next steps: • Review proposed Council amendments (8) • Flesh out any new amendments • Next step options: o Vote on amendments tonight and direct staff to bring back ordinance for consider, or o Decide whether to hold another public hearing and if so, o Schedule public hearing on March 15 o Schedule work session March 22 o Make decision on the ordinance on April 5 Councilmember Buckshnis said in response to Mr. Lien's opinions in the agenda memo, she changed some of her amendments and created new amendments. If the Council decides to hold a public hearing, Mr. Lien said he will provide comment on some amendments to flush out other potential amendments for the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was a bit of a chicken or egg; he preferred to discuss the amendments tonight, the Council reach agreement on the amendments, and if they are not too different from staff s proposal, to make a decision tonight and schedule approval of the CAO on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Tibbott supported moving forward with a decision on the CAO without another public hearing, recognizing there have been two public hearings and a significant amount of public comment via Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 244 9.5.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 24, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred to the written Director's report, which was included in their packets. He specifically noted the summary of what has been done to date to implement the Strategic Action Plan, and he encouraged Board Members to review the document. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Chave advised that Ms. Hope and the consultant team provided a progress report on the Development Code Update to the City Council on February 23rd. For the Board's information, he played a video recording of the presentation. The following is a summary of the presentation: Packet Pg. 245 Ms. Hope advised that the Development Code Update is intended to make the code more readable, accurate and consistent; make inadequately -addressed code topics more complete; address new issues as appropriate; clam roles and processes and resolve conflicts/overlaps. She recalled that the Planning Board previously identified criteria by which the update would proceed, and the City Council allocated $150, 000 for the project. About $110, 000 of the funds were used in 2015, and $40, 000 will be carried over into 2016 to continue the project. Ms. Hope said the update is significantly influenced by staff resources. While they have helpful consultants, a large amount of staff time is needed to work through the topics. Staff time is influenced by other projects on the work program, as well as ongoing development review and special projects. The update is also influenced by the Planning Board principles and objectives, the public process and input, stormwater low -impact design (LID) integration, and the changing legal environment (new laws and court cases). Ms. Hope introduced John Owen of Makers, the consultant for the Development Code Update. John Owen, Makers, advised that he has been working with City staff on a number of code sections in tandem with each other. One, in particular, is the Subdivision (land development) Code, which is a topic that has received a lot of comments from the Planning Board, City Council, citizens, and development community. When reviewing the Subdivision Code, he considered three different types of land use actions: short subdivisions, formal subdivisions and binding site plans for commercial properties. The proposed concept at this time is to re -define short subdivisions as 8 lots or less rather than 4 lots or less, while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria. It is believed that this approach will cut out incentive for property owners to do two, side -by -side, 4-lot (short) subdivisions and instead have unified design that results in better land utilization and more opportunities to mitigate impacts of development. Mr. Owen explained that there are several different design options to consider. The current code allows for conventional design, as well as Planned Residential Development (PRD), which relaxes some of the requirements for subdividing properties. Under the proposed new language, it is anticipated there would be less need for PRDs because the updated code would allow some flexibility that would make some aspects of land division easier. The current code also allows for modification requests, leading to what is commonly called "staff interpretation " or other review actions, and he proposed that this option be substituted with LID requirements or options. This approach would allow greater flexibility to cluster lots and achieve more conservation or enhancement for existing trees, natural areas; greater setbacks next to adjacent properties; stormwater and LID features; native vegetation protection and solar access. Relaxing the internal subdivision requirements will allow for greater outer buffers, more LID features, and a greater opportunity to save large trees. The idea is to do what is important for the environment and surrounding property owners, but allow more flexibility with regard to how the buildings relate to one another and how they are arranged internally on the lot. Mr. Owen observed that some may interpret the proposed changes as making it easier for property owners to subdivide by allowing short subdivisions of up to 8 units. While the proposed LID Standards would allow a developer to vary the width and area of individual lots to a certain extent and the interior setbacks may be somewhat reduced, there would be greater requirements for protecting and enhancing critical areas and natural features, stormwater management and solar access. The standards would also limit the amount of impervious surface to a certain percentage of a lot and require careful protection of the trees being retained. He emphasized that the concept would not result in an overall density that is greater than allowed in the zoning district. Mr. Owen reviewed other concepts for updating the Subdivision Code such as allowing `fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes, requiring sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions, requiring access directly from a public right- of-way, and clarifying language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. Mr. Owens said that, while the application requirements are nearly the same for both short and formal plats, the review processes vary. Short plats are administratively reviewed, with appeals going before the Hearing Examiner. Formal plats are preliminarily approved by the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision and appeals go to the court. No changes have been proposed for the process. However, the proposed amendments will result in clearer standards related to coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. This will result in fewer "staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and more internal site flexibility to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, greater buffers around the property, etc. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 246 Mr. Owen said there have also been a lot of comments pertaining to the Sign Code, particularly about how the City calculates sign area. He explained that there are different ways to measure sign area, and Edmonds currently only counts the actual size of the letters and not the area around the letters. This encourages larger letters instead of the objectionable panel or backlit signs you see in other communities. The concept is to update the way that maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings. Currently, the maximum allowed sign area is one square foot of sign area per one lineal foot of building frontage on the main public entrance. He recommended that the language be clarified to apply the measurement to individual storefronts and not an entire multi -tenant facade. Mr. Owen said another change that would improve the overall quality and design of signs is to make sure they are centered in proportion and shape to the architectural features of the building. In addition, signage should not two thirds of the individual storefront dimension or articulation of the building. In reviewing examples, these proposed changes will help keep the sign to a reasonable size and proportion to the rest of the building. Mr. Owen said another thing that is unique to Edmonds is allowing signs to be on the mansard roof of a one-story building, and no changes are being proposed to this provision. However, one of the more controversial aspects of the sign code is sandwich board or A frame signs. The proposed concept is to encourage the use of stanchion (portable post style) signs as an alternative to A frame signs. Stanchion signs are less disruptive, yet highly visible. It is not the intent to discourage businesses from advertising. At the same time, they want to ensure there is a clear, safe pedestrian environment, as well as a sense of visual regularity and decorum in the downtown. Another option is to require a permit for stanchion or A frame signs so they can be tracked. It is also necessary to refine the requirements for A frame or stanchion signs in the right-of- way to make sure there is clear right-of-way, that they are close to the business, and that the numbers are limited. Mr. Owen said the proposed amendments also encourage blade signs to advertise the additional businesses. Blade signs do not have any of the disadvantages of the stanchion signs, and they actually have very good visibilityfor both pedestrians and people in vehicles. They are also considering a master plan for directional signs in the downtown so that signs can be placed in key locations. These signs are particularly important for businesses that are off the main streets. Permitting would be required and some organizational effort would be needed. Mr. Owen said many Washington Cities no longer allow new pole signs. Currently, the City only allows pole signs on Highway 99, and he recommended the City consider prohibiting new pole signs altogether and encouraging monument signs, instead. He recognized this may meet some opposition; but in the end, both businesses and other citizens tend to prefer signs that are visible but not intrusive. Mr. Owen said there are also legal issues under review related to signs that are based on recent court decisions. General miscellaneous clean-up of the sign code language also needs to be done. Ms. Hope noted that various items came up on the work plan that altered the City's ability to move forward with the Development Code Update. However, the current plan is to start with updates to the sign and subdivision codes. She reminded them that a related Development Code issue is the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted. In addition, the fire code must be updated every three years and will be coming before the City Council for adoption before July. Also, the State implemented a change to the impact fee process, which requires that there be a different process for single-family homes; and the City needs to update its code to implement this new requirement before July. The intent is also to continue integrating stormwater LID techniques into various sections of the code, and staff is currently working with the Engineering Department to complete this task. Mr. Chave announced that the presentation was followed by approximately 15 minutes of questions by the City Council Members, and the entire presentation is available on line. Chair Lovell asked if the schedule was developed by the Development Services Department or the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that it was prepared by the Development Services Director, after consulting with Makers. Chair Lovell reported that he attended Ms. Hope's presentation to the City Council and recalled that a key concern was that the concept of "0" lot lines would force the housing units so close together that they could infringe on the concept of personal privacy while trying to preserve sections of a development site for natural habitat, LID, tree preservation, etc. He noted that if an area is deemed to be in a critical area, all of the requirements contained in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would apply. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 247 9.5.b Chair Lovell recalled that there has been a lot of discussion in the past about sandwich board or A -frame signs, and the issue came up again at the Council level. These signs seem to populate the sidewalks and interfere with pedestrian access. It was asked if the City has solicited feedback from retail establishments that use the signs. Obviously, they want to preserve their sign capacity as much as possible. The task is to create balanced criteria that is acceptable to everyone but also provides a clear definition as to what comprises a temporary sign. Also, at the Council meeting, it was pointed out that Mill Creek Village does not allow sandwich board signs. Instead, they use blade signs that seem to go a long way to solving the issue. Chair Lovell advised that proposed amendments to the Sign and Subdivision Codes will come back to the Board for a\\ work sessions, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council later in 2016. Mr. Chave agreed and advised that a major part of the Board's extended agenda will be filled with Development Code update topics. Board Member Crank said that, based on feedback from retailers in the City, the A -frame signs are more than just a logo. They provide valuable real estate for temporary advertising. Switching to stanchion or blade signs would eliminate a business's ability to highlight sales and specials. She presumes that this concern will come up at the public hearing regarding the proposed changes. A -frames offer critical advertising opportunities that businesses will have to pay for and provide in another way. Chair Lovell recalled that the proposed change would not eliminate a -frame signs, but it would add additional standards to get them closer to the entrances, provide adequate ADA access on the sidewalk, etc. He expects that the updated Sign Code would continue to allow A -frame signs, but it would clarify the requirements. He also acknowledged that retailers depend on A -frame signs. Mr. Chave commented that stanchion signs would not preclude the ability to change messages. They are simply a different type and shape of sign that takes up less footprint on the ground but still provides ample room for messaging. He noted that the sidewalks in the downtown area are typically narrow, and the intent is to figure out specific limits and regulations that will allow businesses to provide messaging without hindering pedestrian access. He commented that a variety of other stand- up sign types have been used effectively in the downtown. Board Member Cheung asked if digital signs are allowed in Edmonds, and Mr. Chave answered that they are permitted along Highway 99, but the decision was made many years ago that digital signs were not appropriate for downtown and most other commercial areas in Edmonds. However, he acknowledged that there are a few existing digital signs that have been grandfathered and will be allowed to remain. Board Member Robles asked if neon or LED signs would be allowed, and Mr. Chave answered that small ones that are located inside windows are allowed. It's an evolving technology, and historically, it has been tight in the downtown area because people live in very close proximity to the businesses and it is important to limit glare and light. Board Member Cheung asked of projection lighting is allowed. Mr. Chave said the City actually encourages indirect lighting in the downtown. For example, halo signs are a new technology where there is some form of a sign face, with a light that comes from behind and illuminates outside of the sign area. The code prohibits cabinet signs in the downtown, but halo signs are indirectly lit and can produce some really attractive effects with very little light bleeding off the site. He explained that it is tricky to write sign code because the technology evolves quickly. It is necessary to look at performance standards rather than listing the specific types of signs that are and are not allowed. It is more about effect (what you are trying to prevent or encourage). For example, Mr. Owen called out the City's method for calculating sign area as unique because it only counts the area of the applied letters and not the area surrounding the letters. This is a powerful incentive for people to do block letters, which tend to be more subtle and get the message across well, without a large, bright sign background. Board Member Stewart commented on the importance of positioning structures on the site to allow for environmental features to be utilized favorably. Cluster developments use this approach, and it has been done quite a bit in other jurisdictions. The proposed code talks about LID, which is mandated by the state and will be incorporated into the code. It is also important that the updated Subdivision Code encourage green building. Under LID, it talks about energy efficiency, locally sourced and sustainable materials, indoor environmental quality, and a host of other things. Usually, when you talk about green building, you also analyze the site; and if you have flexibility, you can position buildings to take advantage of Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 248 9.5.b environmental features on the site. She noted that King County is moving forward with this evolving concept, and Snohomish County is lagging behind. Chair Lovell clarified that the idea would be to allow adjustments in the positioning of the units to enable larger areas of the site to be preserved for natural habitat, shared green space, mini parks, rain gardens, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that signs in the downtown should be designed to attract pedestrians, whereas signs on Highway 99 must attract vehicles passing by. She recalled previous City discussions where it was decided that signs that can attract people from more than two blocks away create too strong of a presence in the downtown, and that is where the word "garish" came into play. It is important to remember that this is the perspective that has been taken when looking at what is considered acceptable signage. She said she supports the performance based approach, which allows new technologies to be considered. Chair Lovell agreed that pedestrian -oriented signs are more appropriate for the downtown. Chair Lovell voiced concern that, typically, when small -lot development occurs, developers put up a fence around the development and clear cut the entire site. Implementing LID concepts will require careful planning by the City staff and developers. Board Member Stewart agreed that more planning will be required, but developers can actually save time later by retaining some of the existing environmental features on the site. It's a different way of thinking, but the concept is being used more. There are developers that take this approach, and perhaps they can attract developers from outside the City so the concept can begin to happen more. Chair Lovell asked if there is sufficient funding to complete the Development Code update. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate that the entire update will be finished in 2016. Right now, the consultant and staff are focusing on the most important parts (signage, subdivisions, and LID integration), and the remaining funds should be sufficient to complete these items. Staff hopes to complete the remaining work in house. He reminded the Board that another consultant is currently working with the Engineering Department to integrate LID into the engineering requirements, which will also require changes to other sections of the code. The City is also working with a consultant to prepare a Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He summarized that updating the Development Code is a very large project that involves various consultants and City departments. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Council's concerns about "0" lot line development. Mr. Chave clarified that "0" lot line is not a concept that is currently being considered. Board Member Monroe asked if the changes to the short plat provisions would allow a developer to bypass some of the standards, and Mr. Chave answered no. The same standards would apply to both short and formal subdivisions. The proposed amendment relates more to the process. Short plats are administratively reviewed, but the City Council has to approve formal subdivisions. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the proposed amendment would result in eight, small houses placed in the corner of a large lot. Mr. Chave said there are standards and limitations that would prevent this from happening. However, there needs to be some flexibility given to allow LID to be worked into the site design. The current formal subdivision provisions offer very little flexibility and no opportunity to retain trees, etc. The real question is how much and what type of flexibility should be available in both the short and formal plat standards. Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's decision to postpone adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would impact the timeline for updating the Development Code. Mr. Chave said it could complicate the schedule, depending on how elaborate finishing off the CAO gets, since it will prevent senior staff from being able to work on the code update. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that she does not anticipate a large number of subdivisions with more than eight lots, given the limited land available in Edmonds for development/redevelopment. Mr. Chave agreed and said most of the future subdivisions will be 2 or 3-lot short plats. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said that, in her experience with reviewing large subdivisions that have protected lands in the greater Seattle area, you end up with development that protects the last frontier of the resources that are left. There is not much left of the good part of nature, and the proposed LID regulations would actually protect what is left on the parcels. She also observed that people seem to like living on these properties. Protected lands are never going to be developed and they will have them to enjoy in perpetuity. There are some very fine tradeoffs. Although the houses could be smaller, there has not been a lack of interest on the part of consumers wanting to get into the developments. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said Mr. Owen made some fine points to help the Board turn its thinking when he referred to the proposed changes to the interior side and rear setback requirements. He pointed out that only the people living in the Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 249 9.5.b development would be impacted by the reductions, and they would have a clear understanding of the tradeoffs. Mr. Owen also made a point about lessoning the need for staff interpretation, which is something developers continue to ask for. Developers want to know what they are working with up front so there are no surprises. Subdividing is a rather expensive process that involves a large number of experts, and it is important for the City to be very clear about what the rules are. Staff interpretations can drive up the cost for consumers. UPDATE ON EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY AT -GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Chair Lovell explained that his presentation is not an official briefing. He is a member of the Waterfront Access Study Task Force and volunteered to update the Planning Board on the process because he believes it is important that the Board and public are kept up-to-date on how the study is progressing. The primary source of information related to the study can be found on the City's website, including task force meeting agendas and minutes. He advised that the task force meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month at 10 a.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. The meetings are open to the public, although the task force does not solicit public comment at their regular meetings. Chair Lovell reported that two public open houses have been held pertaining to the study. At the first open house, the task force outlined the purpose of the study, as well as the approach they would take towards the challenge. The second open house was a work session where members of the public were allowed to walk through all of the proposed concepts being studied. Chair Lovell observed that the railroad has been in Edmonds for a very long time, and it is important to keep in mind that over -implementation of any access solution concept could alter the character of the City. There is a risk that solving the railroad crossing problems in Edmonds could result in turning the City into a railroad town rather than a waterfront town. Chair Lovell advised that the task force is comprised of five citizen representatives from the Edmonds community, as well as five representatives from the primary stakeholders: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Sound Transit (ST), Community Transit (CT), and Washington State Ferries (WSF). In addition to staff members who attend the task force meetings, the City has hired consultants from TetraTec and EnviroIssues to assist in the work. Chair Lovell provided an overview of the study schedule, noting that the project remains on schedule and the 2nd of five stages is currently underway. He reported that the task force has completed a technical analysis by observing, quantifying and documenting existing conditions at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. They have also reviewed data from previous studies and community input, compiled potential concepts to improve access and developed the following screening criteria: • Provide for continuous emergency response access. • Reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading. • Reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists at the Dayton Street and Main Street railroad crossings. • Provide safe and efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit, pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle modes of travel. Chair Lovell reported that the task force has completed its Level 1 review of each of the concepts based on the initial criteria. He provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the scope of the study area and explained that the remaining concepts have been divided into the following categories: overpass solutions, underpass solutions, on -site solutions, operational solutions, railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He summarized that most of the concepts focus on overpass solutions, underpass solutions and ferry facility modifications. However, some concepts suggest on -site solutions such as providing first aid training and stationing a response team on the water side of the tracks and putting in a helipad. Railroad improvements, such as running the trains only at night, relocating the trains to Kirkland, or moving the tracks to the east of downtown so the waterfront is not interrupted, were also suggested. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 250 9.5.b • Permanent signs already require a permit, and these permits should be reviewed by the ADB, who understands the technicality of aesthetics. • Temporary signs should require owner notification to the Planning Department. Ms. Shippen's written comments were entered into the record as an exhibit. Don Hall, Edmonds, said he owns a business in the downtown called Garden Gear and Gallery, so the subject of signs has an impact on him. He questioned why the current discussion only pertains to signs in the downtown. He suggested that the temporary sign ordinance should apply equally to all areas of the City so all businesses are on equal footing. He also questioned how requiring permits for temporary signs would improve the City's ability to enforce the Sign Code. He asked how much the permits would cost, how long they would be good for, and if a new permit would be required each year. He said he would prefer that store owners be required to remove their signs during non -business hours, but placing a 60-day time limit on temporary signs would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hall said he supports many of the ideas proposed in the Development Services Director's memorandum, as they will improve the aesthetics of the downtown. However, enforcement will be vitally important, particularly in keeping signs in front of stores rather than further out on the sidewalk. He noted that many of the signs on the street corners are placed by real estate agents or by groups to advertise special events. These signs are typically A -frame types, similar to those used by the business owners. He questioned if real estate and group event signs would also require a permit and have a time limit placed upon them. Again he emphasized the need for the Sign Code to be equal. He noted that store owners have done a better job of keeping the signs off the street corners and closer to their storefronts, and the sign blight is no longer as bad as it used to be. However, he acknowledged there are still problems in some areas. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that he was a member of the City Council 25 years ago, and he has lived in the same location of Edmonds for 50 years. He provided a drawing of the view he has across the street from his home towards the Olympic View Deli site at 196 h Street and Puget Drive. He emphasized the proliferation of signs at the shopping area, noting that some are the responsibility of the business and others were placed there by citizens. It is difficult to live across the street from a commercial establishment, but the City attempts to mitigate the impacts by requiring businesses to tone down their lights and activity during the evening hours. The drawing he provided is intended to illustrate how temporary signs are also a growing problem in areas other than downtown. Mr. Hertrich said he would like to see better enforcement of the Sign Code. At this time, it is primarily up to private citizens to report problems to the Code Enforcement Officer. He expressed his belief that the problem gets worse when the City allows less regulation and more proliferation. Eventually, it becomes difficult to get control of the situation. If the regulations are tight, fair and enforced equally throughout the City, there is less likelihood that signs will become a significant problem in the future. Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that the City Council has been addressing the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in recent months. At their last discussion, he suggested that the CAO should specifically address the impacts associated with runoff from crumb rubber athletic fields into the City's creeks and waterways. Including crumb rubber fields in the CAO would assist in regulating the use to a greater depth in all areas of the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig entered Mr. Hertrich's diagram to illustrate signage at the Olympic View Deli site into the record as an exhibit. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Development Services Director's written report to the Planning Board. She briefly reviewed the items contained in the report and invited Board Members to comment. Relative to the Public Workshop for the Highway 99 Area Plan, Board Member Crank indicated she would try to attend to represent the Planning Board. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she would try to attend the event, as well. Regarding the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), Board Member Monroe indicated that he was assigned to serve as the Board's liaison to the Commission. DISCUSSION ON SIGN CONCEPTS: FOCUS ON TEMPORARY SIGNS Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 251 9.5.b Mr. Clugston reviewed that temporary signs in the downtown were previously discussed by the Board on February 241h, when staff provided an introduction to the topic. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to obtain feedback from the Board on how staff should proceed to craft draft regulations for their review on April 13th, followed by a public hearing on April 27th. He advised that members of the public have provided comments, and the consultant has prepared some draft language for the Board's consideration. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, signs are regulated based on time, place and manner; and cities cannot treat signs differently based on content. This law was confirmed in a 2015 Supreme Court decision, Reed versus the Town of Gilbert. Although tonight's discussion will focus on signs in the downtown area, the entire sign code will need to be updated in the near future to make sure it is compliant with the law and the new court ruling. Mr. Clugston said the proliferation of A -frame signs in the downtown is a problem. The current code limits temporary signs to a maximum of 60 days of display per year. However, no permit is required, which makes it difficult to track how long a sign has been up or whether or not it complies with the 60-day time period. In addition, the location requirements are not well defined and the code does not place a limit on how many businesses can have temporary signs along a building frontage. The intent of the update is to maintain the message and character of the signs, but provide enough standards and criteria for people to clearly understand what is and is not allowed. Mr. Clugston explained that, generally, temporary signs are intended to make pedestrians aware of what is going on inside a business. He referred to Attachment 2 of the Staff Report, which is a poster from the public open house on the code update. The poster dealt with freestanding temporary signs and identified ideas for improving the code. Staff is seeking input from the Planning Board on which provisions to include in the draft code language that will be the subject of further discussion on April 131h and a public hearing on April 271h. He provided examples of the types of temporary signs that are spread sporadically throughout the downtown and briefly explained how the proposed concepts could be applied. He reviewed the following questions in an attempt to seek specific feedback from the Board: • Should freestanding temporary signs continue to be allowed in the downtown? The City could decide they want to keep the sidewalk as clear as possible and to minimize distractions. Recognizing that window signs and blade signs under canopies are already allowed and incentivized, the City may determine that freestanding temporary signs are no longer needed. On the other hand, the City could determine there is a place for such signage, but wants to make sure the regulations are more effective. • Should the 60-day provisions be replaced with more enforceable provisions? For example, the City could require that temporary signs can only be displayed during business hours or require that signs must have a permit? Requiring a permit would allow the City's Code Enforcement Officer to better track temporary signs. Should signs be more specifically located? For example, should they be limited to within 2 feet of the building, and/or within 10 feet of the building entry? Another option would be to require at least four feet of clearance for pedestrian traffic. The goal could be to create some distance criteria for where signs could be located relative to the building, and particularly to the entry, in order to avoid clutter and blockage of the pedestrian access. When a building is located right next to the sidewalk, it is easy to identify where the sign should be placed near the building. However, it is more difficult to make this determination in other situations. It is important to consider the context of each site. He provided several pictures to illustrate signs that are placed close to the building, as well as those that are placed further out into the right-of-way. • Should there be limits on how many freestanding signs can be located in front of a building? For example, should freestanding signs be limited to no more than one (or two) signs per building entry, or no more than one sign per ground level storefront business? If the intent is to limit signage in the right-of-way, it would be appropriate to limit the number of signs a business could have and perhaps even tie the signs to the ground floor storefronts. He provided an example of a business that had two A -frame signs, one next to the entrance and another across the sidewalk next to the street. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 252 9.5.b • Should specific types of signs be permitted or incentivized? While the Board may not be comfortable with A - frame signs, other similar sign types, such as stanchion or easel signs, might be appropriate. Perhaps the code should limit the maximum width and/or overall square footage of a sign. He provided examples of easel and stanchion signs, as well as suggested sign sizes the Board could consider. It is important to consider the right-of- way space, and large signs should probably not be allowed. Mr. Clugston provided pictures taken on Main Street to illustrate how temporary signs, blade signs, and wall signs have been used throughout the downtown. He particularly noted that most businesses on Main Street between 4th and 5"b Avenues use blade signs, which are mounted under their canopies and are used to alert pedestrians of a business' location. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not A -frame or other temporary signs are necessary in the downtown, given that blade signs and wall signs above the canopies are both allowed. Again, he reminded the Board that the focus of the current discussion is on downtown signage, recognizing that the entire sign code will need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member Crank asked why the proposed revisions would only apply to signs in downtown Edmonds. She asked if the intent is to try the new regulations for a period of time and then consider their application elsewhere in the City at some point in the future. Mr. Clugston said it is not the City's intent to use the changes as a trial or test. Temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue, and the goal of the current effort is to fix the problems. However, it is possible that some of the elements will be deemed useful for application in other locations in the City when the entire sign code is updated. Board Member Crank said she supports directional signs in the downtown. Businesses that are not located on the main streets often get overlooked and do not get a high level of foot traffic. Directional signs might help mitigate a City decision to prohibit and/or limit A -frame signs in the downtown. To address some of her other questions, Board Member Crank referred to an existing business in the downtown, Arista Wine Cellars. This business uses an A -frame sign as a true temporary sign in the sense that the information on the sign is changed on a regular basis. They do a tasting event every Saturday using different products, and their A -frame sign is used to advertise the event to pedestrian traffic. She questioned how the proposed zoning provisions would be enforced. Does Edmonds have code enforcement? Mr. Clugston answered that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer. However, it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the limitation currently in the code because no permit is required to inform how long the sign has existed and when it needs to be removed. Board Member Crank asked if the City has the resources to enforce the sign code if it is updated as proposed, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Board Member Crank asked how the 60-day limit would apply to Arista, which only displays the A -frame sign on Saturdays. Mr. Clugston said each sign would be allowed for a maximum of 60 days each calendar year, but the days would not have to run consecutive. Board Member Crank voiced her opinion that stanchion and blade signs are more permanent in the sense that they provide just enough advertising to identify the name of the business, and typically, the content cannot be easily changed to highlight special events. She pointed out that Gallery North is an example of a business that has taken advantage of all types of available advertising (A -frame, blade and wall signs) to catch the attention of both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. While this may seem excessive to some people, it is currently allowed. While she is not suggesting that the City take on the project, Board Member Crank said another potential mitigation to compensate for stricter rules related to temporary signs would be to create a digital map of the downtown that highlights the businesses, as well as their special activities. She noted that the City of Grape Vine, Texas, has a digital map of their downtown area, which is managed by the Chamber. A digital map could be a potential mitigation or business enhancement tool. It would be advantageous if the City could offer options outside of things that take up the limited space on the sidewalk. Board Member Cheung pointed out that most businesses bring their temporary signs in at night, so restricting the hours they can be on display would not be much of a change. He asked if there are any situations where a city owns the temporary signs and businesses can insert their own information onto the signs. If the signs were provided by the City, the City would have greater ability to track how long they are on display. Mr. Clugston said he does not know of any program of this type. The Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 253 9.5.b downtown association has tried to get larger, directional signs going. However, the purpose of this discussion is to focus on the signage that individual businesses can have. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their presentation. She also thanked Ms. Shippen for her suggestions, which were summarized well. She asked if staff has looked at sign codes from other cities with similar downtown characteristics such as Fair Haven in Bellingham and Winslow on Bainbridge Island. Mr. Clugston answered no, but the examples provided by the consultant may have been culled from other jurisdictions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that a number of years ago, the ADB reviewed signs, but this responsibility was more recently transferred to the Planning Department as a staff decision. Mr. Clugston said signs that meet the Sign Code requirements are exempt from design review. He reminded the Board that the intent of the Sign Code is to look at time, place and manner rather than focusing on sign design. The design standards for signs in the downtown are fairly minimal and more related to location, size, etc. It is left to individual business owners to work within the constraints of the code and design a sign that works for them. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that there would be no point in seeking feedback from the ADB regarding the Sign Code since they are no longer the relevant board to review signs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps staff could provide additional information about a possible situational approach. For example, if a certain type of marketing strategy is needed, what type of sign would be appropriate. It might become more clear if they identify the size and criteria for the main signs, and then follow that discussion with criteria for temporary signs. Mr. Clugston cautioned that using a situational approach could end up considering the content of a sign, which is not something the City can regulate. However, the Board could identify a list of the sign types that are allowed and the standards that would apply. By a situational approach, Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she was thinking more about which types of signs are appropriate for each particular type of advertising. Staff shared the examples of easel, A -frame and stanchion signs, which may have different circumstances that suit their use best. Board Member Crank agreed that businesses have varied advertising needs, and one type of temporary sign might be more appropriate for their particular need. Mr. Clugston asked if Board Member Crank is suggesting that signs that allow for message changes should be handled differently than signs where the information is static. Board Member Crank answered that there may be situations where it is more suitable for a business to have a sign with static information, whereas another business might benefit more from a sign that can be easily changed. Mr. Clugston explained that, currently, businesses in the downtown are permitted to have three signs: a wall sign on the front of the building or canopy, a window sign, and either a blade sign located under the canopy or another allowed sign type. The Board could also recommend that a temporary sign be allowed as the third sign type, and it could have a changeable message. This would be a departure from the what the current code allows, but it is important to remember that the number of signs and the area allowed for signs is limited to a finite number. Mr. Clugston said that the intent of the examples provided by the consultant was to get away from having temporary signage located anywhere but right in front of the storefront. He recognized that businesses on side streets do not have as much pedestrian traffic, but they could pay more rent to move into a site that has more traffic. For temporary signage, the goal is to keep it right in front of the buildings. Board Member Stewart observed that the City does not have wide sidewalks, particularly in the downtown, and it was helpful to see the pictures that were provided by Mr. Clugston to get a perspective of the sidewalk width and how the temporary signs are impacting the space. If the City allows additional signs, they should be close to the building and out of the way of the walking pathway. However, she recognized that temporary signs have a function, and it is important to present some other options at the public hearing. She said she wants to hear from the business owners in the downtown about the how the changes would impact them and if adjustments could be made. Board Member Monroe asked if the City or business owner is responsible if someone were trip in front of a business. Mr. Clugston agreed to research the question and report back with an answer. Board Member Monroe said he supports less clutter and better pedestrian access routes so that pedestrians and people in wheelchairs are not blocked by signage in the walkway. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 254 9.5.b Board Member Crank asked if staff has engaged the downtown business owners in the process, and Mr. Clugston answered that the Development Service Director and the Economic Development Director have had discussions with a number of business owners in the downtown. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it is difficult to consider changes to the downtown sign code when they do not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. Having this information would help them understand the signage needs of the commercial areas. Mr. Clugston agreed that there are examples of both good and bad signage, and staff is seeking direction from the Board on what is the best balance of signage versus non -clutter. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide the Board with good examples of each of the sign types that are allowed. This would help her have a better understanding of temporary signage. Board Member Monroe suggested that because many of the temporary signs are up year round, perhaps it would be better to call them "movable signs." Mr. Clugston said it would be useful to separate temporary signs that have changing messages from those that do not. Board Member Monroe agreed that there must be a balance that provides business owners with the signage they need, but keeps the signage out of the pedestrian walkways. Board Member Crank agreed that permits should be required at some level, particularly if the City has a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled the Development Services Director's previous presentation, in which she explained why some of the rules were not enforceable. Without a permit requirement, it is difficult for the City to know when a sign was put up and when it must come down. This was a strong reason to change the approach and require a permit for temporary signs. Board Member Monroe summarized that a permit requirement for temporary signs is one idea put forward for the Board's consideration. He asked if the limitations on time could be eliminated if a permit is required. Mr. Clugston said it goes back to how you define temporary. Most temporary signs are put out when the business opens and removed when it closes. Board Member Crank added that some have temporary messaging and others have more permanent messaging. Board Member Monroe said he hates to create code requirements that add more costs for the City's businesses. If the 60-day limitation is eliminated, there would be no need for a permit. Mr. Clugston said permits would still be helpful so the City can track the signs. Board Member Monroe suggested that perhaps one temporary sign could be allowed per business. The signs could be displayed during business hours. It would be easy for the Code Enforcement Officer to see if there was more than one temporary sign or if a sign was left out after business hours, and no permit would really be necessary. Mr. Clugston agreed that could be a workable approach if the Sign Code is written clearly enough to provide good guidance. The City already has clear standards for wall signs, monument signs, freestanding signs, blade signs, etc. to make sure height, size and location requirements are met. Board Member Monroe's concept would require that specific standards be created for temporary signs, as well. However, it is important to note that all of these other sign types require a permit so they can be tracked to ensure that they are code compliant. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide an overview of the process and goals associated with permitting to give the Board and citizens a better understanding of the process. She expressed her belief that temporary signs would be relatively difficult to track even if permits are required. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the City's code enforcement is done primarily on a complaint basis, and the Code Enforcement Officer does not typically drive around looking for problems. Mr. Clugston summarized that the Board is interested in code language that differentiates between temporary signs and moveable signs. They would like him to provide examples of codes from other jurisdictions, as well as examples of good and bad signs. He agreed to also provide some draft language on the concepts that were recommended by the consultant. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 255 9.5.b could not see a marked difference, and that the level of attendance at Planning Board meetings primarily depends on the agenda topics. Board Member Robles pointed out that there appears to be a willingness amongst the citizens to participate in the public process, but they typically are not aware of the process for doing so. He suggested that there needs to be improved communication with citizens to inform them of the Planning Board's agenda and how they can participate. Chair Lovell said he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig will work more closely with Council President Johnson to scope out the Planning Board's extended agenda and plan opportunities to meet jointly with the City Council. Board Member Crank commented on affordable housing and housing in general within the context of urban planning. She said she recently attended a Corporate Development Responsibility Conference where a professor from the University of Washington -Tacoma's Urban Study Program talked about the correlation between the large number of businesses moving into Seattle and the rising housing demand in South Snohomish County and North Pierce County. This reminded her of the need to have a broader sense of planning. They should focus less on numbers and more on who the people are and what is driving the need for housing. Economic Development should be paired with urban planning, and job creation and movement should play a role in the discussions. DUSCUSSION/REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS Chair Lovell referred to the discussion draft of potential sign code amendments and asked how it compares with the report prepared by the consultant. Mr. Chave explained that the discussion draft is intended to be a continuation of the Board's last discussion and is not anything close to a firm proposal at this point. However, it does provide examples for how to differentiate between sign types (A -frame versus stanchion) and location (right-of-way versus private property). He explained that A -frame signs in the downtown are currently unenforceable. They are treated as temporary signs, with a 60- day limit, but it is very difficult to know when the signs are placed. He suggested the Board could come up with a specific proposal to present at a public hearing, or they could provide a few different alternatives for the public to comment on. For example: A -frames could be prohibited, but other types of signs could be allowed. A -frame signs could be permitted, not as temporary signs, but as permitted signs that must meet more specific criteria related to location, size, etc. A -frame signs could be permitted as right-of-way signs, or a type of quasi -on -site sign. The code defines the area in front of your business as part of your premise where you do business. Mr. Chave explained that treating A -frame signs as right-of-way signs can be difficult, particularly when a business is set back. If an A -frame sign is placed in front of a store on private property, they probably would not want to allow a sign in the right-of-way, too. If businesses are only allowed to have one sign, the code should specify a preferred location. Mr. Chave specifically asked the Board to provide feedback about whether they support allowing A -frame signs as an legitimate type of signage in a pedestrian environment such as the downtown, but provide ways for them to be permitted and tracked. They could provide this as an option to solicit public comment. The current code allows the category of sign that includes A -frames in the downtown, recognizing that they have historically been allowed and the sign type fits best in a pedestrian environment. Although many businesses insist that A -frame signs are necessary and important, he did not feel they are an appropriate sign type on major arterials since they are not generally visible from the roadway and there is not significant pedestrian activity. Mr. Chave said it is important to consider that the sidewalks in Edmonds are typically narrow, and space is limited. There is always tension between pedestrian space and use of the space for a variety of amenities that complement the overall pedestrian environment. There is a purpose for signage to advertise specials that change on a daily basis, and it is much easier than a reader board that tends to get a little more garish and does not really fit with the environment. If A -frame type signs are allowed, the code should provide specific details about what the circumstances must be. For example, it would not make sense to allow one for every business. There are situations where a single entry leads into four or five businesses behind the street front, and allowing four or five A -frame signs along a single store front makes no sense. If the Board wants Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 256 9.5.b to allow A -frame signs, perhaps it would be appropriate to establish a standard for the maximum number of signs allowed per store front. Mr. Chave said the intent of the discussion draft was to put the information that was provided at the open house into verbiage for the Board's consideration. He emphasized that, under the existing code, A -frame signs are only allowed in the downtown. Continuing to regulate them as temporary signs is inconsistent with the way the signs are actually used. Referencing other types of signs makes some sense to provide some perspective. He cautioned that the sign code can regulate the type, location and dimensions of a sign, but it cannot regulate signs based on content. It is not possible to use examples from other jurisdictions because, by and large, most are out of compliance at this point. Board Member Crank said she recently visited three stores in downtown Edmonds that had A -frame signs. She asked the owners if they were aware of the sign code requirements. She also asked how they would feel if they were told they could no longer have A -frame signs in front of their establishments. None of them liked the idea of prohibiting A -frame signs. She recalled that, at the last meeting, she asked if the business owners had been contacted for feedback. The response was that the business owners had been contacted early in the process, but there was no follow up or description of the responses. She suggested that the Planning Board extend an invitation to the downtown business owners to attend the next Planning Board meeting in which the sign code is discussed to express their points of view. Mr. Chave said that the Development Services Director has reached out to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED) and the Chamber for feedback. He commented that it is very difficult to discuss meaningful ideas with a large group of people in a regular Planning Board meeting setting. He suggested that a more effective way to solicit feedback from property owners and citizens would be to have an open house. As the discussion moves forward, the Board could offer a series of options and then solicit feedback. The feedback could be used to prepare a public hearing draft that hones in on the options the Board wants to pursue. Again, he suggested the Board put forward several options for the public to react to and encourage more specific comments. They can also use the City's website to solicit more feedback, and the Development Services Director could continue to work with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance and the Chamber as the discussion moves forward. Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to Board Member Crank's comments about responses she received from business owners, which relate back to the comment she made at the last meeting that the City does not know what Edmonds looks like with the sign code properly enforced. There is currently a proliferation of signs that are not allowed. For education purposes, she suggested the City could sponsor a campaign once or twice each year to get the illegal signs removed. Perhaps this could be done in cooperation with the Chamber and Edmonds Downtown Alliance. She expressed her belief that there is currently a lack of understanding, and perhaps the sign code is not as clear as it could be. She recalled that staff is recommending that only one sign per building be allowed, yet the graphic that was provided in the discussion draft is labeled as allowing one sign per business. Lastly, she voiced her opinion that stanchion signs pose less impediment to the pedestrian walkways than A -frame signs. Mr. Chave said staff is recommending that just one sign be allowed per building or one per entryway. He pointed out that, in some cases, a building hosts multiple businesses from a single entry. Allowing one sign per business could result in a large number of A -frame signs in front of the entryway and the sidewalk could become cluttered. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps there could be a different standard to address buildings with multiple tenants. For example, a stanchion sign could be used with a strip of space on the sign for each business to advertise. Perhaps a larger sign size could be allowed in these situations. He acknowledged that this would necessitate design standards and an additional cost to businesses. Chair Lovell summarized that it appears that the Development Services Director has done some survey work with respect to the merchants in the downtown, and his understanding is that the merchants rely on the temporary signs to attract customers. However, staff has indicated that it is difficult to regulate A -frame signs as temporary signs based on the current code. The signs are currently allowed up to a 60-day period, but the City has no way of knowing when the signs are originally placed. In reading the Board's discussion from the last meeting, he gets the impression that the temporary signs are supposed to be of a nature that provides a message or information to the public that is not contained on the regular business signs. Examples of this include special sales, or daily menu items. While he supports the City continuing to allow the signs, he felt the number should be limited to one per business and they must be located within three feet of the business entry. He noted that this would be consistent with the consultant's recommendation. He observed that there are numerous other opportunities for signage, including wall signs, window signs, and blade signs. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 257 9.5.b Chair Lovell suggested that if temporary signs are going to be allowed, they must have clear guidelines that can be applied throughout the entire City. However, he does not see how the City can regulate anything other than size, number and location. He noted that A -frame signs are not just a problem in the downtown area, but the problem seems to be more noticeable in the downtown where the sidewalks are narrower and there is more pedestrian traffic. Board Member Monroe said he likes stanchion signs least of all because they are taller. A -frame signs are lower to the ground and not as visible from the street. He said he also believes that A -frame signs are a safer option, as long as the required 4-foot walkway can be maintained as per the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Board Member Stewart said she believes there are certain benefits associated with both stanchion and A -frame signs. She expressed her belief that placing A -frame signs next to the buildings rather than away from buildings is a safer standard. It is easier for those in wheelchairs to get by stanchion signs. She suggested that perhaps one stanchion sign per building could be allowed, and the message on the sign could be changed and tenants of the building could take turns. A -frame signs could be allowed, as long as they are tucked against the buildings. She would like to hear from the public as to the appropriate number of A -frame signs to allow per building or business. While they want to avoid clutter, they also don't want to take away a business owner's right to notify the public of changing conditions at their business. Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board should start by identifying the specific problems before having a lengthy discussion about potential solutions. This approach would help the Board determine whether the proposed solutions will actually help address the problems or if they will simply address personal preferences. For example, ADA accessibility is a problem that can be addressed by requiring that the signs are ADA compliant. Rather than placing A -frame signs next to buildings, a better location might be near the street trees where they will not impede pedestrian traffic. Another example of a problem associated with A -frame signs is that they create clutter and detract from the appearance of the downtown. A possible solution might be to limit the number of signs allowed per building or per business. Chair Lovell asked it if would be appropriate to create aesthetic uniformity for downtown signage. Mr. Chave cautioned that when developing sign standards for the downtown, it makes sense to describe the parameters for signs rather than trying to enforce uniformity of design. Currently, there is a lot of variety along the downtown streets, and variety tends to attract people. He suggested that the code should be very specific about the standards that must be met, but still allow for creativity. The Board all agreed that the approach suggested by Board Member Cloutier would be appropriate, and they further agreed that maintaining adequate pedestrian walkways, per ADA requirements, in the downtown is an important criterion. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the sidewalks in the downtown all different widths. There are some places where the sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate a stanchion sign without impacting the walkway. However, she is hoping that as Edmonds becomes more discovered, there will be more people using the sidewalks. That may require the City to revisit the sign code, and businesses may have to come up with other solutions. Mr. Chave said that last year the City decided to be more flexible with other kinds of signage. For example, they now encourage blade signs or projecting signs that are more attractive and effective as permanent advertising of a business. Signage that gives notice of changing events has its place, but it must be regulated in a way that is content neutral. Board Member Robles agreed that allowing for creativity should be part of the Board's consideration, but there is also an argument for uniformity. For example, the gas lamp district in San Diego is defined by ornate gas lamps. He suggested the Board could actually populate the criteria and have a contest. They could invite designers in the City to actually interview the citizens on behalf of the Board and propose some solutions. Also, the City has a database of business owners in the City, and there are methods for statistically sampling those individuals to obtain a representative opinion. He suggested they could combine these different approaches into a strategy. Chair Lovell asked if the breadth and depth of the Board's discussion has been narrowed down to temporary signage. Mr. Chave agreed that is the main focus of tonight's discussion. Staff is trying to figure out which direction the Board wants to go so that draft code language can be prepared for their consideration at a future meeting. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps a representative from the Planning Board could attend the next meetings of the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to give a brief presentation and solicit feedback. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 258 9.5.b Board Member Cheung referred to Board Member Crank's earlier comment and said he is not surprised that business owners seem to be unaware of the regulations for signs. He voiced concern about creating a sign code that is overly restrictive and/or too specific. It will be difficult enough just getting them to comply with a simple ordinance. Business owners should already know not to place signs in the middle of walkways, even if it is not specifically prohibited in the code. He cautioned that the Board should be realistic about what the new sign code will convey to businesses and whether or not they will actually comply with a lot of specific rules. Mr. Chave referred to Vice Chair Rubenkonig's earlier comment that the City does not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. He advised that the City has occasionally sent out general notices when the signage has gotten out of control. The Code Enforcement Officer has sent word to the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance that the signs need to be better controlled. This approach has worked well in the past. It is not that the business owners do not know the rules, it is a matter of what they can get away with. For example, businesses already know they are not supposed to put signs blocks away from the business. There tends to be a constant push/pull, and people will try to see how much they can get away with. However, if the new rules are well understood and a sign permit is required, enforcement will be easy and quick. People will quickly figure out that their signs will get pulled if they haven't been approved by the City. The sign code will become self -enforcing over time. Board Member Cheung asked what happens with non -compliant signs. Mr. Chave answered that sometimes the signs are confiscated. For example, signs that are put in the right-of-way by clubs have been confiscated by the City, and people have quickly figured out other ways to do their signage. He suggested that addressing signs in the City will require education, combined with enforcement and clear, understandable rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that window signs can also add to the visual clutter. Mr. Chave said the sign code allows signs in windows up to a certain percentage of the window area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the window signs must reflect on the activity of the business within. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City cannot regulate sign content. The idea behind allowing some amount of window signage is that it tends to be more temporary advertising. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the City currently has some wayfinding signs off the main road to direct citizens to public areas, but there are no wayfinding signs for businesses. She asked if it would be possible to allow wayfinding signs on Main Street to direct pedestrians to businesses off the main road. If this were allowed, then perhaps A -frame signs would not be necessary. Mr. Chave said that wayfinding signs for commercial uses would require a specific program that addresses design, maintenance, etc. The Edmonds Downtown Alliance could pursue this approach as one solution to signage, and another option would be the creation of a website or app for smart phones that advertise and direct people to the businesses. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if businesses could rent their window space to another business for advertising. Mr. Chave answered that there are restrictions on off -premise signage, which is generally not allowed. Chair Lovell suggested that permitted signs could be required to display stickers that provides physical evidence that they meet the sign code requirements. Board Member Cloutier felt this would be cumbersome for the City to administer, as it would require the Code Enforcement Officer to check all of the signs for labels. He reminded the Board that the goal is to enforce the standards without having to go business -to -business and sign -by -sign. For example, it would be easy to administer a requirement that ADA access must be maintained at all times. The Board discussed that the ADA standard will soon be updated to require 48-inches of sidewalk space. Board Member Cloutier suggested that once the Board has a clear understanding of the current sidewalk widths in the downtown, it will be easier for them to make an informed decision. Board Member Monroe reminded the Board that there are other competing factors that must be considered, as well, such as street trees and other amenities in the public rights -of -way. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would be held responsible if someone were to trip on a sign that is placed in the right-of-way. Mr. Chave said he does not have enough experience to say who would ultimately be responsible, but it would likely be both the City and the sign's owner. He reminded the Board that when the City issues a Street Use Permit, applicants must provide insurance verification and a Hold Harmless for the City, as well. He believes these same requirements would apply to Right -of -Way Permits. Board Member Monroe asked if the same would be required for signs, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. However, he acknowledged that there is no enforcement, and the requirement needs to be more clear. If signs are allowed in the rights -of -way, there needs to be some sort of insurance in the event that someone trips over them. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 259 Student Representative Klevin asked how the City monitors how many days per year a sign is put out. He suggested that a website could be set up that would allow businesses to schedule beforehand the days they will be displaying their signs. The City's Code Enforcement Officer could then check to make sure that only those businesses that signed up for the day are displaying signs. Board Member Cloutier agreed a website would be one option for showing when temporary sign permits are effective and/or expire. However, the Board has agreed that A -frame signs in the downtown will no longer fit the definition of a temporary sign. While the City wants to allow businesses to advertise special events, business owners should not be allowed to violate the standards. He summarized that staff is encouraging the Board to move away from temporary signs and make A -frame type signs their own category of business signage in the public right-of-way. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that "movable signage" would be a more accurate term. Board Member Crank suggested the Board go back to Board Member Cloutier's earlier suggestion that they hone in on what they are trying to solve. They should also consider what they are trying to prevent. Business owners are trying to prevent a loss of potential business for not having the signs as a source of advertising or marketing. If the City is focusing on issues they are trying to solve such as clutter, proliferation of signage, pedestrian access, etc. they should also try to mitigate any potential issues for the business owners. Board Member Cloutier suggested that instead of thinking of it as "preventing," they should focus on enabling the businesses to put out signage to continue their business. We can't give them everything they want, but we don't want to take away everything, either. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board supports the idea of allowing public signage in rights -of -way. Chair Lovell said the real problems seem to be fairly limited to the downtown bowl area, and it will be difficult for the City to regulate all temporary signs throughout the City (including real estate signs, political signs, etc.). If the Board agrees that temporary signs should be allowed in the pedestrian rights -of -way, there is not a lot more the City can do beyond requiring provisions for ADA accessibility and adequate clearance for pedestrians. He voiced concern about creating separate and different standards for each of the business districts in Edmonds. Board Member Monroe pointed out that downtown Edmonds is unique in that it is a pedestrian -friendly business area. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to make neighborhoods more walkable and safe. The intent is to create zoning and land use provisions that allow people to work, live and shop in their neighborhoods. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said her perception was that the discussion was focused on downtown Edmonds because it is unique in its walkability. The idea was to address this part of town and then look at other areas at a later time. Mr. Chave agreed that is the assumption staff has been working on. If you look at the sign code, A -frame types of signage are not allowed elsewhere in the City. Downtown is unique because the sidewalks are right up against the buildings. In other commercial areas, there are large pieces of property with buildings set way back from the sidewalk. He said the City Attorney has agreed that the City can regulate signs in the rights -of -way differently depending on the type of environment. However, he agreed with Chair Lovell that, if the City really wants to change the character of another business district at some point in the future, they could take a second look at the sign standards. But they are not there yet. He suggested the Board work on coming up with sign code standards that are unique to downtown Edmonds and see if they work before applying them elsewhere in the City. Chair Lovell noted that the chart that was included in the discussion draft implies that the same concepts they are considering for downtown signs would be applied elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave said the chart needs more work and is not in keeping with the existing code. Chair Lovell voiced concern about having different sign code requirements for each commercial area in the City because it would make it more difficult to administer. He also voiced concern that, with the exception of the ADA requirements, many of the other requirements being suggested are subjective. Mr. Chave summarized that, based on the Board's discussion, staff will bring back more information to the next meeting for their consideration. He also agreed to meet with the Development Services Director to discuss future plans for outreach. He reminded the Board that the current focus is on right-of-way signs in the downtown. Although real estate and campaign signs are also temporary in nature, adjusting the sign code that applies to them will require close scrutiny from the City Attorney at some point in the future. They are not included in the current discussion. Board Member Robles recalled that a few months ago he provided a possible solution to the tree code based on a block chain, which is a new type of software. Such can also be developed for something like the sign code. He said he did not receive a Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 260 9.5.b o Add more pedestrian crossings across Hwy 99. o Slow traffic turning off Hwy 99 onto side streets. Improve public space o Include more wayfinding signs. o Activate the street by bringing buildings to the sidewalks. o Include landscaping as buffer between street and sidewalk. o Concern expressed over the number of car lots. "Car lots do not make good neighborhoods." Attract new businesses o Diversify the business mix in the area o Focus on attracting catalyst developments Next steps include: • Use results from public workshop and online survey to draft alternative scenarios • Public Open house - Thursday May 19, 7:00 — 9:00 pm o Swedish Hospital Auditorium, 21601 76`h Ae W, 41h floor, main building Ways to participate include: • Periodically check City websites o www.edmondsh)U99.org o www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highwa9—planning-project.html • Take the survey o www.edmondshwy99.org/workshop-surve • Get on the City email list • Watch for announcements in local media and City newsletters • Send comments to brad. shipleykedmondwa.gov Ms. Hope reviewed the project timeline • March — April 2016: Understanding Existing Conditions • April — June 2016: Develop Land use and Transportation Scenarios • April — Oct 2016: SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment • July — Sept 2016: Develop Subarea Plan • Oct — Nov 2016: Final Sub -Area Plan Councilmember Nelson thanked Ms. Hope and the consultant for the public workshop. He commented the number of Councilmembers at the public workshop illustrates the Council's interest in Highway 99. He also commented on the public workshop attendees' interest and their participation in the mapping exercise. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. I. UPDATE ON REVISING SIGN REGULATIONS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained sign codes are complex and have many issues such as free speech, aesthetics, community character, public access, etc. Staff has has heard many different concerns with the sign code over the years such as things that were unclear, things that other cities doing such as replacing pole with monument signs, etc. The primary concern that has been expressed is temporary signs in the downtown area. Most downtown businesses believe the opportunity for signage is important, increases their business and keeps the area vital and lively. Conversely, signs can also get in pedestrians' way if not placed carefully and can be viewed negatively. There is also an issue related to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 261 9.5.b enforcement; the code provides for limitations on signs but there is no permitting or tracking system and the City has only one code enforcement officer. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board is initially focusing on temporary signs. Sandwich/A-board signs are allowed downtown but not elsewhere in City. They are generally associated with pedestrian environments and it makes sense to regulate them that way because pedestrian signs are very different than other signs. Under the existing sign code temporary sign are allowed but only for 60 days; however, there is no permitting system to track those signs. The Planning Board is considering what signs need time limits and how sandwich board signs are used. Mr. Chave explained currently A -board signs are not used on a temporary basis for a specific number of days; the temporary nature is related to their removal when the businesses are closed. Many A -board signs are used for ongoing advertisement for things like menus, daily specials, or other temporary statements that inform patrons what is occurring in the business. One of the challenges is the sidewalk area downtown is limited, most downtown sidewalks are 8 feet wide. Although there is ample room, the issue is not having to many A -board signs so they are ubiquitous, identifying the best location on a case - by -case basis, determining a logical number based on number of storefronts, doorways, etc. Those details are not reflected in the current code. Mr. Chave said another issue under review with the assistance of the City Attorney is the recent Supreme Court case that limits the ability to regulate signage; regulations have to be content neutral. The basic rule is if a person has to read the sign to determine whether it's permitted, that is a problem Other jurisdictions' codes cannot be used as samples because most allow specific signs. For example, a menu sign; it would be necessary to read the sign to determine it was a menu sign. The City Attorney's office has been reviewing the City's sign code and have identified definition problems as well as other issues. Ms. Hope relayed the intent is for Planning Board to gather public input and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized there are a lot of issues associated with the sign code. Many temporary signs are not actually temporary; they have been in place for a very long item. She was unclear why temporary signs are a freedom of speech issue. Other cities do not allow sandwich board signs; if the City has never tried not allowing sandwich board signs, how do businesses know they are helpful. She suggested not allowing A -board signs for a 30-60 day trial period. Ms. Hope anticipated options would be presented to the Council that could include no temporary signs allowed on the sidewalk or other regulations such as where and when they can be displayed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said if the Council was interested in completely prohibiting temporary signs, he would need to research whether that was defensible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a permit for A -board signs had been considered. She wondered how many would be displayed if a permit were required. Ms. Hope answered consideration is being given to requiring a permit; most other sign types require a permit. A -board signs in Edmonds do not require a permit which makes them difficult to track. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has been contacted by members of the disability community on more than one occasion with concerns about outdoor dining in the right-of-way blocking access; A- board signs adjacent to outdoor dining further block access. After measuring some sidewalks downtown, she found some are only 6 feet wide. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board is discussing the requirement for a permit especially for signs in the right-of-way. Requiring a permit would allow the sign location to be reviewed as well as whether there was a conflict with outdoor dining. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked people without a disability often don't think about signs blocking access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 262 9.5.b Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a permit fee was required for blade signs. Mr. Chave answered no; a decision was made during Stephen Clifton's tenure not to require a permit. The signs are required to be mounted at a certain height but there is no fee for the permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas liked the blade signs and would like to see more. She remarked blade signs, A -frame, and signs in window can all be too much. Mr. Chave agreed that was the difficult part about the sign code; there were no objective studies that state what was more or less effective. There are only government ordinances regulating signs and publications from the sign industry that state more is better. That is why jurisdictions look at other jurisdictions' regulations; unfortunately, most are not in accordance with Supreme Court decision. Ms. Hope said another challenge is whether the business is located where it can display blade sign. Councilmember Teitzel said he attended a recent Edmonds Downtown Alliance meeting where the issue of signs was raised and there was a lot of emotion about A -board signs. Most business owners at that meeting believed it was the most cost effective sign method to attract customers. He agreed it would be important to find research that would inform business of other other options that may be as effective or more effective than an A -frame sign. Ms. Hope said it has been very difficult to find any academic research; most information is anecdotal. Council President Johnson recalled Natalie Shippen raising this issue in the past including the visual pollution in downtown Edmonds, the number of signs she observed and what they advertised. Council President Johnson said after a while, people become immune to what Ms. Shippen saw and she was unsure whether people actually read the signs. She agreed a range of options would be helpful, one of options should be a ban or a temporary ban and encouraged the City Attorney to work with the Planning Board and staff on a ban. She acknowledged a ban may not be popular but several Councilmembers have indicated they are not particularly supportive of sandwich -board signs. She recognized they are inexpensive and serve a purpose but questioned whether they were in the best interest of downtown Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for temporary signs that were actually temporary; A -boards tend to be permanent. He supported options for temporary signs with regard to the type of signs, size, location, etc. He noted visitors may not walk by the A -board signs every day and may be informed by the information on the sign. He favored finding a balance to accommodate visitors, people with disabilities and pedestrians but did not support a temporary or permanent ban at this point. Councilmember Mesaros relayed as he was walking to tonight's meeting, the veterinarian was bringing in the sandwich -board sign at the Veterinary Clinic on 5th. The sign appears to be very temporary as it is brought in every night. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out real estate sandwich boards are often displayed outside the downtown area, typically on the weekend to direct people to open houses. He anticipated regulating those would be difficult. Ms. Hope agreed that is an issue; staff is not proposing to address those signs at this time. Mr. Chave clarified only commercial A -board signs are allowed downtown; A -board signs are allowed in residential zones. The challenge with real estate sign is they are located off -premise. Councilmember Mesaros commented there are two types of real estate signs, the A - frame and the small arrow stake signs. 7. REPORTS OF OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Buckshnis the WRIA 8's granting committee did two site visits for King County Flood Control grant program and two visits for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and submitted their recommendations to the WRIA 8 Board. The WRIA 8 Board will review the recommendations on May 19. She abstasined from voting on the recommendation related to the Edmonds Marsh. She reported the Tree Board is hosting Cass Turnbull on May 5, 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. in Council Chambers to speak on "The Seven Myths of Site, Selection and Care of Trees." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 263 9.5.b response on his suggestion for the tree code, and he questioned if it would be appropriate to specify a block chain solution for regulating signs. He explained that block chains are a new technology, and he could provide more information if the Commission is interested. It is basically a decentralized database, where multiple writers can write in. In the case of signs, the City could provide a map of where signs could be allowed, and then the community decides and trades with local currency and/or credit. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the signs still end up where you want them, but you aren't saying that all businesses have to use their spot. Someone else can use that spot. Board Member Robles said it is a self- regulating and self -enforcing approach that would allow the City to stay out of the business of regulating signs. Chair Lovell said he is not sure the City is ready to apply the concept. Board Member Cloutier summarized that with this type of program, it would be the City's responsibility to set the standards, and it would be up to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to create and administer the database consistent with the standards. Mr. Chave said the intent of the process is to adopt a new sign code. The draft language that has been provided to date was intended for information purposes. At their next meeting, staff will present draft language for the Board's consideration. A tentative public hearing is scheduled for May. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT Chair Lovell briefly reviewed the written report, noting that two Board Members attended the recent public open house relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He also announced that Sound Transit's ST-3 draft program is available for public comment, and he urged Board Members to review the plan and provide appropriate comments. Board Member Stewart reported that the City Council spent little time on the Critical Areas Ordinance at their April 12th meeting. The agenda was quite full, and the Council only got through one amendment having to do with the mapping of critical areas being made available to the public on the City's website. The mapping system allows citizens to apply layers to the GIS maps to identify such things as critical areas, steep slopes, streams, pipes, infrastructure, etc. The intent is for citizens to have the ability to access the information on their own, and then approach City staff with questions when necessary. She said it was emphasized that the maps are not 100% accurate, and the mapping system makes note of this in a disclaimer. Mr. Chave provided more information about how the mapping system works. However, he cautioned that including critical areas in the mapping system can be misleading because they are not precise regulatory maps. Board Member Stewart shared examples of the information that can be accessed from the City of Seattle's website. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she receives regular communication from other jurisdictions in the area concerning the permitting activity that occurred throughout the month. This is helpful information, and she asked if it would be possible for the City of Edmonds to generate a report of this type, as well. Mr. Chave said the City's permit tracking system is available on line, but the City does not issue an email that summarizes the monthly permitting activity. Board Member Crank suggested that Vice Chair Rubenkonig provide examples to staff of reports that have been issued by other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave said the Building Division does a monthly report that summarizes the building permits that were issued, but it is not linked to a more extensive database. They do not currently have a method of doing a realistic report on all of the development activity in the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt this would be a wonderful tool for the Board to have on hand. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the agenda for the April 27th meeting will include a continued discussion on the sign code, as well as a review and discussion of land division concepts. Chair Lovell asked staff to provide feedback from the City Council regarding the timeframe for rewriting the Development Code. Mr. Chave said the plan is to get as much of the update as possible finished in 2016. The sign code is a priority, as is the process section. The update of other elements will extend into 2017. He agreed to invite the Development Services Director to provide materials to update the Board on the overall schedule. Chair Lovell questioned the timing of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Board Member Crank reported that she attended the public meeting, but the timeline was not provided. The meeting was presented as the first step in getting the public involved Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 264 9.5.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 11, 2016 Vice Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell (excused) Valerie Stewart (excused) Samuel Klevin (Student Representative (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2015 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, referred to an email she sent to the Board prior to the meeting in which she shared an example of boxes being placed near the door of a business on which advertising materials could be placed. She noted that the boxes are small, mailbox type that can hang on the wall next to the entryways or on the walls. She also pointed out that the Board has had significant discussion about the purpose of A -frame signs, and there seems to be a general acceptance that they provide an economic benefit to the businesses in the downtown. However, there has been no discussion about how the signs benefit the general public. She urged the Board to have a discussion about the public purpose of having the signs in the rights -of -way. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written Director's Report. None of the Board had comments or questions about the report. REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS Packet Pg. 265 9.5.b Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft sign code amendments is scheduled for May 25"'. The purpose of the current discussion is to finalize or get closure on the options that will be presented to the public at the hearing. Staff s intent is to publish information relative to the three options by Friday, May 13"', so the public has adequate time to review and prepare for the hearing. He briefly reviewed the three options as follows: Option 1 — This option would essentially prohibit A -frame and sandwich board signs from being allowed in the downtown. The business "premises" would no longer be defined as including the sidewalk in front of the building, and these types of signs would no longer be permitted as an allowed sign type downtown. Option 2 — This option would add a new definition of "pedestrian sign" that would specify more types of signs, including stanchion signs and other similar types. This option would continue the ability of businesses to use pedestrian signs as a form of "temporary signage," but a permit would be required and the 60-day limit would be retained as it currently exists for other types of temporary signage. Basically, this option would continue the status quo, but add a permit requirement to help staff administer the regulations. Option 3 — This option would change how "pedestrian signs" are treated downtown, considering them as a type of regular signage rather than "temporary." In exchange for this, there would be more standards in terms of where they can be located and how many would be permitted. The pedestrian signs would also count against the total sign area permitted for a business or building. This option would acknowledge how a number of businesses in the downtown currently use temporary signs. Option 3 is similar to Option 2, but more specific. Rather than allowing signs along the entire storefront, the location would be limited to either two feet next to the building or two feet out at the edge of the sidewalk, whichever provides the best through -way for people. In some cases, it may be less intrusive to the pedestrian walkway if the signs are placed closer to the street near trees, etc. This approach allows the City to determine the best location for the signs in order to maintain optimal pedestrian access. Mr. Chave emphasized that the three options would be tied to pedestrian signs in the downtown/waterfront area, where there is a pedestrian environment. They would still not be allowed elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave advised that in addition the three options pertaining to "pedestrian signs," there are a number of other suggested code amendments included in the draft material. These are attempts to clarify or rectify problems or inconsistencies staff have encountered in applying the sign regulations to specific circumstances over the years. He emphasized that none of the proposed amendments would increase the sign area or the number of signs allowed per business. Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained that the Board should focus its discussion on the three options that will be presented at the public hearing on May 25"'. Mr. Chave said the other proposed amendments will be included in the draft language that is published for the public hearing to solicit public comment. However, he agreed that the most significant change is to the temporary sign provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested it would be helpful for the Board to discuss the differences and identify the criteria by which the Board will review each of the three options. She reminded the Board that other sign types, including blade signs and window signs, are allowed in the downtown and do not count against the total sign area that a business is allowed to have. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that additional language from the sign standards was inserted into the draft code to make this clear. He noted that these signs are already allowed in the existing sign code. However, Option 3 would include pedestrian signs as part of the total sign area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff has the resources to administer either Option 2 or Option 3, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He explained that, while Options 2 and 3 would both require permits, Option 2 would require a new permit every 60 days, and Option 3 would require just one permit that would be valid as long as the sign consistent with the code. Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that the Board received written comments regarding the draft sign code from Phil Lovell, Chair of the Board, and from Laura Zeck, the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors. They also received a memorandum from the Edmonds Downtown Business Association (ED) outlining their Sign Advisory Board's proposed revisions related to the sign code. Board Member Crank noted that Board Members received the written comments just prior to the meeting. She suggested they wait to discuss their content until the public hearing. The remainder of the Board concurred that would be appropriate. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 266 9.5.b Board Member Crank referred to ECDC 20.60.080(A)(2)(c)(2), which states that portable temporary signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. She asked if this same provision would apply to Option 2, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and agreed to check the language to make sure the provision was included in both options. Board Member Crank suggested that it would be helpful if staff could provide pictures at the public hearing to illustrate signs that would and would not be allowed per each of the options. Seeing examples of what is currently happening in the downtown would also be a helpful tool, and graphic illustrations would help the conversation move along faster. Mr. Chave said he is planning to prepare a PowerPoint presentation that talks about the key provisions of each of the options, and examples will be provided, as well. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it would also be useful for staff to prepare a matrix to clearly identify the differences between the three options. Board Member Robles observed that Option 1 would be easy to implement and administer, but Options 2 and 3 would be more difficult to control and manage. He recalled that, at the last meeting, he suggested that the Board also consider a "green dot" option, which originated from Board Member Cloutier's recommendation that the Board's discussion should focus on what problems they are trying to solve. The only tangible problem that has been identified is the need to maintain adequate pedestrian access and meet the American's with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. Given that the Board is accountable for ensuring the safety, health and welfare of the public, sign location should be planned based on this criterion. If the City wants to be in the business or regulating signs, he suggested this could best be accomplished if the City were to make the pedestrian signs and determine exactly where they can be located. Board Member Robles observed that signs are a type of contract, statement of fact or statement of value. Any sign that does not accomplish this should not be considered a sign. He said he believes the "green dot" approach is an easy way to manage pedestrian signs, and he is surprised that staff didn't put more effort into developing the concept further. There are other ideas that haven't been adequately heard, as well. He suggested that the Board postpone their recommendation until all ideas have been heard. Mr. Chave said that is the purpose of tonight's discussion. The intent is to offer several options for the public to respond to. Board Member Robles voiced concern that limiting the hearing to the three options would result in people commenting without having a full menu of options. He asked that his planned -location approach be included as an option for the hearing. Mr. Chave agreed to develop the option further if that is the Board's consensus. Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that the City Council agreed to work with students from Washington State University to develop a wayfinding sign program and/or technology that would provide information about businesses in Edmonds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council authorized staff to submit an application to participate in the program, but the selection is competitive and there is no guarantee that the City will be chosen. Board Member Monroe pointed out that, in addition to safety and maintaining pedestrian access, the Board has also discussed a desire to address visual clutter. Board Member Robles suggested it would be the Architectural Design Board's responsibility to establish the visual aspects of the sign code. Board Member Monroe concurred, but suggested that clutter should at least be part of the Board's discussion. Mr. Chave said that Option 3 would be easy to implement, and Option 2 would be more difficult. Board Member Monroe asked if the permit fee would be the same for both Option 2 and Option 3. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and explained that the fee would be minimal. The permit is intended to enable the City to track pedestrian signs to ensure that pedestrian areas are clear. The fee should be high enough to cover the cost of administration, but not so costly that it becomes an obstacle. Board Member Monroe suggested that both Options 2 and 3 imply a "green dot" solution, since they both limit where the signs can be placed. While the concept was not specifically included as an option, it was not necessarily excluded, either. Mr. Chave agreed and cautioned that what actually happens on the sidewalk can change over time. Adopting a "green dot" approach would require the City to update the sign code each time something changes. Board Member Robles suggested that the dots could be identified on a map rather than physical dots on the sidewalk. He cautioned against creating a sign code that is too detailed and difficult to understand, and he felt that the "green dot" approach would be the simplest approach and represent a good compromise. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 267 9.5.b Board Member Monroe asked the public benefit of allowing restaurants to serve food on the sidewalks. Mr. Chave answered that a study was done some years ago that looked at how to create a more vibrant and attractive downtown, and street life came up as being an important goal for the public environment. Allowing restaurants to have a limited presence on the sidewalk adds to street life. However, it is also important to manage where they can be located. Board Member Robles observed that, sometimes, outdoor dining expands beyond what the City approved and encroaches into the pedestrian area. Mr. Chave agreed and said that would be a code enforcement issue. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board should review each of the options based on the following criteria: 1. Whether or not pedestrian signs will be allowed. 2. What size of pedestrian signs can exist? 3. Where can pedestrian signs be located? 4. How many pedestrian signs will be allowed? 5. What benefit do pedestrian signs provide. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that this criterion should also be presented at the public hearing, along with examples to illustrate existing pedestrian signs, as well as how Option 2 and 3 would be implemented. Board Member Cheung suggested it would also be helpful for staff to specifically identify the differences between the three options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig led a discussion about the differences between the options and suggested that a matrix be prepared for the public hearing to visually illustrate the differences. The following is a summary of their discussion: • Permits: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require permits for pedestrian signs. Option 1 would not allow pedestrian signs at all. Location: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require that pedestrian signs provide a minimum of 4 feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. Option 3 states that the preferred locations are within 2 feet of the building face or within 2 feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles. This would provide more flexibility to place the sign in an area that is the least intrusive to the pedestrian walkway. The Board agreed that the location criteria should be the same in both Option 2 and Option 3. Board Member Cloutier observed that requiring the signs to be within 2 feet of the building or street would be similar to the "green dot" approach. Instead of dots, there would be green bands. This requirement would eliminate the need for a case -by -case sign review to determine location. Board Member Robles pointed out that, in some cases, putting the pedestrian sign next to the building requires pedestrians to walk closer to the street where there is no weather protection. He would prefer that the signs be placed closer to the street so that pedestrians do not have to walk in the rain. • Time Limitations. It was pointed out that Option 2 would impose a 60-day time limit on pedestrian signs, and Option 3 would not. In both Option 2 and Option 3, pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. • Number of Pedestrian Signs Allowed: Option 2 would limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront. Option 3 would also limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront, but the signs would count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. • Sign Size: Options 2 and 3 both identify the same maximum size for pedestrian signs. The difference is that the pedestrian sign area would count as part of the total sign area in Option 3, but not in Option 2. • Benefits. The Board had a brief discussion about the pros and cons of permanent signs to both businesses and citizens. The Board decided against having a lengthy discussion about the benefits criteria until after the public hearing. They discussed that the public would inform them of their views relative to the benefits of each of the options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recommended that, at the public hearing, the Board should specifically solicit comments from the public relative to the pros and cons of each option. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 268 9.5.b Rather than focusing on the pros and cons of each of the options, Board Member Crank reminded the Board that they should focus on trying to solve the problems, which are ADA access and the proliferation of pedestrian signs. Board Member Cheung pointed out that all three options would require ADA compliance, which is a federal mandate. Board Member Robles asked if the City has a mission statement in place that could guide the discussion at the public hearing. Board Member Cloutier answered that the City has a mission statement, which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Comprehensive Plan is a vision rather than the rule. Mr. Chave encouraged the Board Members to review the Downtown Waterfront Plan, as well as the Economic Development Element, which are part of the Comprehensive Plan. While the two documents do not specifically address pedestrian signs, they do speak about the pedestrian environment. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board's recommendation to the City Council relative to sign code amendments should tie in with the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the two elements identified by Mr. Chave. Mr. Chave said he anticipates the Board will receive a lot of input at the public hearing to help inform their recommendation. Board Member Monroe asked why staff is recommending a 60-day limit for pedestrian signs in Option 2. Mr. Chave said this is consistent with the current code language, so it would simply maintain the status quo. The Board prepared the following chart to illustrate their discussion: Existing Sign Type Sign Location Sign Size Time Limitation Pedestrian Sin Containment Option 1 No N/A N/A N/A N/A Option 2 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. 60 days Perhaps within 2 Does not count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. Option 3 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. No limit Perhaps within 2 Does count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that a public hearing on the draft Sign Code Amendments is scheduled for May 25th Also on May 25th, the Board will continue its discussion about the Subdivision Code Update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Planning Board oversees the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Planning Department, and they get quarterly, or at least regular reports. In that capacity, she would like to explore how the activities of the department are chosen. In particular, she wants to focus on whether the Board has any oversite of the programs and volunteer opportunities for the environment, education and service. The Planning Board represents the community's interest, so their activism on behalf of the sustainability, health, and viability of the City Marsh, solar power, energy consumption, and involvement in volunteer service is important. She asked if Public Works or Parks and Recreation Departments are the managers of such programming. She reviewed that the Deer Creek Hatchery is located in Edmonds, and Edmonds has been designated as a Backyard Natural Habitat. The City also has a Beach Watcher Program and the Frog Lady, who is integral to many programs. She said she would like the Planning Board to look at all the programming (activities and commercial provisions) and consider what oversight should be provided. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 269 9.5.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 25, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5t" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Monroe asked when the Board would receive an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Chair Lovell noted that the item is identified as "pending" on the Board's Extended Agenda, but no specific dates have been identified. Mr. Chave reported that there was a public open house on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan last week. At this time, the consultant and staff are sifting through the comments received to prepare a summary report, which can be forwarded to the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE Packet Pg. 270 9.5.b Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council requested that the Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs in the downtown area. The focus of the hearing is to gather input on three options dealing with temporary signs. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary signs, the draft amendments also address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. He emphasized that the Board has not singled out any of the three options as preferred, and they are interested in hearing from citizens and business owners regarding their preferences. The Planning Board will consider the public input as they formulate a recommendation for the City Council. He noted that the code language for the three options refers to temporary signs in the downtown as "pedestrian signs." He reviewed the three options as follows: • Option 1 would ban pedestrian signs such as A -frames. The Board has received public comment that the signs are an eyesore, block sidewalks, etc. Option 1 is a simple solution. If pedestrian signs are not allowed, then there is no need for regulations to govern them. Option 2 is a variation of the existing code, which considers pedestrian signs in the downtown to be temporary signs that are only allowed for a total of 60 days per calendar year. The 60-days can be spread out, such as once per week or focused around particular sales events. Option 2 would continue this practice, but add a new requirement for a low-cost permit so that the 60 days can be tracked and to ensure that signs are ADA compliant. Based on the existing code, these types of signs cannot be placed off of the property, and Option 2 would not change the requirement. However, Option 2 would specify where the signs can be placed and limit them to one pedestrian sign per street front, which could potentially equate to one pedestrian sign per business. • Option 3 would permit pedestrian signs as permanent signs, so the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb, and only one in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Some have commented that pedestrian signs are supplemental signage that is important for businesses, and a number of businesses use them on a regular basis. Option 3 recognizes the importance of pedestrian signs, but places restrictions on them. For example, only one would be allowed per store rather than one for each business in a building. Mr. Chave summarized neither Option 2 or Option 3 would allow pedestrian signs to be located away from the property, which is consistent with the existing code. That means that signs could not be placed on the corner to direct pedestrians to a business down the street. Because a permit would be required, the enforcement mechanisms would be clearer. Mr. Chave said that the Board is interested in the public's reaction to the three alternatives, particularly the benefits of each one. They have heard why prohibiting pedestrian signs would be a good thing, and they have received some commentary about why some business think they are important. Mr. Chave said there are also a number of proposed amendments that are not tied to pedestrian signs. These are intended to clean up and update the code language based on staff s working knowledge of the code. For example: • Directional signs are not specifically addressed in the code, and a proposed amendment would allow directional signs and not count them as part of the overall signage allowed for a business. • The code specifies when illuminated text is allowed, and a proposed amendment would clarify that logos can be illuminated, as well. • A proposed amendment clarifies that sign height is tied to the building and not what the original grade might have been. • The existing code considers monument signs on very short poles to be pole signs. For all practical purposes these are monument signs, and a proposed amendment will make this clarification. • The roof is the natural place for a sign on a one-story building with a mansard roof because there is no room on buildings with the storefront windows. A proposed amendment would clarify this exception for one-story buildings. • A proposed amendment would codify what has long been the practice for calculating sign area, which provides a strong incentive for letter signs. Rather than drawing a rectangle around the entire area the letters are applied to, sign are would be calculated by measuring the actual letters. This allows the letters to be larger. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 271 9.5.b • Currently, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) can grant modifications that are tied specifically to a site. Because there are a number of unique architectural features associated with buildings in the downtown, and strictly following the code may require that these features be covered up. A proposed amendment would allow flexibility for the ADB to consider other solutions put forth by property owners. The amendment would not result in more signage, but there would be more flexibility as to how the signs can be arranged on the building. Although he did not attend the Board's last meeting (May 1 lth) where the sign code was discussed, he read the minutes and met with Vice Chair Rubenkonig to review the Board's discussion. He summarized that the Planning Board's discussion has focused on the following: Pedestrian signs must adhere to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Board heard a lot of feedback about the issue of clutter. Citizens have expressed concern that there are too many signs and they are being used in locations that are not adjacent to the businesses. Although pedestrian signs are currently limited to just the downtown commercial zones, the sign type if used prolifically in other commercial areas of the City, too. The Board is interested in providing adequate guidelines in the code to allow for fair administration of the regulations. It is also important that the regulations can be easily understood by citizens, business owners, and staff. Mr. Chave reported that the consultant the City hired to review the Sign Code has identified a number of sections that need to be clarified, particularly with respect to the size and configuration of signs on buildings. In addition, it has also been discussed that there are many other ways to advertise a business via social media such as Yelp, Google searches, etc. However, the real purpose of tonight's discussion is to hear from the public about the pros and cons of each of the options for regulating pedestrian signs in the downtown. After the Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will study the issue further and invite additional public comment before a final decision is made. Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, said she owns a business at 542 Main Street. Her background is in advertising, and she spent 20 years in advertising before opening her small business. Because her business is located above the fountain and not in the core business district, signage is a challenge. Sidewalk signage is extremely important to the success of her business, as it draws in foot traffic. She hears daily that people did not know her business was there until they saw her sign. Her business would suffer if pedestrian signs are no longer allowed. Temporary is an important way to communicate sales and special events. She voiced concern that Option 2 would significant limit the use of pedestrian signs to advertise special events, such as the Fire Station Open House or downtown merchant events that are done as a group. Without temporary signage, advertising these events would be challenging. Ms. Koenig suggested the Board consider an Option 4, which would allow pedestrian signs are permanent signs with some restrictions. She understands the importance of having a cohesive look, adhering to sign code rules, and maintaining ADA compliance. She suggested the City consider a universal sign design that would allow business to add their own images but maintain a cohesive look. Lastly, she commented that advertising via social media works for special events, but it does not bring in foot traffic. People walking downtown do not know her store is there until they see the pedestrian sign. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to pedestrian signage when talking about a universal, cohesive look, and Ms. Koenig answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to a specific sign when talking about bringing in foot traffic. Ms. Koenig answered that she has been using an A -frame sign that is placed next to a tree to advertise her business. In light of the proposed sign code changes, she has been trying other methods of signage that is closer to the building. However, they have not been successful because her building is set back off the street. Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, said she is fortunate to have a great clientele, and she no longer needs A -frame signs to advertise her business. However, she is tucked in on Walnut Street off the beaten path and putting a sign at the corner of 5th and Walnut was instrumental in establishing her business. She voiced concern that the proposed sign code amendments would no longer allow signs to be placed off -premise. She also pointed out that her building is unique, and the current code does not allow signs above the roof line. That means her sign was limited to just two feet in height, and she had to modify her round logo to be an oval in order to maximize her sign space. From a marketing perspective, she is lucky she didn't fail Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 272 9.5.b because the brand logo is typically instrumental to a business. It would be great if the sign code were flexible enough to address these unique situations. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, said he is the owner of Housewares on Main Street, as the newly -elected present of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED). He said he is also a member of Ed's Environment Committee, which is conducting a preliminary study of street amenities, and gathering information about A -frame signs is a part of the study. He said ED understands that the Board has defined three pedestrian sign options for consideration, and they are seeking additional input. The Environmental Committee has examined pedestrianss ignage as it relates to economic vitality, but also as to how the sign types impact the rights of the public to use and enjoy the sidewalks. Safety is an issue for the general public, and an additional concern for those with mobility and visual impairments. He said the purpose of his comments is to discuss the pros and cons of A -frame signage and offer some suggestions for additional or alternative sign options. Mr. Boehlke explained that because A -frame signs occupy public space, the stakeholders involved are business owners who may feel that the signs are their most important means of advertising and pedestrians who use the sidewalks. Most pedestrians that the committee has talked to want the sidewalks to be free of visual clutter and freestanding obstacles, and some even feel that A -frame signs should be banned. Other's don't have strong feelings about the subject either way, but they are concerned about the growing quantity of signs placed on the sidewalks and wonder if there are any regulations for limiting their size and quantity. He shared a summary of the pros and cons the committee has gathered over the past month as follows: Pros (input gathered primarily from business owners): • A -frame signs are seen by some business owners as an important, and in some cases, the only street level marketing tool available to them. This is especially the case for those businesses that are not located on 5"' Avenue or Main Street. Other business owners have said that they do not particularly like A -frames but they do not see any alternatives that are available for communicating specific messages about their businesses to pedestrians. • Pedestrian signage is needed because, typically, wall -mounted signs placed high above eye level are not seen by pedestrian traffic walking below them. Buildings without overhead canopies do not offer a place for "blade signs," making A -frames the only eye -level option for placing a message perpendicular to, and thus readily visible to, traffic flow. • A -frames offer businesses the opportunity to announce special offers and events. • Businesses located off the beaten path have found A -frame signs to be effective in drawing attention to their place of business. One reported that they have documented an increase in sales when this type of sign is on the street and a decrease when it is not. Cons (input gathered primarily from pedestrians): • They can create visual distraction and obstruct pathways, especially on smaller sidewalks, reducing the quality of the walking experience and affecting the easy flow of pedestrian traffic. • There is no control of materials, one was made with heavy metal and had sharp edges. • Too many occupy the street corners, making it difficult to cross the street. • Some are not designed to withstand winds and blow over on the sidewalk and/or into the street. • Some are placed too close to the curb so you can't open your car door. • A -frames advertising a condo in Firdale Village are brought into town and left out overnight. • It is difficult to navigate around them with a baby carriage or stroller. • It is difficult to push a wheel chair around them, especially when sidewalks are also cordoned off for restaurant eating areas. • A -frames are starting to creek back, is there no limit to them? • A -frames serve a function, but are difficult to control. Mr. Boehlke summarized that the subject of A -frame signs seems to elicit passionate and diverse options, and the committee has also noticed the challenges involved for the City when attempting to secure a consistent and fair approach to pursuing breaches of A -frame regulations as stated in the existing sign code. He explained that the issues of visual and physical clutter, as well as concern for public safety, are the reasons the committee began to seek other options. While the committee does not recommend that A -frames be banned, the thought is that, given additional choices, there will be an incentive for Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 273 9.5.b businesses to choose something more appropriate to their needs and more appealing to the customer that they are trying to attract (pedestrians). Although the initial options are preliminary, the committee has identified a couple of ideas that look promising: A. One idea is that each business, especially those located on side streets and at the edges of the downtown core, would be given the opportunity to have a removable sign hung from a permanent directional post and panel structure, which would be strategically placed at the street corners out of the pedestrian path. This sign type would be designed to be compatible with the existing historic light standard in downtown or become part of the "family of sign" types that the City has recently installed around town. B. Another alternative to A -frame signs for street businesses is to offer changeable mini -projecting signs about the size of a small A -frame sign. These would be doubled sided and attached to the building. They would be similar to A - frame signs in the sense that the message would be perpendicular to pedestrian traffic and changeable; but unlike A - frame signs, they would not impede pedestrian traffic. C. Because stanchion signs typically take up 50% less sidewalk space than A -frame signs, they would be an excellent alternative. Also, at the ADA ideal height of 5 feet above grade, they would be less of a tripping hazard than the 3- foot A -frame signs. D. An additional pedestrian level sign option should be made available for businesses located on the second floor. One idea would be to allow a building -mounted sign at their entry door. This option would be attached to the wall of their building and would be limited in size and quantity. Mr. Boehlke concluded his remarks by proposing that a long-term solution be developed providing a framework of wayfinding and informational signs with a cohesive, attractive and standardized framework within which each business may present their personalized message. He summarized that the most successful solution will have the support of both businesses and the walking public. The goal should be to make the town visually inviting and pedestrian friendly and to maximize the ability of small businesses to community with and attract customers. Judy Salinas, Edmonds, said she is the owner of Glazed and Amazed in Edmonds at 514 Main Street. She currently has a professionally -made A -frame sign that is located next to her window and changed up on a regular basis. However, the sign is only out during business hours. She said the A -frame sign helps people find her business, and she uses it to advertise special events. She voiced support for Option 3 and questioned how staff would control the 60-day limit proposed in Option 2. She summarized that small business struggle to stay in business so anything that can help them get the word out and get people to stop in is important. She said her business has been located in downtown Edmonds for 11 years, and it would be a huge disservice to her business to prohibit pedestrian signs altogether. Her business has an awning, which makes it difficult to see the name of her business other than the A -frame sign. Board Member Monroe asked if Ms. Salinas has considered the option of using a blade sign to advertise her business. Ms. Salinas answered that she has a small blade sign, but it does not allow her to advertise events. Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, said she has lived in the City since 2001 and has been a business owner (Snap Fitness) since February 27, 2008. She said she is very blessed to have her business located at the corner of 5`h Avenue and Walnut Street, since she is able to place a sign on the corner without blocking pedestrian traffic. She explained that she always asks new customers how they learned about her business, and 95% of them indicated that they drove by and saw her sign out front. She commented that visibility is very important. When people drive down 5th Avenue and stop at the light, her sign near the corner is very easy for people to see. The sign is used to advertise personal training and classes. The sign on the building is just general, and the A -frame sign advertises that the business is more than a gym. Ms. Rosenfelt recalled that at the last meeting, it was suggested that businesses use window signs to advertise. She tested this option out and found that members of the club took down the signs because they wanted to be able to see out the window while they were using the equipment. Also, when cars park on the street in front of the business, they block the view of the signs. She emphasized that it is imperative for business to have signs that are visible at eye level. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 274 9.5.b Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Ms. Rosenfelt to describe her pedestrian sign. Ms. Rosenfelt said it is a stand-up sign with a sand base so it doesn't blow over. The sign can be changed up with professional inserts. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the sign would best fit the description of a stanchion sign. Board Member Monroe asked how clutter could be addressed at the corner. Ms. Rosenfelt said there are four corners at the intersection, and her business is the only one that uses the location now. She noted that her building is located at the corner, so the sign would actually be considered on -premise. The mixed use building has commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Signs would have to be located next to the street rather than on the sidewalk since there is a garden area on both sides of 5"h and Walnut. Joan Archer, said she has owned Aria Studio Gallery on Main Street for 15 years. She is also a member of the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) and ED. She agreed with the concerns raised by the previous speakers, and her overall thought is that A -frame signs make businesses more visible. She said she puts out an A -frame sign on occasion, and it is very helpful in attracting customers to her business. It is located next to the building and is just visible from the fountain, but it does not disrupt pedestrian access. While other methods of advertising are good, it is important to keep in mind that downtown businesses have a number of other expenses: ED, Artwalk, and increased business taxes. She expressed her belief that A -frame signs have their place, but they should not be allowed to impair access or cause major issues. They should also be limited in size. Ms. Archer questioned why pedestrian signs are being discussed as a problem, except perhaps clutter. On the other hand, businesses are an integral part of the community, and they bring people to Edmonds. There are already a number of nit -picky requirements that businesses must deal with. While some restrictions are necessary, the City should be careful before placing additional requirements on businesses. Denise Schwind, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of the City for 26 years and owns PUR Skin Clinic in downtown Edmonds. She commented that she has actually learned about many of the businesses in the downtown because of the pedestrian signs on the street. She said that when new patients come in, she asks how they learned about the clinic. Most were referred by existing patients, but 35% came in after seeing the A -frame sign on the street. Prohibiting pedestrian signs would impact her business and the ability for it to grow in Edmonds. She said her business is located in front of a bus stop, which inhibits visibility of her building sign. She has a small pedestrian sign on the sidewalk, and people walking by see the sign and come into her business. The sign does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked why kind of pedestrian sign Ms. Schwind uses, and she replied that it is an A -frame sign that is only out during business hours. Randy Hutchens, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 68 years. He lives and works in downtown Edmonds, and is the owner of SnoKing Signs. He commented that numerous good ideas have been put forward by the business owners. He said he reviewed the sign code and found it to confusing. He suggested that it should be written as bullet points that identify exactly what is and is not allowed. He suggested that perhaps the preferred option could be a combination of Options 2 and 3, which would require a low-cost permit, but consider the pedestrian signs permanent. He felt this approach could be enforced by using a sticker that obtained via the permit and placed on the actual sign. He said tehr are variety of pedestrian sign types, and the code language should not specifically out any one type. A combination of Options 2 and 3 would eliminate the 60-day limitation so people would no longer need to stress over how many days a sign is out, and the low-cost permit would make enforcement easy. He said he likes Option 2 because it specifically identifies where the signs can be located. He felt that pedestrian signs should be allowed, but only during business hours. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented that the proliferation of temporary commercial signs on streets of the bowl is recent and began four years ago when spots of signs began to appear her and there. Edmonds now looks as though it has an advancing case of the measles. The owners of the "spots" claim that they are necessary because, for some reason or another, their businesses aren't visible enough. However, none of these owenrs claim that their visibility problem developed after they purchased or leased their properties. The potential problem already existed. Business, itself cautions that the first rulers for a successful business is location, location, location. If local merchants chose the wrong location, that is their responsibility. Adjusting the sign code to accommodate private misjudgments is not the role of a city council. If an owner is certain that he is being wronged, his remedy is the Hearing Examiner, not the ADB as has been suggested. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 275 9.5.b Ms. Shippen said that, so far, no one argues that temporary commercial signs embellish the appearance of Edmonds. Reducing the attractiveness of a pleasing residential community on a gamble that ugly commercial signs will attract more customers to a business would be a poor decision. It sacrifices a public value and the public gets nothing in return. The acceptance of more and permanent commercial street signs, as recommended in Options 2 and 3, would be a step backwards in Edmonds' history. The Planning Board should choose Option 1. She encouraged them to keep the existing code, with amendments that prohibit all temporary commercial signs through Edmonds except for 60 consecutive days one-time only for grand opening events. Prohibited signs would include A -frames, sandwich boards, stanchions, banners, streamers, posters, clusters of lights, flags, pennants, and balloons. The simplest and best way to regulate temporary commercial signs is to not allow them except for one business opening period. Ms. Shippen suggested that Edmonds examine the purpose of the sign code. The City's current sign code is dishonest for those who oppose signs, as well as those who use them for business purposes. As an example, she read from the City of Carmel, California's sign code, which states that, "This chapter establishes standards and guidelines to preserve and enhance the appearance of the community as a place in which to live and work. These standards and guidelines ensure that signage is used as identification and not as advertisement or a notice -attracting device. Furthermore, these standards prevent an excessive number of signs, avoid visual clutter and eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists brought about by distracting signs. " Don Hall, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been merchants in downtown Edmonds for 20 years, and they have used A - frame signs to advertise their business. They used to have two, and now use just one because they did not feel it was appropriate to have one at the corner, too. Their current A -frame sign is next to the store and is used as part of the front display. He commented that A -frame signs can be very attractive, and if businesses use imagination, the signs can excite those who see them. He pointed out that prohibiting pedestrian signs has not worked well in other areas of Edmonds because, as mentioned, they are all over the City when they are really only allowed in the downtown. He also questioned how Options 2 and 3 would be enforced. The City only has one Code Enforcement Officer, and he is not available on weekends. He noted that on weekends, particularly during the summer months, there are numerous signs around the fountain advertising special events. He suggested that blight is more of an issue with these signs than the signs that are placed on the sidewalk by local merchants. He agreed that the pedestrian signs should be located in front of the businesses and should only be out during business hours. However, A -frame signs are very visible to people driving down thte street. He said he has a blade sign, but it is not highly visible to passing cars because it is blocked by the awning. Without the A -frame sign, drivers would have to look up to identify his business, but A -frame signs can be placed at eye level so they are easier for people to see. Mr. Hall said he would like the Board to figure out a way to make the sign code enforceable. He suggested that the existing code, if enforced properly, would work well with just a few small tweaks. He recommended that pedestrian signs should be considered permanent rather than limited to 60 days. He commented that most business owners do not have a clear understanding of the City's current sign code requirements and how they are applied. He suggested that Option 3 would be a good approach, along with education and enforcement. Chair Lovell asked if there was anyone in the audience who has a business outside of the downtown business district, and none raised their hands. Chair Lovell asked if all those present had reviewed the three options currently on the table, and all indicated affirmatively. Chair Lovell summarized that a few citizens comment on the pros and cons and indicated which option he/she preferred, but he is perplexed that few alternative solutions were presented. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell announced that the Board would continue its discussion about the sign code at their next meeting. At that time, they will consider the public input and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave explained that code amendments are legislative actions, which do not have as stringent of requirements as quasi-judicial actions. He invited Board members and citizens to continue to submit their comments and suggestions to the City. Those that are received by Thursday, June 2nd will be included in the Board's June 8th meeting packet for consideration. He emphasized that the Board's continued discussion on June 8th is not scheduled as a public hearing, but members of the public would have the opportunity to provide oral comments during the "General Public Comment" portion of the meeting. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 276 9.5.b F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Clugston said that rezoning the subject parcel would bring it into agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and make the existing development on the site conforming. Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request as presented. Chair Lovell invited members of the audience to participate in the public hearing, but none came forward. As there were no further questions from the Board, Chair Lovell closed the testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin its deliberations. Chair Lovell asked if the property owner is aware of and understands the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell noted that there is an easement on the subject parcel that serves as access to the single-family residential home located behind it. He asked if the owner of the subject parcel has jurisdiction over the access driveway. Mr. Clugston said the owner of the subject parcel must have granted an easement to the owner of the rear parcel, but the easement would not have any bearing on the proposed rezone. Board Member Crank asked if there is documentation that affirms the fact that the property owner has been appraised of the rezone application and agrees with it. Mr. Clugston said a letter was sent to the property owner and was included as an attachment in the Staff Report. He also spoke to the property owner by phone. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of property behind the subject parcel was also notified of the change. Mr. Clugston answered that all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel were notified by mail, and a sign was posted on the site, as well. In addition, the rezone was advertised on the City's website and in THE EVERETT HERALD. The rezone would not have any impact to the access easement. The intent is to simply make what is already developed on the site conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that, typically, jurisdictions handle rezones on a once -a -year basis. She asked if this is the City's general policy, as well. Mr. Clugston answered that area -wide rezones and those that require a Comprehensive Plan amendment are usually scheduled once a year, but site -specific rezones that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are moved forward when the application is received. Board Member Stewart asked about the size of the subject parcel, and Chair Lovell answered that it is 10,016 square feet. Board Member Stewart pointed out that lots in the RS-8 zone must be a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and the portion of the property that is identified as access easement would not be counted as part of the lot area. Mr. Clugston affirmed that the subject parcel has sufficient lot area to meet the requirements of the RS-8 zone. Board Member Stewart asked if the owner of the subject parcel has been paying property taxes based on the OS zoning. If so, will the tax amount change when the property is rezoned? Mr. Clugston answered that he is fairly certain the property has been taxed as a single-family residence for the past 45 years and only the zoning map is incorrect. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 21805 — 98Tn AVENUE WEST FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8). BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DELIBERATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE REGARDING THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Mr. Lien referred the Board to the staff report, and recalled that the following three options were presented at the public hearing on May 25tn: Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 277 9.5.b Option 1 would no longer permit portable or temporary signs in the downtown. Option 2 would be essentially the existing code. Portable signs would be permitted as temporary signs, but a permit would be required. Option 3 would permit portable signs (pedestrian signs) as permanent signage and the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Mr. Lien said a few changes have since been made to Option 3. First, ADA compliance was changed from four feet to five feet based on direction from the Engineering Department. Second, a Street Use Permit would no longer be required, but the signs would still have to comply with the Street Use Section of the code. Third, as opposed to allowing one pedestrian sign per store front, the language was changed to allow one pedestrian sign per street level entry. Mr. Lien reviewed that a number of suggestions were made during the hearing, which the Board could consider incorporating into their final recommendation: Allow changeable projecting signs. This option could be accommodated on a hanging bracket within the size limitations allowed in the current code. Allow blade signs for second story businesses. The current code allows second -story businesses to have pedestrian or blade signs. Allowing permanent directional signage. A number of business owners spoke about the need for off -premise signs to direct people to their places of business. The current code does not allow off -premise signs, and having directional signs in strategic locations that point to the businesses was suggested as a way to address this need. While this option is doable, there may be some restrictions. The directional signs could become a City project, with the Arts Commission coming up with the overall design, but the City Attorney has cautioned that using City signage to advertise specific businesses could be problematic. The City Attorney suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the directional signs to be more general, simply pointing out the location of additional restaurants, retail stores, etc., without naming specific businesses. Another option would be to auction off the sign space to local businesses. Depending on where the Board decides to go with directional signage, the City Attorney has requested an opportunity to research the legalities and report back. In addition to the proposed changes relative to temporary signs in the downtown, Mr. Lien said staff is proposing other changes to the sign code to address a number of minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. Chair Lovell referred to an email he sent to the Board Members earlier in the day summarizing their most recent written comments regarding the three options currently being considered for temporary signs in downtown Edmonds. He summarized the comments as follows: • Temporary/moveable/pedestrian signs are important to the City for businesses, for logistical purposes and for atmosphere. • Controls are needed as to the quantity of such signs, locations of such signs, and enforcement of the code and guidelines. • Uniformity is desirable. • Fairness could become an issue if pedestrian signs are allowed in the downtown, but not in other commercial areas or if the sign code is strictly enforced in the downtown but not in other commercial areas of the City. • There are costs associated with implementation, achieving uniformity, enforcement, permitting, etc. • The Green Dot concept has valid points, but the cost and logistics of setting up and maintaining it are highly questionable, particularly given the previous "universals" sited above. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 278 Chair Lovell provided a satellite view of the City of Carmel, California, which was previously put forth as an example for the City to follow. He pointed out that Carmel is significantly different than Edmonds. Although their current sign code prohibits "temporary" or "pedestrian" signs, he provided several pictures to illustrate that they are being used extensively by businesses anyway. He cautioned the Board that when making a recommendation to the City Council, they should consider guidelines and regulations that are realistic and achievable. Board Member Crank said she also provided photographs along with her written comments. She shared her experience while visiting South Center earlier in the day for lunch. She said she almost didn't notice that the businesses were using the same type of temporary signs, and the signs were placed in the same location in front of each business. She spoke with the owner of one of the businesses and learned that businesses on the block got together to come up with a common design for signs. The signs were so uniform that they blended in with the scenery, and this made her like the idea of having a uniform sign design more. The fact that the businesses sought out each other says that they care enough to make signage look nice. Even if the City does not promote uniformity, the concept is out there and businesses may choose to do it anyway. Board Member Stewart agreed that uniformity would help solve the issue of clutter, and the Arts Commission could participate and come up with something that is artistically pleasing. Placing the signs on the sidewalk close to the buildings they are serving is also important to provide sufficient pedestrian access. That means that some signs will have to be placed closer to the buildings than others given that sidewalk widths vary. Chair Lovell said he recently discussed the matter with Randy Hutchins, owner of Sno-King Signs, to obtain more of his thoughts on signage. Mr. Hutchins indicated that he has made a number of the A -frame signs that are used by businesses in the downtown. He commented that changeable signs can be problematic because the information can be difficult for people to read. He expressed that some uniformity would be helpful and easy to achieve. Most merchants are concerned about cost, but he felt that a sign design that is artistic and durable could be produced for a reasonable cost. Chair Lovell said he also spoke with Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Director, to learn her thoughts about the concept of directional signs. She agreed that something amenable to the businesses and the City could be worked out, but she cautioned that maintenance and administrative costs could be an issue. She noted that signs would have to be updated each time a business changes, and the space on each of the signs would be limited and not all businesses would have an opportunity to participate. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the plumb line she used to review the sign code options for pedestrian signage is answering, "how much signage is too much?" She noted that there has been no request to reduce the amount of signage available to each business in Edmonds, and there has been no protest to the revisions to the definitions in the sign code. Generally, what exists appears to be somewhat acceptable to the public and the downtown commercial community. Where there is discord is the presence of pedestrian signage on the sidewalks in the downtown business core. The arguments have centered on elimination of temporary/pedestrian signage, the fairness of appropriating part of the sidewalk for cafe seating yet restricting the sidewalks' use for a six-foot square pedestrian sign, and concern for the random appearance of the pedestrian signs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the City has a comprehensive sign package for businesses. Wall -mounted signs, wall graphics, and blade signage is available. But wall graphics that meet certain criteria, blade signs that are less than 4 square feet, and window signs do not count against the sign package quota. Currently, it appears that temporary or pedestrian signage can be utilized, as well, and would not go against the sign package total. Given the concern of the commercial businesses to market appropriately, the provision of temporary/pedestrian signage could be proposed as being part of the overall sign package quota for each building. However, there is a tipping point of too much signage and too much clutter. This approach allows each business their proportionate amount of signage to use as they prioritize. However, the businesses would not get additional signage as they currently do with the use of temporary/pedestrian signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt that Option 3 would be a step in the right direction. The Board heard at the public hearing that there are known businesses who abuse the sign ordinance and that out of town businesses in town for the weekend litter the downtown streets with their signs. A biannual enforcement effort and/or enforcement campaign could be a joint Citylbusiness event, but it does not need to be included in the ordinance. Wayfinding signage for businesses off Main, 5"' and Dayton appears to be acceptable in the current sign code and no revision was proposed. Again, this effort is beyond the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 279 9.5.b Planning Board's purview. She expressed her belief that the issue of how much signage is allowed needs to be easy to understand and easy for the viewers (pedestrian) to perceive. The current formula for signage can remain and now include the option of incorporating a temporary/pedestrian sign less than six square feet. The limitation of three signs per business — present in the current code and not proposed for revision —would remain. Chair Lovell asked staff to clarify Vice Chair Rubenkonig's comments relative to window signs, blade signs, and wall graphics not counting against the overall sign area allowed for each business. Mr. Lien responded that, generally speaking, each business is appropriated one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage. The overall sign area can be divided up amongst a maximum of three signs per business. However, wall graphics, window signs and blade signs that meet specific criteria do not count against the overall sign area. With Option 3, pedestrian signs would count as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have. Board Member Robles said he did not expect that his "Green Dot" concept would receive immediate rejection by the Board Chair. He was hoping it could be discussed further. He said there are a lot of things the Board cannot solve. They do not understand what sign density is unless they know how many signs there are. The City is allocating a public good to private enterprise, and then they are externalizing the cost of interpreting those rules on the public. It would take some work to put together a map, but it would only need to be done once. The work would all be done up front and the map would hold the City to task over its responsibilities related to signs (ADA access, safety, health and welfare of citizens, etc.). He felt this approach would be extremely easy to enforce and would be a single point of compromise. The concept would push the sign code in one spot, but expand it someplace else. This would allow the City to have a discussion about a single sign in a single location, taking into account the specific needs of the business. Board Member Robles commented that if the City is not going to enforce the law, there ought not be one. Or they could look at how people are already behaving and try to accommodate that. To him, that seems to be the more productive way of regulating signs. If there is an update to a map, the notification only has to go to the individuals affected by the update. Whereas, if the code is updated, it has to go through everyone, making it tremendously inefficient. It is possible to imbed all the excellent research that has been put into the sign code discussion into the City's graphic interface. This would be a form that business owners could immediately see prior to making a decision about moving into or investing in property in the downtown. They would be able to immediately see where they stand in relation to the law or to the allocation of a public good. Board Member Robles suggested that the City could constrain a corner to one dot, and ask the people to collaborate around the dot and share the space with each other. This would give them the opportunity to innovate around a constraint, which is a very typical way of introducing innovation. This approach would meet and exceed the spirit and intent of the existing sign code. While there are some persistent members who complain about the existence of signs, there should be a way to compromise on the number of signs that are allowed. The City cannot know how many signs there should be if it doesn't know how many signs there are. He said he does not believe the sign code is ready to move forward. It is too complicated, and it is hard to interpret. He recommended Option 3 with a graphic interface that people can understand using a computer, internet and modern technology. This approach would require the City to do work up front, but they would only have to do it once and it would be easy to change and modify and imbed the public innovation into the code rather than just inducing it on everyone. He said he would like hear the opinions of other Board Members and City staff before shooting the idea down entirely. Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for updating the map each time redevelopment occurs or a business is changed. Board Member Robles answered that this could be the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board or the City staff. There is already an individual who is responsible for implementing and managing the sign code. Mr. Lien explained that the intent is to tackle the issue of temporary signs in the downtown as a hot -button item and Mr. Chave has taken the lead. With the larger sign code update, the City's consultant has proposed various amendments that have not been included in the code amendments currently before the Board for consideration. Apart from that, there is no other group looking at the sign code besides the Planning Board, and the Planning Division staff implements the sign code through review and enforcement. Chair Lovell advised that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to review and share their thoughts and recommendations relative to temporary signs in the downtown. If the Board chooses to coalesce around the concept of creating a signage map for the City, he would not veto the option, but he might not support it, either. He asked if Board Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 280 9.5.b Member Robles is suggesting that all of the signs in the City should be counted and identified on a map. Board Member Robles said that is his intent. They know how many businesses there are in the downtown and how many signs there should be. Mr. Lien cautioned that it would take serious work to survey all of the signs in the City. This approach would limit the total signage in the City rather than just per building. Before implementing the concept, he felt it would be appropriate to solicit considerable input from the business community. Board Member Robles voiced concern that all of the work the City does not want to do forces other people to interpret the sign code and limit their business accordingly. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept could be developed over time. There are big questions with the existing sign code that have not been answered. They are making assumptions that have no objective value assigned to them. If the City does not want to go look for those values, they are stuck with the existing sign code. He has listened to the public and their different needs and it would be hard to accommodate everyone unless you let them have some control over signage. Part of this plan should be about allowing the artistic community to standardize signs and allowing people to allocate signs as they see fit. The City should only be talking about certain components of signs, such as American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) access and the health, safety and welfare of citizens. He sees instances where the sign code is applied, but it is not practical given the specifics of the location. He summarized that the City should decide where signs can and cannot go and place the information in a graphic interface that is easy to understand. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized the Board Member Robles' concept would allow perspective businesses to look up the location of the building they are considering on a website and see how much signage would be allowed. This would help them determine whether or not the site would suit how they tend to market their company. Board Member Robles would like this information to be embedded in the sign code and available visually rather than just verbally. Board Member Crank asked if Board Member Robles concept would be a determining factor in the Board's recommendation relative to Options 1, 2 or 3 or if it should be considered as a second level of discussion after the Board selects its preferred option. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept is actually consistent with Option 3, but presented differently. Board Member Stewart said there is some merit to Board Member Robles' concept, as it would reduce the language in the code and the visual information could cater to the need for businesses to figure out what is and is not allowed relative to signage. She asked if the concept has been implemented anywhere else in the United States. Board Member Robles said he is not certain. The concept would more or less result in a shared database, which today's technology allows. There are databases available, but that's not where the City is at now. He is looking at it in terms of LEAD methodology, which provides a lot of visuals, pre -thinking, and simplification, and you gain the efficiencies later in the process from doing the work in the beginning. There are precedents for this type of work. Board Member Stewart summarized that, conceptually this type of work is being done in green building. Board Member Stewart asked if Board Member Robles is referring to "green dots" for pedestrian signs only. Board Member Robles answered that is his intent. Board Member Stewart suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for a block in the City to serve as a pilot program for the concept. While it is too much to take on for the entire City at one time, she is intrigued by the idea. Chair Lovell suggested that the Board consider a type of Option 3 for temporary signs, but create some mechanisms and guidelines that enable staff to work with business owners to establish workable plan for their signs within the parameters of the code. Board Member Robles agreed that this approach would go a long way towards accommodating individual needs. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that there should be some way to verify that signs have been permitted by using a sticker system, etc. Board Member Robles said there are other ways to simulate permitting. For example, businesses could lease artistic signs from artists, and the lease agreements would effectively become the permit. Business owners would pay money directly to the artists rather than the City. However, he cautioned that if the City is going to accommodate individual businesses, they must have a way to keep track of the accommodations such as a database or map. Mr. Lien commented that although the technology to implement Board Member Robles concept may be available, the City is not there yet. However, the City is moving in that direction by incorporating more graphics as part of the code update that is currently in progress. He said Option 3, as currently written, allows some flexibility for the City to accommodate the needs of individual businesses. It simply states that the signs must be located within 10 feet of the ground floor entrance and within Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 281 9.5.b two feet of the building or two feet of the curb. The intent is to ensure pedestrian access. As far as businesses being able to look at the code and determine the types of signs allowed, staff often speaks with prospective business owners to inform them of the sign code requirements. He reminded the Board that the intent of this sign code update is to address the specific issue of temporary signs in the downtown, as well as a number of minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. Board Member Cheung commented that the number, size and design of signs is subjective. Some people may feel that no signs would be better, and others may think that prohibiting signs would result in a desolate downtown. With regard to sign location, he emphasized that the signs must not block ADA accessibility, which is a federal law. He summarized his belief that pedestrian signs have a huge impact on businesses, and they are used to attract customers. If the City makes the sign code too restrictive or prohibits pedestrian signs altogether, businesses may actually leave the downtown. Businesses are in competition with each other. While it could be mutually beneficial to limit the number of signs, they need to work together with the business owners before any final decisions are made. He voiced support for Board Member Crank's comment about businesses voluntarily coming together to create uniformity of signs that benefit them all. Those businesses didn't need anyone to step in and make it happen; they did it on their own. He said he would prefer to collect as much input as possible from the business owners. Instead of forcing a sign code upon them, they should be allowed to work together and provide recommendations that help improve the downtown business community. He said he is leaning towards allowing the most freedom and flexibility for pedestrian signs, and letting the business owners figure out their own limitations and restrictions. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the public hearing, there were several comments about the need for off -premise signs to direct pedestrian to the businesses that are located on the side streets. He asked the Board to share their thoughts on how these businesses could be best served in a way that does not put more clutter and signage on the street. He suggested that Board Member Robles' idea may work well for these situations. The City could provide directional signs and auction off the space to businesses. Board Member Robles cautioned that there is real peril when the City starts allocating public good to a private enterprise. However, they are ways of having exchanges that are not necessarily financial and there are ways to share the spots without bidding for property. Having a social agreement in place with the business owners would address the legal concerns. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she supports Option 3, which counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area and number of signs allowed for each business. As per Option 3, pedestrian signs would become one of the several options a business owner can choose for signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that staff has had some discussion with the City Attorney about the legality of the City providing wayfinding signs. The current code allows them, but whether or not they can be used to advertise specific businesses is in question and must be reviewed by the City Attorney. The intent of the signs would be to help businesses that are located off the main roads. Board Member Monroe referred to a picture of a directional sign that allows the individual signs to be changed as needed. The City could construct the sign to a certain standard, and then businesses could purchase the individual plaques that are attached to the sign. Board Member Cheung asked if the directional sign would be in addition to allowing one pedestrian sign per storefront, and Board Member Monroe agreed that was his intent. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that commercial property in the downtown would become more valuable if there was a way to have off -site signage. Board Member Cheung agreed it would be helpful to provide off -premise directional signs to direct customers to the businesses located on side street, but he does not believe the directional signs would completely solve the desire of businesses to use pedestrian signs. The code must still be updated to address pedestrian signs, but directional signs would have value to businesses and auctioning off the space could help pay for the signs, themselves. Chair Lovell agreed that directional signage could be done with the concept of uniformity, along with elements of flexibility to add or change the signs as needed. However, it is important to realize that there would be cost to the City. He suggested the Board could recommend that the City Council direct staff to investigate the feasibility of establishing a directional sign program. Vice Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that the sign code already allows directional signs. The Board's comments can be noted that they think this is a private concern and the City Attorney will need to set some language for how wayfinding signs could be used. But as far as the Board's current review of the sign code, no changes need to be made to implement a directional sign program. Mr. Lien said the City Attorney has affirmed that no changes would be needed to the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 282 9.5.b existing code to allow directional signs, but the Board could also include this in its recommendation to the City Council as something they want the City Council to pursue. Board Member Cheung agreed that directional signs might reduce the need for businesses to use off -site pedestrian signs to attract customers to their businesses, but the Board still needs to address on - premise pedestrian signs. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the changes that were made to Option 3 since the public hearing. Pedestrian signs would become a type of permanent sign that must be brought in at night when the business is closed. In addition, staff is proposing that the language be changed to allow one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance rather than one sign per ground floor storefront. He provided examples to illustrate why this change was made. Chair Lovell pointed out that, with the exception of downtown, the current code does not allow temporary signs in any other commercial zone. He voiced concern that the regulations are not currently being enforced, and business owners in the downtown may feel that they are being discriminated against if they are required to comply with strict enforcement of the code when other commercial areas are not. Board Member Robles shared a story about an architect who designed a university campus without any sidewalks. The owner decided not to pay the architect until the sidewalks had been installed. Six months later, there were clear paths through the grass, and the architect knew exactly where the sidewalks should go. The moral to the story is to observe what people are doing, memorialize it, and then adapt to what is needed. If the City knows how many signs there are currently, they will have a better idea of whether there is not enough or too many. Chair Lovell asked if Board Member Robles is inferring that all of the existing signs in the downtown should be memorialized and accepted. Board Member Robles said that seems to be what the City has allowed up to this point. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the downtown is supposed to be walkable. While pedestrian signs near the curb are more visible to drivers passing by, they are not conducive to a pedestrian environment. Mr. Lien emphasized that, as currently proposed, the signs must be located within two feet of the entry or within two feet of the curb. They would not be allowed to block pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Chair Lovell summarized that Option 3 allows pedestrian signs, but it could be further improved to provide flexibility and guidelines for staff to utilize when working with business owners to fit what is best for each individual site. He felt that would be the best option. The City could not only work with business owners to limit pedestrian signs, but they could encourage them to create solutions for their businesses. The "green dot" concept may be an option to consider in the future as the City moves towards a more sophisticated GIS system. Board Member Crank said she appreciates the change from one pedestrian sign per storefront to one pedestrian sign per entrance. She recalled that at the last meeting she voiced concern about how the regulations would impact businesses that are located in buildings with multiple tenants. In an effort to move the discussion forward, she reminded the Board that the focus of their discussion is supposed to be on identifying a preferred option (1, 2 or 3). She noted that most of the Board's discussion has been relative to Option 3, with some tweaks. If that is the direction the Board wants to go, she suggested that they affirm this and then move the discussion forward. Chair Lovell summarized that the Board is generally in support of Option 3, which requires a permit, limits the number of pedestrian signs allowed and provides guidelines. However, there are certain accompanying provisions and guidelines the Board would like the City Council to consider. He summarized that the Board is in favor of: • Creating the ability to work with a specific business given the conditions. • Limiting pedestrian signs to one per storefront entrance. • Counting pedestrian signs as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have and also part of the overall sign area allowed. • Giving City staff the opportunity to work with odd architectural situations in order to accommodate a necessary business signage opportunity. • Developing criteria or a program that provides hard -to -find -business locations with a type of directional sign, recognizing that there may be legal ramifications. The City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses, and signage is an important part of that. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 283 9.5.b • Considering what can be done to increase enforcement of the regulations and guidelines. • Allowing and even encouraging blade signs that accommodate changing information. • Encouraging some level of uniformity for pedestrian signs. While the Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code requirements. Mr. Lien agreed to prepare draft code language for Option 3 based on direction provided by the Board. He could also prepare a memorandum to the City Council outlining the Board's additional recommendations in conjunction with the proposed sign code amendments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that there is some work being done with respect to housing affordability, and the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish County provided a presentation on the topic to the City Council on May 25`'. Council Member Tibbott is particularly in tune with affordable housing issues. It was pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the goal of creating housing that is affordable, and he anticipates the issue will come before the Board for further discussion at some point in the future. Chair Lovell reported that the City recently entered into a Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington University with respect to elements of sustainability that the City is trying to achieve. This will be an ongoing project, and a number of the elements will likely pass through the Board in the next few months. Board Member Crank referred to the announcement in the report that the City would no longer allow people to line chairs up along the street in anticipation of the 4th of July Parade. She said she informed the Chamber of this change, since they are the event sponsor. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien advised that the Board would continue its discussion on the sign code amendments on June 22nd. The land division update would be postponed to a future agenda. He reminded the Chair and Vice Chair that they are scheduled to present a Planning Board Update to the City Council on June 28th. Chair Lovell said the City Council has requested that the Board also have a discussion about redevelopment opportunities at Five corners, similar to what was done for Westgate. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that work done by Green Lab from the University of Washington included both Five Corners and Westgate. In the near future, Mr. Chave will revisit the work that was done relative to Five Corners with the City Council. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart acknowledged Sam Kleven's service to the Planning Board as the Student Representative. He has spent the past academic year getting to know what the Board does and sharing his thoughts. He plans to attend Washington State University in the fall and will pursue student government there. Board Member Stewart announced that the Students Saving Salmon Streams Team from Edmonds Woodway High School will present the results of their water quality monitoring program to the City Council on June 14'h. She encouraged Board Members to either attend the meeting or watch the audio recording. Board Member Crank reported that she served as a volunteer at the Edmonds Waterfront Festival this past weekend. It was a great event that was well attended. The most popular attraction at the event was a large 2,500-pound fiberglass salmon that people were allowed to climb inside. There was a mural inside that provided educational information. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 284 9.5.b the Development Services Director have met on several occasions with property owners along the corridor, and many have attended the open house events as active participants. The public appears to be excited about Highway 99 finally getting some attention. Many have indicated they would like to see changes, and they are optimistic about what can happen. He summarized that there has been good engagement so far via on-line surveys and public open houses, and the opportunities for public involvement will continue throughout the process. Chair Lovell said he was pleased to see that there is a strong desire for increased housing opportunities along the corridor, At this time, there is significant economic diversity as far as the quality of the existing residential and commercial stock. He asked if this factor has been considered, as well. Mr. Shipley said that a lot of diverse interests have emerged amongst the business and residential property owners, but they all agree that it is important to improve the safety and overall feel of the corridor. Board Member Monroe asked if the numbers provided for property tax revenue take into account expected tax breaks that will be given to developers in coming years. Mr. Shipley said he did not prepare the information, so he is not sure what it includes in terms of affordable housing tax breaks. Board Member Monroe asked him to find out and address the issue in the next iteration. Mr. Chave pointed out that tax breaks would not be permanent. They are intended to get development in place and then the break would disappear over time. Chair Lovell summarized that, going forward, he is primarily interested in what can realistically be done on the corridor and when. He observed that without support from the residential and commercial property owners along the corridor, nothing will happen. Mr. Shipley said the property owners he has talked to are very supportive and interested in moving forward. Mr. Chave added that, overall, the consultant and staff have been very pleased with the degree of interest. A diverse group of people are participating in the process. RECOMMENDATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) REGARDING TEMPORARY (E.G. A -FRAME) SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Chair Lovell referred the Board to the introductory memorandum with respect to the sign code amendments, which outlines the Board's previous discussions related to the amendments. He reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board came fairly close to agreement in terms of a recommendation to the City Council. This direction is reflected in the draft Sign Code and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations that were attached to the Staff Report. Chair Lovell reviewed that, in addition to the proposed amendments relative to pedestrian signs in the downtown, the proposal also includes a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. He asked if these other proposed amendments were brought forward by the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that a few definition changes were suggested by the consultant, but most of the proposed amendments address problems staff has run into over the years with things that were not clearly defined in the code or things that get in the way of what is reasonable. For example, an applicant approached the City with a request to place a sign on the mansard roof a building, and staff agreed that it was the only logical place for the sign. However, a provision in the sign code did not technically allow staff to approve the sign, as proposed. He clarified that the changes suggested by staff are intended to be clarifications or updates rather than wholesale changes to how signs are regulated. The overall signage allowed would remain unchanged. Mr. Chave said one issue that repeatedly came up in the public hearing was the need for businesses that are not located on the main streets to get attention to let people know they exist. These types of signs are not necessarily permanent, but mostly used during an initial period when businesses first open. If the proposed changes are forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, the Board's recommendation could call attention to this issue and recommend that the City partner with the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID to develop a signage system that provides an avenue for these businesses to get attention in certain ways. If a program of this type were instituted, businesses may be less likely to feel a need for pedestrian signs. He summarized that the initial changes could be made now to address pedestrian signs in the downtown, and then the City could pursue other options. The Board could revisit pedestrian signs again in three to five years when the situation may be different. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 285 9.5.b Chair Lovell referred to ECDC 20.60.080(2)(a), which allows attached signs to be used for temporary signage. Mr. Chave said the intent is to allow retailers to put up temporary signs for 60 days to advertise business openings or other special events. This is allowed in the current code, and no change has been proposed. The proposed amendment clarifies where attached signs can be located. Board Member Robles observed that the means and methods by which people can accommodate their specific interests are spread throughout the sign code. Although they may not be obvious, they are there. Mr. Chave said the intent is to provide more flexibility to respond to what people want and need to do, but not change the overall character of signage in the downtown. Chair Lovell commented that the proposed amendment outlines how pedestrian signs would be managed in the downtown area, but it does not recognize that there are other areas in Edmonds where pedestrian signs are, in theory, prohibited. The question still exists in his mind to what degree will the sign code be enforced in other commercial zones in the City. If it is enforced in all commercial areas, will business owners in other commercial areas complain because downtown business owners are allowed to have pedestrian signs and they are not? Or if it is not enforced in all commercial areas, downtown business owners may complain that they are being discriminated against. Mr. Chave explained that code enforcement is generally complaint driven. To the extent there are more pedestrians in the downtown, it is likely that more complaints will be filed for that area. Chair Lovell recalled that, as requested by the Board, the proposed language provides flexibility that allows property owners and business owners to work with staff or the Architectural Design Board to reach agreement on how to handle signage in difficult situations. Board Member Robles asked if the agreement would be transferrable to future occupants or owners of a building. If it is transferrable, he questioned if the City has a database to memorialize the special agreements for future reference. Mr. Chave responded that once a sign structure has been approved and placed on a building, the agreement would be valid for any future business or property owner as long as no structural changes are proposed. Any structural changes would require the property owner or business owner to obtain a new permit. If the sign does not comply with the current sign code, a new exception agreement would be required. Mr. Chave reviewed that most of the special situations that the code previously talked about were related to site conditions. The proposed amendment expands the language to acknowledge that, in addition to site conditions, the sign code provisions may not quite fit for some buildings due to unique architectural features. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that incorporating additional pictures into the code would make the provisions easier for people to understand. For example, it would be helpful to provide examples of the types of pole signs that would be considered monument signs. Otherwise, the written language is a bit difficult to digest. Mr. Chave explained that the existing code considers signs that are located on one or more exposed poles to be pole signs rather than monument signs, and pole signs are not allowed. The additional sentence was added to clarify that pole signs with two poles that are not more than six feet in height would be considered monument signs and should be allowed. He agreed that pictures would be helpful in this section, as well as others, and staff plans to added them before the amendments are forwarded to the City Council for review. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the last sentence in the definition of "Pole Sign" should be changed to remove the word "pole" before "signs." Board Member Stewart suggested that pictures would be particularly helpful to clarify the difference between a stanchion sign and a pole sign, as well as the difference between changeable message signs and reader board signs. She suggested that perhaps there should be separate categories for reader board and changeable message signs. Mr. Chave explained that it is very difficult to distinguish between reader board and changeable signs. For example, you could make the case that gas station price signs are changeable rather than reader board signs, but the City hasn't prohibited them because they are necessary. The intent was to write the language in such a way that allows a distinction to be made. The proposed language is not ideal, but it is the best staff has come up with thus far. Again, Board Member Stewart suggested it might be helpful to have separate categories for the two sign types. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 20.60.020(A)(2), and requested clarification about why individual letters that are applied directly to a wall or structure are calculated individually instead of as a whole. Mr. Chave said that many sign codes calculate sign area by drawing a box around the individual letters, but the City calculates the area of the individual letters if Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 286 9.5.b they are applied individually to a building. This provision offers a powerful incentive for people to do this type of signage because it allows for larger letters. This type of signage is considered more aesthetically attractive because the letters are flush with the building rather than in a large cabinet sign. Board Member Stewart said she would like the draft code to provide an illustration of a monument sign. Mr. Chave that this example has already been provided in ECDC 20.60.020. Board Member Stewart said she was amused to read about the signs that are prohibited because she anticipates someone will come up with a clever sign that is not on the list. This will require an expensive process to get special approval to deviate from the sign code. Mr. Chave explained that staff often has to issue interpretations when these situations come up. For example, halo signs did not exist when the current code was written. Staff determined that the existing code provision related to indirect lighting would apply to this sign type, as well. He summarized that when someone proposes a sign, staff tries to identify the closest provisions that apply. Just because a sign is a different type does not mean it would be automatically ruled out. The intent is for the code to be descriptive rather than rigid in its definitions, and that is why sign codes are so difficult to write. Chair Lovell reviewed that one of the desires expressed in the recommendation memorandum is that some exploration be done as to the feasibility of directional signage on the street corners. He asked if this is something the City's sign shop could help with. Mr. Chave agreed that is a possibility, depending on the style, design, materials, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously discussed the idea of having a GIS-imbedded mechanism that business owners could use to determine what type of sign package he/she would be allowed. However, this concept was not included in the draft recommendation that was prepared by staff. While this may be more of an administrative issue as the City becomes more technologically advanced, perhaps the Board should be more clear that they heartily support the concept. Board Member Robles commented that the matrix tells what signs can go in what areas, and the information could also be served on a map. Adding pictures would also provide helpful information. However, this approach is archaic given current technology. He asked about the timeline for reviewing the sign code again in the future. Mr. Chave explained that the current sign code amendments were put forward at the request of the City Council to specifically address pedestrian signs in the downtown. In addition, staff has included some minor amendments to clean up and clarify the existing sign code. He said he is not sure that GIS would be the best solution so he would be hesitant to include it in the Board's recommendation. However, it could be a subject that his considered as part of a future discussion of trying to make the code easier to understand. Board Member Robles suggested that if updating the sign code is an ongoing process, it should be articulated in the recommendation. He said he would support the proposed changes as long as there remains an avenue by which the sign code could be improved upon in the future. Board Member Robles asked if all enforcement of the sign code is done on a complaint basis. Mr. Chave answered that all code enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Board Member Robles suggested that this should be noted in the sign code. Mr. Chave cautioned against adding language relative to enforcement in the sign code. Otherwise, the sign code would have to be updated every time the enforcement provisions are changed and vice versa. Board Member Robles expressed concern that citizens should have a clear understanding of how they are being judged. Mr. Chave advised that, in addition to complaint -based enforcement, there are general compliance requirements on how the overall code is administered. Staff ensures that code provisions are being met whenever someone applies for a permit. Board Member Stewart said she understands the concerns that have been raised about the proliferation of pedestrian signs in the downtown. Because there are a lot of pedestrians in the downtown area, it is likely that more people will speak up about illegal signs. On the other hand, Highway 99 is mostly a drive -by situation so there will not be as many complaints. She said she is not sure how the fairness issue can be resolved except with additional enforcement that will require more manpower. Mr. Chave advised that the City only has one Enforcement Officer, and he does an amazing job of enforcing the Development Code provisions. It would be an entirely different thing to start patrolling the commercial areas to enforce the sign code provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that another bullet point should be added to the Board's recommendation to read, "Employ technology measures, when available, to assist in sign code application. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 287 9.5.b VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE REVISION OF ECDC 20.60 (SIGN CODE), INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE SIGN CODE UPDATE, PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS, AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOUND IN THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF ON JUNE 22, 2016, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN, AND WITH ONE ADDITIONAL BULLET POINT TO READ, "EMPLOY TECHNOLOGY MEASURES, WHEN AVAILABLE, TO ASSIST IN SIGN CODE APPLICATION." BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell announced that the Board is scheduled to present a report to the City Council on June 28th. He asked that this date be incorporated into the extended agenda. Chair Lovell asked when the Board can expect to hear from the City Council regarding a subarea plan for Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered that he is scheduled to provide an update to the City Council on July 12th. Chair Lovell suggested that the topic be added to the Board's extended agenda for August as a placeholder. Chair Lovell left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Cloutier said he attended the first part of a meeting at the Senior Center regarding the Edmonds Waterfront Center Proposal, which was formerly known as the South County Senior Center Proposal. The name change is intended to ensure that the new facility is placed on the water. Board Member Stewart announced that an open house regarding the Civic Park Master Plan is scheduled for June 23`d from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building. She said she plans to attend the meeting as a committee member, and she encouraged other Board Members to attend, as well. Board Member Robles referred to an article in the May 3 1 " Seattle Times regarding Airbnb regulations in the City of Seattle. He recalled that he raised this issue earlier, and some provisions were added to the City's code to address the use. The use is quickly expanding, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to give further consideration to potential regulations that need to be in place. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 288 9.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/26/2016 Resolution of Intent to Designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Zone for Implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program and to Schedule Public Hearing (20 min.) Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History In an effort to spur investment and redevelopment in slow -to -develop urban centers statewide and in fulfillment of Growth Management Act objectives, in 1995 the State Legislature inaugurated the Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program by passing enabling legislation contained in RCW 84.14. This enabling legislation provides the authority and process for individual jurisdictions to implement the MFTE program in their communities. In short, the MFTE provides an incentive to developers to invest in "residential targeted areas" - areas designated by cities through their GMA-compliant comprehensive planning and subarea planning processes to receive greater density of multifamily and commercial development. Often called "urban centers" or "urban villages," these areas are intended to become walkable, amenity -rich, transit - supportive, mixed -use communities where future growth in housing and employment can be readily accommodated. Unfortunately, in many cities the transformation from current conditions to the intended "urban village" is often slow and fraught with challenges. Be they competition with higher - rent locales that attract developers, or the inherent complications of urban redevelopment (unwilling property sellers, need to accumulate multiple parcels, existing long-term leases, etc.), in many cities these factors can stall for years or decades the transformation to such planned -for "urban villages." The MFTE incentive is one small tool that can help provide incentives in these areas to help counteract some of these challenges for developers and investors, thereby encouraging them to develop multifamily and mixed -use projects in these areas. Per State law, the MFTE is applicable to projects containing at least four dwelling units and provides for an exemption from property tax valuation of the improvement value of the residential portion of the development. Property taxes continue to be assessed and collected on the improvement value of the nonresidential (e.g. commercial) component of the project and the increased land value. State law allows for the exemption pursuant to two options: The standard exemption period is for 8 years. A longer exemption period of up to 12 years is provided for projects that include at least 20% of the dwelling units as affordable to rent or buy for low- and moderate -income households. (Low - Packet Pg. 289 9.6 income households have incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income, while moderate -income households have incomes no greater than 115% of the area median income.) Many jurisdictions in Washington have enacted this provision, summarized below: Near Edmonds Seattle Everett Shoreline Mountlake Terrace Lynnwood Kenmore Marysville Statewide Tacoma Spokane Yakima Bellevue Renton Kirkland Burien Bremerton Puyallup SeaTac Bellingham Auburn Olympia Vancouver Federal Way Kent Wenatchee Walla Walla Moses Lake Anacortes Issaquah Tukwila Des Moines Covington University Place Due to the program's widespread application across the State, many developers of multifamily and mixed -use projects have come to consider the MFTE program as a requirement to overcome the challenges of urban redevelopment in all but the highest -rent housing markets (central Seattle or Bellevue, e.g.). Packet Pg. 290 9.6 Staff Recommendation Adopt the Resolution of Intent to designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as Residential Targeted Zone for implementation of Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program and schedule a public hearing for the regular City Council meeting on August 16, 2016 at 7:OOpm in Council Chambers. Narrative Resolution of Intent The first step towards implementation of the MFTE program in a local jurisdiction, as per RCW 84.14, is for a City Council to pass a Resolution of Intent to designate the intended "residential targeted area(s)" where implementation of the MFTE program will occur. Pursuant to City Council's adoption of the Westgate Mixed -Use (WMU) Zone District plan and zoning provisions in April 2015, the Westgate district is intended to become a mixed -use, walkable, compact urban center with a variety of housing choices and opportunities for employment, goods and services. Nevertheless, since that time, while residential development has been robust in other parts of the City, and purely commercial development has occurred both in Westgate and elsewhere in the City, plans for mixed -use or multifamily development in the WMU district, without this incentive in place, have not been forthcoming - likely due to the challenges cited above. For these reasons, the current proposal is to designate the (WMU) Zone District as the "residential targeted area" in order to implement the MFTE program there. (See attached map.) In order to do so, the City Council must first pass the attached Resolution of Intent to designate the WMU Zone District as a "residential targeted area" and set a public hearing on August 16, 2016. Upon conclusion of the public hearing and in consideration of any public testimony, the City Council may then pass a Resolution designating the WMU Zone District as the "residential targeted area." Subsequently City staff will develop the corresponding code provisions to implement the MFTE program and bring them to Council for review and adoption in the near future. Attachments: FINAL RESO OF INTENT MFTE WMU Residential Targeted Area Map Packet Pg. 291 9.6.a �YI]�iy�[1]�VCIa A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF ITS INTENT TO DESIGNATE THE WESTGATE MIXED -USE ZONE DISTRICT AS A RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS Chapter 84.14 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for temporary special valuations for eligible improvements associated with multifamily housing, especially within urban centers deficient in planned residential development; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015 the Edmonds City Council adopted the Westgate Mixed - Use (WMU) Zone District as an urban center whose purpose is to: A. Encourage mixed -use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate district with a distinctive character. B. Create mixed -use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community -friendly. C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. and WHEREAS, multifamily residential development is lagging in the WMU Zone District while commercial development there and residential development elsewhere in the City is occurring; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, authorized by 84.14 RCW, may provide sufficient incentive to encourage residential development in the WMU Zone District; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, the City must designate one or more residential targeted areas within which the temporary special valuation may be granted to qualifying residential improvements; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.14.040(2) states that a governing authority may adopt a resolution of intent to designate one or more residential targeted areas; and Packet Pg. 292 9.6.a WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), the resolution must state the time and place of a hearing to be held by the governing authority to consider the designation of the residential targeted area(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Edmonds intends to designate the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District, as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.110, as a residential targeted area for the purposes of establishing a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program. Section 2. A public hearing to consider the designation of the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District as a residential targeted area will be held at a regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council on August 16, 2016 at 7:OOpm in Council Chambers, located within the Public Safety Complex at 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. RESOLVED this 26t' day of July, 2016. APPROVED: DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 293 ME N Cn O Cyl O O u--4 Cyl O CD 0L CD 0L CD c� rn rn 0L N O CD rt C4 N �O SO 100TH AVE W 100TH AVE W cn IT 1 or _Fir �v 0 �O �02 \�P rn N 0 rn Attachment: WMU Residential Targeted Area Map (1409 : Resolution of Intent to Designate Westgate as Residential Targeted Area)