The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-08-09 City Council - Full Agenda-1732o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 9, 2016, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Presentation of Recent Actions & Activities of the Edmond Climate Protection Committee (15 min.) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Senior Center Lease Agreement Amendment (10 min.) 2. City's Practice of Conducting Quasi -Judicial Land Use Hearings (30 min.) 3. Civic Center Master Plan Update (60 min.) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda August 9, 2016 Page 1 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/9/2016 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 #221117 through #221203 dated August 4, 2016 for $292,131.74. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62266 through #62276 for $515,892.78, benefit checks #62277 through #62285 and wire payments of $482,152.16 for the pay period July 16, 2016 through July 31, 2016. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Financial Impact Claims $292,131.74 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $515,892.78 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $482,152.16 Total Payroll $998,044.94 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 08-04-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-04-16 payroll summary 08-05-16 payroll benefit 08-05-16 Packet Pg. 2 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221117 8/4/2016 072627 911 ETC INC 221118 8/4/2016 073620 ALLWEST UNDERGROUND INC 221119 8/4/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC 221120 8/4/2016 075714 APPLETON, ALANA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 38417 57476 TM-159755 E7AC.Appleton Tree 221121 8/4/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 11467 PO # Description/Account MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 Tota ROADWAY - 2 WEED WACKERS - Roadway - 2 Weed Wackers - Repl 111.000.68.542.31.35.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.35.00 Tota TRAFFIC - GLASS BEADS Traffic - Glass Beads 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Tota E7AC.APPLETON TREE E7AC.Appleton Tree 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota CHEMICALS YOST CHEMICALS YOST 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 4.1.a Page: 1 c ca lid U a� Amoun c 0- m 100.0( 1 : 100.0( `a F � c X 5,050.0( c c� 494.9( o I: 5,544.9( c� a E 1,745.2£ 2 4- 0 242.6( 0 194.8' a 2,182.61 Q 0 M 7,600.0( ., 7,600.0( 0 ao 0 N 194.0( E 41911>z: r 221122 8/4/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988699907 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS a0i FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS E t R .r r a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 3 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 221122 8/4/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988710730 WWTP: UNIFORMS, TOWELS & M wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1988710731 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM & MAT S PARKS MAINT UNIFORM & MAT S 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM & MAT SF 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1988714698 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT 4.1.a Page: 2 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 24.9( -0) 2.4z 4) L A 5.1( m 110.9E c� 0.5( o L 10.8E a El El 49.9 l 0 � 1.7( > 0 L 4.8( a Q 0.1 i c � c � � � � � � 1.6' m r ' 6.1' o o 6.1' Y � 6.1' •� � 6.1' r a0i 6.0E R .r r Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 4 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 221122 8/4/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 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 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 1988714699 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 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 Total: 221123 8/4/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0946503-IN WWTP: 7/21/16 DIESEL FUEL 7/21/16 ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 Total: 221124 8/4/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 89207 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.1.a Page: 3 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 0.1( a� L 0.6( =a 4 0.6( c m 0.6( c� 0.6( 0 L 0.5( a E 6.4E 4- 0 17.3, 0 L 0.6: a Q 1.7( o 272.9i m r 4,191.2( c 0 0 410.7z Y 4,602.0( r 33.9z E 33.9z R .r r Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 5 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 221124 8/4/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 89304 221125 8/4/2016 064706 AWC 45199 PO # Description/Account UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total MAH ATTEND LEOFF1 DISABILITY E 2016 LEOFF1 DISABILITY BOARDS 009.000.39.517.20.49.00 4.1.a Page: 4 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 125.7 1 a� L 125.7 =a 3.2E c m 3.2E c� 3.3: 0 CU 34.9E a E 150.21 4- 0 150.21 > 0 L 154.8. a Q 539.4� c M 539.4E m r 14.4< 0 ao 14.4' N 14.8E E 1,942.3' r c m 45.0( E Page: 4 Packet Pg. 6 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221125 8/4/2016 064706 064706 AW C 221126 8/4/2016 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) COE0716 221127 8/4/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 6382 s :• 0HI^, 221128 8/4/2016 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 20940 YOGA 20949 YOGA 20952 YOGA 20955 PILATES YOGA 221129 8/4/2016 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14272087 PO # Description/Account Tota BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS BACKGROUND CHECKS- 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Tota FLEETAUTO PROPANE 675 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 675 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEETAUTO PROPANE 607.9 GA Fleet Auto Propane 607.9 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEETAUTO PROPANE 580 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 580 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Tota 4.1.a Page: 5 c ca U a� Amoun }; 45.0( 0 CL a� 200.0( 200.0( a� c m 679.4E c L f° 0 L 595.1, a E 571.6E 2 1,846.2E c 20940 YOGA INSTRUCTION f° 20940 YOGA INSTRUCTION o 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 194.4( a 20949 YOGA INSTRUCTION Q 20949 YOGA INSTRUCTION o 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 540.0( 20952 YOGA INSTRUCTION 20952 YOGA INSTRUCTION r 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 315.9( 20955 PILATES YOGA FUSION INST o ao 20955 PILATES YOGA FUSION INST o 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 317.6( Total : 1,367.9$ WWTP: 4/1-6/30/16 C465+ON-CALL f° 101 - Project Management & Expensf 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 249.1E a0i 102 - SDCs E t R .r r Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 221129 8/4/2016 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL (Continued) 0 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 880.0( On Call #200: Odor Scrubber Carbon }, 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 730.0( L Total: 1,859.1E 221130 8/4/2016 075278 BURNS, HOUSTON 7/5-7/29 FIELD ATTEN 7/5-7/29/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE� c 7/5-7/29/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE� m 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 350.0( Total: 350.0( 221131 8/4/2016 075627 CAPITOL STRATEGIES 798 FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR JULY 201 0 L Federal lobbyist for July 2016 ca 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 5,000.0( Total: 5,000.0( . 221132 8/4/2016 065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC SIN001931 CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( w CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( 0 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4,304.7� > CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( o 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 a 4,304.7� o CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4,304.7� M CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4,304.7� " CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 4,304.7� c Total: 21,523.9E ao 0 221133 8/4/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 236329 PM: GLOVES Y PM: GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.3< 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.3' LY236278 WWTP: ARCOS 8410-LB CANS, GI. m WWTP: ARCOS 8-&10-LB CANS, GI. E t R .r r a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 8 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221133 8/4/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 221134 8/4/2016 026000 CHUCK OLSON CHEVROLET KIA INC 261038 221135 8/4/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 221136 8/4/2016 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 221137 8/4/2016 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 12407 53829 7100165861 221138 8/4/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0283663-IN PO # Description/Account 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota UNIT 89 - LATCH Unit 89 - Latch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota 1ST HALF 2016 MEADOW DALE P 1ST HALF 2016 MEADOW DALE P 001.000.64.576.80.51.00 Tota EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRO 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRO 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota WWTP: 7/1-7/31/16 JANITORIAL S 7/1-7/31/16 JANITORIAL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota UNIT 20 - PARTS Unit 20 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.1.a Page: 7 L� L7 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- 262.8, -00 25.7E L 1 : 303.2' a� c m 95.9z c c� 9.1" o 1 : 105.0E c� 0' E 38,312.1� 1 : 38,312.1$ c N I f° 0 L Q 162.1� Q NI 1,655.0( M I : 1,817.1t E r 514.0( a9b I : 514.0( c N Y E 73.3E r 7.1E Total : 80.5, R .r r Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 9 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221139 8/4/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 221140 8/4/2016 064983 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 221141 8/4/2016 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 221142 8/4/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 221143 8/4/2016 075153 DOPPS, MARIA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 2017-WA0024058 312000093NAICS221310 651150804 16-3683 13788 14111 221144 8/4/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001697 221145 8/4/2016 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R25272 PO # Description/Account WWTP: 50% FEE -WASTEWATER 50% of annual wastewater fee for P 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 Tota VERIFIED CURRENT BILLING FO Verified Current Billing for 2015 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Tota CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 Tota CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7/26/201 07/26/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUT 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Tota PM: CIVIC FIELD SIGN PAINT PM: CIVIC FIELD SIGN PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota WATER - 500 BLUE GATE VALVE Water - 500 Blue Gate Valve Cards 4.1.a Page: 8 R c ca lid U a� Amoun }; PI 0- ei -0) 29,248.5( I: 29,248.5E i =a ; 4. aD c 49.0( 1 : 49.0( c c� 0 23.2E ca 1 : 23.2E E 6 E,',- 323.4( c 1 : 323.4( > 0 L Q Q. Q 100.8z o M 100.8z r 1 : 201.6E 0 ao 0 N Y 5.9c U E 0.5� 1 : 6.5E c m C� E t U R .r r Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 10 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221145 8/4/2016 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO 221146 221147 221148 221149 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.1.a Page: 9 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a 79.0( -a) 7.7z aa) L Total : 86.71 'a 8/4/2016 075198 ED-WEB DESIGN INC 7000 DESIGN FOR ONLINE PAYMENTS a DESIGN FOR ONLINE PAYMENTS m 8/4/2016 075713 EGGERS, MICHAEL JOSEPH OTFEGGERS 8/4/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR46446 AR46525 AR46529 8/4/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH712003 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 1,200.0( -0 Total: 1,200.0( cm OTFEGGERS OTFEGGERS 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 Tota ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600- Maintenance for printers 06/21/16 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 COPIER CHARGES FOR C1030 copier charges for Mayor's Office co 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600- Maintenance for printers 07/21/16 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 LEGAL ADS- PLN20160027 LEGAL ADS- PLN20160027 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Tota 0 500.0( 500.0( . ns 02 w U 0 307.2( > 0 L Q 30.1' 0 p o M 8.9< 0.8( 02 c ao 307.2( w 30.1' E c m 82.5( R .r r Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 11 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221149 8/4/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 221150 8/4/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 221151 8/4/2016 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) EDH712537 LEGAL ADS- PLN20160026 LEGAL ADS- PLN20160026 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 WAMOU40365 UNIT 41- SUPPLIES Unit 41- Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WAMOU40465 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WAMOU40520 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WAMOU40562 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.1.a Page: 10 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 0- a) 77.4( L Total : 159.9E 4- W c m 18.9, -0 c M 1.8E o 0 a 13.71 E 1.3E U 4- 0 41.6< 0 L a 4.0E Q 0 5.9, m 0.5E r Total : 88.1( o ao 253-012-9189 WWTP: 7/25-8/24/16 AUTO DIALER o N 7/25-8/24/16 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOIC Y 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.3z E 253-017-7256 WWTP: 7/25-8/24/16 TELEMETRY - WWTP: 7/25-8/24/16 TELEMETRY - 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 224.0E c 425-771-5553 WWTP: 7/25-8/24/16 AUTO DIALER E E 7/25-8/24/16 AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSI R .r r Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 12 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor 221151 8/4/2016 011900 FRONTIER 221152 8/4/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 221153 8/4/2016 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 221154 8/4/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 425-776-6829 509-022-0049 PO # Description/Account 4.1.a Page: 11 c lid ca U w U _ Amoun }; 0 0- 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 114.6� m CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION AI L 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.5( LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI ;_' LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 0 c 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.2( 13373 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 13841 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 13920 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 14069 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 20994 TAEKWON-DO 10029439 Total : 537.9( -o c ca Tota 20994 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTI 20994 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Tota WWTP: SC200 CONTROLLER SC200 CONTROLLER 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 0 105.3, a E 111.4, U 4- 0 or or M 105.3, o L 0- 0. Q 105.3. 1 : 427.31 roi �- � 385.6< c 1 : 385.61 00 0 N 1,749.9( 79.4 1 m 179.2E t R .r r a Page: 11 Packet Pg. 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U W Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 221154 8/4/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 0 10031752 WWTP: DIGITAL PH & ORP SENSOI m DIGITAL PH SENSOR $931.95 & OR 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,926.6( i 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 188.8( V Total: 4,124.0! m 221155 8/4/2016 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197342 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR JULY 2016 Photography for July 2016 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( _ Total: 200.0( 221156 8/4/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 162162 UNIT E111PO - PARTS c� Q' Unit Ell PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 122.0( TU 9.8% Sales Tax 4- 0 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 11.9( @ 163484 UNIT E113PO - PARTS c Unit E113PO - Parts 0- 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 244.2z Q Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.0( M 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 23.9z Total: 416.11 r 221157 8/4/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2829673 OFFICE SUPPLIES- DSD 0 9 00 Office supplies- DSD o 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 N 45.4: 2830969 STORAGE BOXES, MOUSE PAD E Business Source file storage boxes - 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 77.6' 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 7.6' Page: 12 Packet Pg. 14 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221157 8/4/2016 073548 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 221158 8/4/2016 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 221159 221160 221161 221162 8/4/2016 062477 KEEP POSTED 8/4/2016 075230 LOVE ISRAEL FAMILY LLC 8/4/2016 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Tota 906-613157 FLEET - BRAKE INVENTORY Fleet - Brake Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 Tota 20122 CONCERTS CONCERTS 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 20123 W OTS W OTS 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 4.1.a Page: 13 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 130.6', a am U m 383.0£ 15 37.5z c 420.6, c c� 68.0( o a 145.0( .9 Total: 213.0( f° U 4- 8/2 HMP CONCERT 8/2/16 HMP CONCERT BUFFO THE 8/2/16 HMP CONCERT BUFFO THE f° 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 550.0( o CL Total: 550.0( a 013967 00 014083 00 8/4/2016 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS SVC096977 PM: EL VLV, GATE VLV PM: EL VLV, GATE VLV 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: INDOOR 4-ST CONTROLLER, PM: INDOOR 4-ST CONTROLLER, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER R YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER R 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 RE RE 0 M 110.5: m r 10.8: 6 0 6 0 374.9( Y 36.7z 1 : c� 533.0( r Packet Pg. 15 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 221162 8/4/2016 072886 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIC (Continued) 221163 8/4/2016 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING 20985 MAD SCIENCE 221164 8/4/2016 075664 MAJOR, JENNA 221165 8/4/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 221166 8/4/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 221167 8/4/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 7/7-7/28 FIELD ATTEN 71083917 71700233 15-1662-15 15-1715-11 Description/Account Tota 20985 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INST 20985 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INST 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota 7/7-7/28/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATT 7/7-7/28/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota WWTP: AIR REGULATOR, MOUNT AIR REGULATOR, MOUNT BRACK 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: TUBES, SUPPORTS, FITT TUBES, SUPPORTS, FITTINGS, S 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota E4JC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16 E4JC.Services thru 6/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 E5KA.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16 E5KA.Services thru 6/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 0443601-IN PM: MEN WORKING SIGNS PM: MEN WORKING SIGNS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota 4.1.a Page: 14 E� E� c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 1 : 287.21 a m R1 R1 a� 2,470.0( I: 2,470.0( 4- a� � m � 180.0( c 1 : 180.0( 0 L E E Q- 1 569.9( E 8.2: ,- n ° LE f° 58.1 a Q. 6.1( Q 1 : 642.5E M m 1,375.5( r 0 ao 0 14,490.0: Y I: 15,865.5'. 1,995.6( r E 195.5( t .r r a Page: 14 Packet Pg. 16 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221167 8/4/2016 064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 221168 8/4/2016 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 221169 8/4/2016 024001 NC MACHINERY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 10056206 PO # MVCR0038401 MVCR0038880 MVCR0038881 MVCR0038903 9 MVCS0251710 MVCS0252960 Description/Account Tota NAVIA BENEFITS SEC 125 $66.10- 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 To FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET RETURN Fleet Return 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 62 - PARTS Unit 62 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 9 - FUEL PUMP, GASKETS Freight 4.1.a Page: 15 c ca hd U W Amoun }; 2,191.1( 0 CL a) U a) 91.1( 91.1( 4- W c a) c M -6.4( o ns a -95.4' E U -8.1' o 0 -2.5( a Q. 0 M m r -37.2, c 00 0 N 33.3� E 17.7, .m 6 4.8( c m E t R .r r Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 17 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221169 8/4/2016 024001 NC MACHINERY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) MVCS0253216 MVCS0253292 MVCS0258726 MVCS251610 PSCR0083930 PSCR0084187 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Unit 9 - Fuel Pump, Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 57 - PARTS Unit 57 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 57 - PARTS Unit 57 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 57 - GLASS Unit 57 - Glass 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 63 - OIL Unit 63 - Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET RETURNS Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET RETURNS REFUND Fleet Returns Refund 4.1.a Page: 16 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 24.8 1 12.9E L =a 111.7' a� c m 115.8z c� 11.0( o L 0 a 56.5' 5.3 1 u 4- 0 234.6( o a 0. 121.4E Q 0 33.8< m r 59.7( 0 00 5.0E o N -92.7( .E Page: 16 Packet Pg. 18 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221169 8/4/2016 024001 NC MACHINERY 221170 221171 221172 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) I�Y�Y�F7:YiI�3�c3 PSCS0560457 8/4/2016 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S7044026.001 8/4/2016 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 8/4/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC PO # Description/Account 4.1.a Page: 17 0 c ca lid U W _ Amoun }; 0 a -234.2E -a -22.2E 4) L E! 4. 109.1: c m 40.9' c� 14.2: o L 0 a 123.5: U w 0 RF B 22.2E 1 : 248.6, o a Q' Q .. 0 1,280.0( Total : 1,280.0( 89158 WWTP: 7/22/16 SODIUM BISULFITE r 7/22/16 Sodium Bisulfite 0 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 407.5E c 9.8% Sales Tax w 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 39.9z 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 57 - THERMOSTATE SUPPLI Unit 57 - Thermostate Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 57 - CONNECTION Unit 57 - Connection 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota WWTP: DAN KORSTAD 5/17/16 T Dan Korstand - Training course: A- 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 558955 ARTS COMM: PAPER WOTS ARTS COMM: PAPER WOTS 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax Tota I : 447.45 E r c 23. K t R .r r a Page: 17 Packet Pg. 19 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221172 8/4/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 221173 8/4/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 614461 ARTS COMM: SUPPLIES ARTS COMM: SUPPLIES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 656885 P&RADMIN: PAPER P&RADMIN: PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 Tota 1649636 FLEET - CHECK#'S 216965 10/29/1 Fleet - Check#'s 216965 10/29/15 & 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-195451 UNIT 79 - AIR FILTER Unit 79 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-199658 UNIT 29 - FUEL CAP Unit 29 - Fuel Cap 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-201193 UNIT 4 - OIL FILTER Unit 4 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-201573 UNIT 120 - V BELT Unit 120 - V Belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 4.1.a Page: 18 c ca lid U W _ Amoun }; 0 a 2.3< -0a m L 11.0z 1.0£ m 11.2E 0 50.6: a 5 E U -170.8, c 0 0 4.3, a Q. Q 0.4, c M E 0.3( f° U Page: 18 Packet Pg. 20 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221173 8/4/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 3685-203171 3685-205904 3685-210543 3685-210757 3685-211406 3685-211466 3685-211612 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 473- OIL FILTER Unit 473- Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 40 - AT FILTER KITS Unit 40 - AT Filter Kits 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET SUPPLIES Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 102 - MONRO-MATIC Unit 102 - Monro-Matic 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 25 - MINI BULB Unit 25 - Mini Bulb 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 105 - FUEL FILTER Unit 105 - Fuel Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 49 - AT FILTER KIT Unit 49 - AT Filter Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.1.a Page: 19 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a 2.9 1 -0a U a� L 7.3( 0.7, c m 175.8< 0 17.Z 0 a E 41.9z '@ U 4.1 0 0 L 50.1z a Q 4.9' o M 4.7-, m r 0.4 c 0 0 N Y 6.1 E 0.6( r c m 18.5� E R .r r Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 21 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221173 8/4/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 3685-211655 3685-211825 3685-212132 3685-212846 3685-213253 3685-214241 3685-217161 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 97 - PIGTAIL Unit 97 - Pigtail 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 10 - ANTIFREEZE Unit 10 - Antifreeze 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 18 - SPOTLIGHT Unit 18 - Spotlight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 27 - WIPER BLADES Unit 27 - Wiper Blades 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 47 - MARKER LIGHT Unit 47 - Marker Light 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 139- LED & MARKER LIGHT Unit 139- LED & Marker Light 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 54 - TAIL LIGHT Unit 54 - Tail Light 4.1.a Page: 20 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 1.8, 5D 4.7£ V a� c 0.4 c c� 14.9� o E 8.4: 4- 0 0.8: 0 L Q 0. 24.7( Q 0 2.4, m r 6.3£ 0 00 0.6: o N 16.7( . ca 1.6z m E t R .r r Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 22 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221173 8/4/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 221174 8/4/2016 075694 PACIFIC SOUND DESIGN 221175 8/4/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-218574 FLEET SUPPLIES Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-218808 FLEET SUPPLIES Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-220060 UNIT 5 -- WIPER BLADES Unit 5 -- Wiper Blades 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.1.a Page: 21 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 8.7E -0a 0.8( 4) L 4 9.3E c m 0.9, c� 0 24.2E j, 0 a 2.3E U 14.2z o 1.4( i Total: 365.0! a Q 2016 CONCERT STAGE 2016 CONCERT STAGE MANAGER 2016 CONCERT STAGE MANAGER Cl) 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 975.0( 220307 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 Street - 3 Way Topsoil 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Env Fee 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.7% sales tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 220316 STORM DUMP FEES Total : 975.0( m r 0 ao 120.0( 0 w 120.0( E 12.0( r c 10.1E m E t R .r r Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 23 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221175 8/4/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 220396 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 4.1.a Page: 22 51 51 c ca U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 120.0( m 84.0( E. 51 aD c m 84.0( c0 0 j 96.0( , 51 a E 96.0( 51 51 51 U w 0 96.0( 51 0 a L Q. 84.0( Q c M 84.0( v m r 84.0( c 51 00 0 N Y 84.0( U E 2 U 100.0( c m 10.0( E t U R .r r a Page: 22 Packet Pg. 24 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 221175 8/4/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) 225043 221176 8/4/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 225053 225077 225426 PO # Description/Account 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 ROADWAY - 3 WAY TOPSOIL Roadway - 3 Way TopSoil 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Env Fees 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 7.7% sales tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota 23042263 WWTP: WRONG TAX; CREDIT IN Led T8 Tube 18 W - WRONG SALE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 23047519 WWTP: CANCELS INV#23042263 This credit invoice cancels 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 23047520 WWTP: LED T8 TUBE 18W 4-FT LED T8 TUBE 18W 4-FT 4.1.a Page: 23 51 51 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a 8.41 a)}, U a� L 84.0( 51 4. aD c 84.0( � c c� 84.0( o c� a 100.0( E cu 10.0( 6 w 0 V# 8.4 1 �a I: 1,663.1( i a Q- Q S 119.8( r01 17.9 0 r 13.0� o (V 00 0 N Y -119.8( E 17.91 f° r -13.0� E t R .r r Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 221176 8/4/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP (Continued) PO # Description/Account 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.1.a Page: 24 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 119.8( -0a 17.91 a0i L =a 13.5' Total : 151.21 c m 221177 8/4/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC J840404 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 225.0, _ 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.0E a J896957 FAC - GREEN LED EXIT LIGHTS (9) FAC - Green LED Exit Lights (9) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 486.0( Z 9.8% Sales Tax 0 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 47.6< J934898 WWTP: LED MINIATURE FUSES (1C 0 LED MINIATURE FUSES (10)- a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.9, le 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0 1.6. J954244 CITY HALL DEV SVC - SUPPLIES City Hall Dev Svc - Supplies m 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.8( r 9.8% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.9Z 00 0 J972580 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES w City Hall - Supplies cYi 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.9< E 9.8% Sales Tax f° 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.6( Total: 839.51 E 221178 8/4/2016 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 21198 LEGO CAMPS 21198 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION R .r r a Page: 24 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 221178 221179 221180 221181 Date Vendor 8/4/2016 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 8/4/2016 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 21199 LEGO CAMPS IF-1248383 8/4/2016 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0034422-IN 8/4/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 200002411383 200007876143 200009595790 PO # Description/Account 21198 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 21199 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTIO 21199 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota INV#IF-1248383 - POFF - EDMON AXIIIA BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota WWTP: HIP BOOTS - 32" RUBBER HIP BOOTS - 32" RUBBER 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH S FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH S 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4.1.a Page: 25 D� N T c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a N -0a 1,690.0( N m N ia 2,730.0( V I: 4,420.0( m � c c� 896.0( o 6.4( a 1 : 902.4E U w 0 76.9: 0 8.7( a Q. Q 8.4( 1 : 94.1� M 0( 0( t° r 601.Z c N ao N � N 1,335.41 ,d N E 35.2E : c T; E 83.6, R .r r Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221181 8/4/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200020415911 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 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 200021829581 WWTP: 6/21-7/21/16 200 2ND AVE E 6/21-7/21/16 200 2ND AVE S / METE 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 4.1.a Page: 26 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 51.9, m L 4. 49.6E c m 142.6( 0 60.9' a E 39.0: 4- 0 35.2E o L a Q. Q 3.7( c M 14.2E m 14.2E 0 14.2E o N Y 14.2E E 14.3( r c m 95.4E E R .r r a Page: 26 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 221181 8/4/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) a CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 79.5( Total: 2,685.0E i 221182 8/4/2016 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 0857-5 FACMAINT- SUPPLIES =a = Fac Maint - Supplies 4- 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.8, Total: 31.6' o L 221183 8/4/2016 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-326065 UNIT 41 - PARTS Unit 41 - Parts Q" 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 185.4( . 9.8% Sales Tax f° U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.1 £ c Total: 203.61 221184 8/4/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0779053 PM: EIGHT GARDEN GRNLS L PM: EIGHT GARDEN GRNLS Q Q. 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.9� Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 M 1.Z Total: 14.2, " m 221185 8/4/2016 075557 SLAVEN, CHARMAINE 7/28 HMP CONCERT 7/28/16 HMP CONCERT SQUIRREL r 7/28/16 HMP CONCERT SQUIRREL C 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 ao 400.0( Total: 400.0( _11e V 221186 8/4/2016 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 1569 SNO CO PUB DEF. CONTRACT E ATTORNEYS $13,133.63- 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 22,589.5( r Total: 229589.5( E 221187 8/4/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV R .r r Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221187 8/4/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL b LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 4.1.a Page: 28 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a am 42.3z a� L 15.7: 4- W c m 50.5E c� 0 1,077.61 j, c� a E 25.8E 4- 0 92.8 @ 0 L a 0. 16.Z Q 0 Cl) 19.5: m r 23.7' c 0 0 N Y 45.5� E 15.6E c m E 189.9E R .r r Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221187 8/4/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2019-2991-6 WWTP: 6-25 - 7-22-16 FLOW METEI 6-25 - 7-22-16 FLOW METER 23219 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 4.1.a Page: 29 c ca U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 22.3� m L 138.2� c m 24.8z 0 24.3E a E 8.8E 4- 0 436.7E r 0 21.2' c N Y 52.5 1 E ca Page: 29 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221187 8/4/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 221188 8/4/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 221189 8/4/2016 069043 SOLEIL, MAYA 221190 8/4/2016 075700 SONESSA, MERGIA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 4.1.a Page: 30 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 432.7E m 2205-4758-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE i 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 39.3E 2016-3284 2016-3284 7/31 CONCERT IN THE 12868 Tota INV#2016-3284 - EDMONDS PD - 420.5 HOUSING @ $89.38 - 6/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 67.5 BOOKINGS @ $116.14 - 6/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 55.17 MED/SPEC @ $52.01 - 6/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 23.5 MENTAL HEALTH @ $124.72 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 12.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 6/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 CRS ON #2016-3284 SNO CO JAI CR 13.5 HOUSING - OLDENDORF 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 CR 11 MED/SPEC - OLDENDORF 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4 WORK RELEASE $42-SARGINS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 Tota 7/31/16 CONCERT IN THE PARK G 7/31/16 CONCERT IN THE PARK G 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE Tota 3,028.71 - L 5/ a� J L a0i 37,584.2( 7,839.4E 0 a 2,869.3E E ( 'ca 2,930.9� U 6/ 0 1,414.8E lu- 0 L 200.0( 0- Q 5 0 -1,206.6: v -572.1' )I r -168.0( c I: 50,892.1$ c N L Y L E 1,000.0( 2 I: 1,000.0( r c m E t R .r r Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 221190 8/4/2016 075700 SONESSA, MERGIA (Continued) 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Tota 221191 8/4/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP: 8/1/16 RECYCLING 8/1/16 Recycling + taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 Tota 221192 8/4/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 66120/1 WATER / SEWER - CONES Water / Sewer - Cones 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water / Sewer - Cones 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 66122/1 TRAFFIC - CONES Traffic - Cones 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Tota 221193 8/4/2016 075712 STEENMEYER, JILL 7/27 REFUND 7/27 REFUND 7/27 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Tota 221194 8/4/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT 20919 BEACH CAMP 20919 BEACH CAMP 20919 BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 20927 BEACH CAMP 20927 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVE 20927 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 4.1.a Page: 31 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- 110.91 a) 1 : 110.91 a� L 4 29.9E c I : 29.9E a) c ca 2,158.7E 0 2,158.7E - E 211.5( TU 4- 0 211.5( 0 a 4,152.0( Q 406.9( M 1 : 9,299.5; m r 0 300.0( ao I : 300.0( w E M 14,267.4( 6 R R m 715.5( R .r r Q Page: 31 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221194 8/4/2016 072319 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT 221195 8/4/2016 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 221196 8/4/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Tota 90900 2016 BIRD FEST POSTERS Printing of 2016 Bird Fest posters 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Tota 9769145099 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Developm 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineeri 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 4.1.a Page: 32 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; I: 14,982.9( 0 am m 351.9E 34.4E c 1 : 386.41 � c c� 627.3E o 1,537.1E E 75.8£ TU w 0 75.8' 0 310.1( a Q. Q 75.8£ ei M 95.8( ng 872.6z r 0 135.6� c N 527.0, cYi E 95.8( 12 U r 95.8( E 339.5' R .r r Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221196 8/4/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Offi 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street C 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 4.1.a Page: 33 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 95.8( 80.0. =a 4- 1,160.6E c m 1,085.6z c� 40.0' 0 L 25.6, a E U 4- 25.6. 0 7.3, o a 0. 7.3: Q 0 171.6E 55.7E 85.0E 9 00 85.0E Y E 145.9, 273.7, m 115.8� t R .r r Q Page: 33 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221196 8/4/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 9769271096 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tota 4.1.a Page: 34 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a m 197.5( 20.0( =a 4- 20.0' c m 74.8, c�a 1 : 8,645.3° =p 0 221197 8/4/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 56211 INV#56211 - EDMONDS PD a TOW 2003 BMW #596ZVQ 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 539.5( ADDITIONAL TOW TRUCK NEEDED 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( o 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 69.1 z o L Total : 774.61 0- Q. Q 221198 8/4/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 542512 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies M 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.6' 9.8% Sales Tax ., m 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.8( r 553206 FAC MAINT - TOWELS c Fac Maint - Towels c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 342.5( w 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.5 1 E Total: 407.51 f° U 221199 8/4/2016 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 8136 50 211 00055035 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF High Speed Internet service 08/01/16 m E 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.0( R .r r Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 221199 8/4/2016 075283 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 221200 8/4/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 221201 8/4/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Tota 9657546 FAC MAINT - FLOOR CLEANERS Fac Maint - Floor Cleaners 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9659660 FAC MAINT - SEAT COVERS, TT, Fac Maint - Seat Covers, TT, Towel 4.1.a Page: 35 s c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 1 : 816.0( 0 m m 527.6E 15 51.7' TC 1,213.2E 118.9( ca a 10.8( •� U 1.0E 0 S -cu- 0 281.7( a Q. Q 27.6' o M 30.2( r 2.9( o ao 0 N 9.3( cYi E 0.9' f° 1 : 2,276.1' c m E t R .r r Q Page: 35 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 08/03/2016 8:12:57AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 221201 8/4/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 221202 8/4/2016 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000030400 221203 8/4/2016 068798 WESTGATE CHAPEL PLN20160032 87 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 87 Vouchers in this report PO # Description/Account 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 PRINTING 7 SETS OF NEW CARD 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Tota TRAFFIC - SOLAR SCHOOL ZONE Traffic - Solar School Zone Signage 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Tota REFUND- SEPA NOT NEEDED Refund- sepa fee not needed 001.000.257.620 Tota Bank tota Total voucher 4.1.a Page: 36 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a 72.0( -a) S }, 127.0( aa) L =a 19.5( I : 218.5( m c � c c� 2,614.6, o 91.5( a 265.2( 1 : 2,971.3i v w 0 ns 0 610.0( a I : 610.0( Q I: 292,131.7� M s : 292,131.71 m r O 00 O N Y V E M V r C a) E t V R r a Page: 36 Packet Pg. 38 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering c Accounting 4 Project s c Funding Project Title Number Number E STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE i STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 s E3DC c SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA z s STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB c STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 c E4FA c STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E41FC z i STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA ; STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 w E5CC i c SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA s s STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB i WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB s WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 i s STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA I SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA c SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC S WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 i E6CB i WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA < SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA c r WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 19 E6J13 STIR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD a STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 a STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC c i STIR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB e STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA o STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC i c STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA - STIR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA = c STIR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE u STIR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB i c STIR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA s PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA i SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 39 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 4.1.b Funding Project Title Protect Engineering Accounting Project Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 40 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E51KA STIR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STIR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STIR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/l06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STIR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 41 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E21FA 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 STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STIR E3DB c423 238th 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-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing 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 STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 42 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E51FA 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 E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E61FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 43 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 44 4.1.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 E21FA 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 E3J13 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 E4J13 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 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 45 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR 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 STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STR 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 PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E61FA iol 1 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 46 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 47 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC A/V 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 E41LA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA 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 E5FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE 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-1 05th/1 06th 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 Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 48 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR 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 E1 DA 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 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide Cl PP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 49 4.1.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 8/4/2016 Packet Pg. 50 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 780 (07/16/2016 to 07/31/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 57.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 40.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 389.50 14,073.46 122 VACATION VACATION 2,027.50 85,755.08 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 62.50 2,271.79 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 16.00 580.81 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 121.75 4,527.79 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 36.00 1,284.37 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 9.00 299.27 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 48.00 1,841.00 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 36.00 1,284.38 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Dav Used 342.00 11,924.12 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 88.38 3,760.04 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 33.00 2,205.99 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 700.00 7,000.00 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 130.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 2,821.24 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,573.64 571,639.96 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 1,886.58 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 76.00 2,419.49 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 45.00 1,163.00 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,289.18 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 16.00 1,475.55 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 269.00 16,524.00 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 23.25 1,521.57 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 40.79 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 615.21 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 915.47 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 1,009.28 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 60.25 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 95.25 0.00 0 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 3.00 0.00 m cQ Attachment: payroll summary 08-05-16 (1430 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) p�no 1 0 0 Hour Type Hour Class acc MISCELLANEOUS acs MISCELLANEOUS boc MISCELLANEOUS colre MISCELLANEOUS cpl MISCELLANEOUS crt MISCELLANEOUS det MISCELLANEOUS det4 MISCELLANEOUS ed1 EDUCATION PAY ed2 EDUCATION PAY ed3 EDUCATION PAY k9 MISCELLANEOUS Iq1 LONGEVITY Ig10 LONGEVITY Ig11 LONGEVITY Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY I0 LONGEVITY PAY Iq4 LONGEVITY Iq6 LONGEVITY Iq7 LONGEVITY Iq9 LONGEVITY mels SICK mtc MISCELLANEOUS nds MISCELLANEOUS phv MISCELLANEOUS prof MISCELLANEOUS sdp MISCELLANEOUS sqt MISCELLANEOUS traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 780 (07/16/2016 to 07/31/2016) Description ACCREDITATION PAY ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT BOC II Certification Collision Reconstruction ist TRAINING CORPORAL CERTIFICATION III PAY DETECTIVE PAY Detective 4% EDUCATION PAY 2% EDUCATION PAY 4% EDUCATION PAY 6% K-9 PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% LONGEVITY 5.5% LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% LONGEVITY PAY 4% LONGEVITY 6% Lonqevitv 1 % Lonqevitv .5% Lonqevitv 1.5% Lonqevitv 3.5% Medical Leave Sick MOTORCYCLE PAY Public Disclosure Specialist PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT TRAFFIC Hours 20,300.02 Total Net Pay: Amount 24.95 143.91 84.53 107.89 147.28 622.35 102.75 989.84 731.26 873.40 5,117.28 102.75 888.29 396.36 737.53 979.56 5,661.69 240.75 274.08 931.11 82.46 3,588.00 200.57 47.12 1,923.49 157.56 514.51 157.56 323.67 $767,255.64 $515,892.78 porn 2 o 0 Attachment: payroll summary 08-05-16 (1430 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 780 - 07/16/2016 to 07/31/2016 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 62277 08/05/2016 chapl CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 50.00 0.00 62278 08/05/2016 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,219.00 0.00 62279 08/05/2016 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 104.00 0.00 62280 08/05/2016 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 62281 08/05/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 789.99 0.00 62282 08/05/2016 cope SEIU COPE 72.00 0.00 62283 08/05/2016 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,961.52 0.00 62284 08/05/2016 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 698.24 0.00 62285 08/05/2016 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,724.81 0.00 10,647.66 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2424 08/05/2016 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 239,063.21 0.00 2425 08/05/2016 aflac AFLAC 6,161.10 0.00 2429 08/05/2016 us US BANK 105,926.21 0.00 2430 08/05/2016 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 94,332.56 0.00 2431 08/05/2016 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,632.00 0.00 2433 08/05/2016 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,715.92 0.00 2434 08/05/2016 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 673.50 0.00 0.00 471,504.50 Grand Totals: 0.00 482,152.16 poge 1 a Attachment: payroll benefit 08-05-16 (1430 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/9/2016 Presentation of Recent Actions & Activities of the Edmond Climate Protection Committee (15 min.) Staff Lead: Steve Fisher Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History The Climate Protection Committee (CPC) was formed in 2006 as the result of then -Mayor Haakenson signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, along with 266 other mayors. The committee's mission remains the same: 1. Encourage citizens to be part of the solution; 2. Encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources; 3. Work with the City Council to implement ideas; and 4. Address effectively the future impacts of climate change. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative A brief presentation before the Council will relay the most current activities the CPC is working on and discussing. Over these 10 years the CPC has had at its core, citizens of the community involved directly as committee members. City staff involvement with the CPC has aided in producing baseline and beyond greenhouse gas emission inventories for both the community and city operations. Most importantly the committee has drafted a Climate Action Plan which outlines activities and strategies for mitigating climate change and serves as a blueprint for moving toward a more sustainable future. Attachments: CPC 2015 & 2016 Activity Report Packet Pg. 54 5.1.a City of Edmonds Climate Protection Committee 2015 & 2016 Activity Report Mission: Continue to uphold the Climate Protection Committee mission: Encourage citizens to be a part of the solution. Encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources. Work with the City Council to implement ideas. Effectively address the future impacts of climate change. In 2015 the Climate Protection Committee continued efforts in the following areas: Membership: Recruited five new members, for a total to ten citizen members in addition to the four staff members, a City Council representative and the Mayor. 2015 Projects: • Rain Gardens: continue to support rain garden projects. • Energy: continue to support solar initiatives and energy -saving methods. • Zero waste: organics collected for the first time at Taste of Edmonds and continued at other public events; zero waste element in Comprehensive Plan; draft of Zero Waste Resolution working with council members Nelson, Bloom and Johnson. • Green Resource Room: continue to support staff efforts for 2016 implementation. • Sustainable Heroes: continue to publish featured Heroes stores in local news. • Green Business Pledge: continue to encourage green business pledges. • Comprehensive Plan: support the development of sustainability elements in Comprehensive Plan. • Strategic Plan: support action plans related to climate protection. • Community activities: continue to support community activities related to climate change, including Climate Change March that occurred last December and efforts for expansion of bike trails. 2016 Projects: • Sustainable Heroes: continue the series and look into producing a video version. • Zero Waste: continue to support the strategies outlined in the approved Zero Waste Resolution. Expect the subcommittee to be a soundboard for the Western Washington University's undertaking of the City's zero waste project this fall. • Green Business Pledge: continue to be engaged in any evolution of a fuller recognition program. • Partnering and support: anticipate working with the Tree Board on common issues and promoting efforts to recognize community successes in reducing carbon emissions. r_ 0 a a� o: r .: a 0 N 06 LO 0 N U a U r a� E 0 r Q Packet Pg. 55 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/9/2016 Senior Center Lease Agreement Amendment (10 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City entered into a facility lease with the Sr. Ctr in 2008, with options to extend through 2030. The City entered into an option to lease the grounds of the current Sr. Ctr as well, in order to allow for a capital campaign and eventual rebuild of the center on the site. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign new facility lease amendment. Narrative The Senior Center is submitting a grant request to the State of Washington for assistance in rebuilding the center. The State has a requirement that an entity has to demonstrate at least fifteen years of control in order to be eligible. Because the Senior Center is still under the current lease, which technically expires in 2030, they have requested an additional year be added to this lease. This will give them the 15 year lease requirement required by the State. The amendment attached adds one year, and sets the potential expiration date of 2031. Attachments: Amendment 1 to Edmonds Senior Center Lease 7 29 16 Lease on 220 Railroad 12 108 Packet Pg. 56 Original Contract No. Amendment No. 1 Contract No. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER LEASE WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation ("Lessor"), and Edmonds Senior Center (formerly South County Senior Center, Inc.), a non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of Washington ("Lessee"), entered into an underlying lease, dated December 1, 2008 ("Lease"); and WHEREAS, the Lease is for the location of a neighborhood facility pursuant to HUD File No. NFP-WA- 10- 19- 1001 and for recreational, education services and functions of the City of Edmonds, beginning January 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the initial term of the lease for an additional year, so that upon automatic renewals it may extend through December 31, 2031; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties to the Lease as follows: 1. The underlying Lease of December 1, 2008 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is amended in, but only in, the following respect: 1.1 Term of Lease. Section 3 of the Lease shall be revised to read as follows: 3. Term. This lease shall be for a term of thirteen (13) years commencing on the 1st day of January, 2009, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 2021. The term of this lease shall be automatically renewable for two (2) additional terms of five (5) consecutive calendar year periods, commencing January 1, 2022 and ending no later than December 31, 2031, for a total of twenty-three (23) years from the commencement date of this agreement. So long as the premises are being used as represented and in accordance with neighborhood facility application to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001 and subsequent grant agreements, renewal shall be automatic unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the lease by November 1, 2018, the tenth year of the original agreement. Written notice of intent to terminate in order to renegotiate the terms of the lease may be provided in the same manner and shall be considered a notice to terminate. In addition to any other obligation set forth herein, the Lessee shall, pursuant to applicable regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as promulgated and applicable to neighborhood facilities, provide to Lessor an annual report of Lessee's budget and certification that Lessee's program(s) conforms with the representations made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in accordance with applicable regulations in respect to neighborhood facilities. In addition, the Lessee shall provide the programs and services required by annual funding agreements with the City of Edmonds, which are incorporated by this reference Packet Pg. 57 Original Contract No. Amendment No. 1 Contract No. 7.1.a as fully as if herein set forth. The annual funding agreement for 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference. 2. In all other respects, the underlying Lease between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of CITY OF EDMONDS By: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) 2016. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER By: Farrell B. Fleming, Executive Director On this day of , 2016, before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared _ , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 58 7.1.b LEASE (C(DPY THIS LEASE, made in triplicate this P l r day of DEc�,na E,� , 2008, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, as Lessor, and SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER, INC., a non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of Washington, as Lessee, WITNESSETH: 1. The Lessor does hereby lease to the Lessee, and Lessee does hereby lease from the Lessor, those certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, generally known as the SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER, located at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, and described as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, which exhibit is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 2. Purpose. The subject property is to be used as a neighborhood facility pursuant to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001; and for recreational, education services and functions of the City of Edmonds (the "City") as set forth below in Paragraph I I (B). Business or activities including use of such facility for fund raising and revenue producing purposes to meet the mission of the South County Senior Center may be undertaken on the premises only with the written consent of the Lessor. 3. Term. This lease shall be for a term of eleven (11) years commencing on the 1 st day of January, 2009, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 2020. The term of this lease shall be automatically renewable for two (2) additional terms of five (5) consecutive calendar year periods, commencing January 1, 2021, for a total of twenty-one (21) years from the effective date of this agreement. So long as the premises are being used as represented and in accordance with neighborhood facility application to HUD File No. NFP-WA-10-19-1001 and subsequent grant agreements, renewal shall be automatic unless either party provides written notice of its intent to terminate the lease by November 1 of the tenth year of the original agreement. Written notice of intent to terminate in order to renegotiate the terms of the lease may be provided in the same manner and shall be considered a notice to terminate. In addition to any other obligation set forth herein, the Lessee shall, pursuant to applicable regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as promulgated and applicable to neighborhood facility, provide to Lessor an annual report of Lessee's budget and certification that Lessee's program(s) conforms with the representations made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in accordance with applicable regulations in respect to neighborhood facilities. In addition, the Lessee shall provide the programs and services required by annual funding agreements with the City, which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The annual funding agreement for 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference. 3.1 Termination. This Lease may be terminated for cause by either party for failure to comply with the terms of this Lease on the City's annual funding agreements. (See Exhibit B and 3 above). A party shall provide ten (10) days written notice of breach. If the breaching party fails to cure the breach within ten. (10) days, the non -breaching parry may then terminate this agreement. { WSS706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/} I of 7 Packet Pg. 59 3.2 Non -waiver. Failure to strictly enforce any provision of this Lease shall not waive the provision nor bar either parry from strict enforcement of any term of the Lease. 4. Rental. Lessee covenants and agrees to pay the Lessor an annual rental of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in lawful money of the United States. That said rental money shall be payable on or before the first day of each annual rental period at the offices of the Lessor. 5. Maintenance and Repairs. A. Lessee shall be responsible for all utility charges, including heat, Iights, garbage, water and sewer which are attributable to Lessee's use of said premises. B. Lessor shall be responsible for maintenance and clean up all exterior areas of the premises. C_ Lessee shall be responsible for and pay the cost of all repairs and maintenance up to $500 per occasion. Any amount over and above such $500 shall be funded by the Lessor. Lessee shall give notice in writing to Lessor of necessary repairs and shall so notify Lessor immediately of the need for repairs and shall block off or prevent entry by the public into such areas as may be in need of repair. Lessee shall not permit any Iien or encumbrance of any nature upon said property or premises and has no authority to contract for or on behalf of Lessor for goods, services, labor or materials of any nature or for any purpose and shall not hold itself out to any person, firm or corporation as having such authority. The sums to be paid by Lessee under this section for necessary maintenance and repairs shall be subject to automatic readjustment at the anniversary of each five-year renewal period to make appropriate increases or decreases in the amount to be paid by Lessee to adequately reflect the increase or decrease in the cost of the necessary maintenance and repairs, taking into account inflationary factors. Unless notice of termination or notice of intent to renegotiate is provided on or before November 1 of the fifth year of the renewal term, the Five Hundred Dollar deductible amount herein provided for shall be automatically increased or decreased by the cumulative change in the CPI-U for the Seattle -Tacoma area for the preceding five (5) year period. D. Lessor shall provide public liability insurance for said premises in an amount not less than one million per occurrence and five million in the aggregate naming the Lessee as an additional named insured, and policies of general liability and automobile liability providing full coverage for its programs. Lessee further agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all claims not otherwise insured under this paragraph arising out of Lessee's activities and programs conducted on or about said premises unless such claims arise solely from the negligence of Lessor. To; but only to, the extent necessary to enforce this promise, the Lessee agrees to waive its immunity as created under RCW Title 51, relating to the workers compensation provision. 6. Relocation. {WSS706663_DOC;1/00006.9C00OD/} 2of7 Packet Pg. 60 A. fn the event that this lease is terminated by the Lessor, it will assist with efforts, subject to the legislative discretion of the City of Edmonds, to relocate or rebuild the Senior Center within a reasonable period of time to a comparable alternative location which meets the letter and spirit of the South County Senior Center's purpose and activities and complies with the obligations of the underlying HUD grant and conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan and other zoning regulations. In the event, the City elects, in its sole discretion, to renovate or reconstruct the premises, the City will use its best efforts to provide in comparable alternative location as provided above. B_ Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the legislative discretion of the City of Edmonds nor to require the Lessor to displace other tenants or activities in order to accommodate the Lessee's operations. 7. Risk of Loss. The Lessor has been in control of the leased premises for a period in excess of twenty (20) years and has in that time become fully informed of the condition of the premises and all defects therein, if any. No defect which could potentially be hazardous to persons or property has been brought to the attention of the Lessor by the Lessees or its agents. All personal property on said leased premises shall be at the risk of the Lessee, Lessor or Lessor's agents shall not be liable for any damage, either to persons or property, sustained by Lessee, its employees, or others, caused by any defects now in said premises or hereafter occurring therein, or due to the building in which the leased premises are situate, or any part of appurtenance thereof, or any equipment, furniture or fixtures becoming out of repair, or caused by the bursting or Ieaking of water, gas, sewer or steam pipes, or from any act or neglect of employees, or any other persons, or due to the happening of any accident from whatsoever cause in and about said building. Lessee agrees to defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims for damages suffered or alleged to be suffered in or about the leased premises by any person, firm or corporation which are not otherwise covered by the insurance to be paid by Lessee as set forth in Paragraph 5(D) hereinabove. 8. Lawful Use. The Lessee covenants and agrees that the premises shall be at all times kept and used in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and other appropriate and applicable governmental agencies, and in accordance with all the directions, rules and regulations of health officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, or other appropriate officers at the sole cost and expense of the Lessee. The Lessee will permit no waste, damage or injury to the premises, and at Lessee's own cost and expense will keep all drainage pipes free and open and will protect water, heating and other pipes so that they will not freeze or become clogged, and will repair all leaks, and will also repair all damages caused by leaks or by reason of Lessee's failure to protect and keep free, open and unfrozen any of the pipes and plumbing. Lessee shall be responsible for the removal of ice and snow from the pedestrian areas in and about said premises. Lessee shall be liable, subject to the dollar limitations set forth in Paragraph 5(C) hereinabove, for each occurrence. 9. Alterations or Improvements. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will make no alterations or improvements to the leased premises, fixtures or affixed equipment located or to be located on the premises subject to this lease without the prior written consent of the Lessor. {WSS706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 61 10. Liens. Lessee agrees that under no circumstances will it permit any liens for work performed, materials furnished or other obligations incurred by the Lessee to be placed on said premises and agrees to indemnify, hold Lessor harmless and pay any and all costs incurred by Lessor in removing said liens or encumbrances, including reasonable attorney's fees. 11. AssiRnment and Use. A. Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor or Lessor's agent, let or sublet on a permanent basis the whole or any part of the subject premises, nor assign this lease or any part thereof, and agrees and stipulates that a material consideration for the execution of this lease is its personal acceptance of South County Senior Center, Inc. as Lessee. B. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will not permit or tolerate the use of the subject premises by any group, organization, individual or legal entity other than the reasonable and necessary use by the Lessee, without the written prior permission of the Lessor. The parties acknowledge that subject to Paragraph 2 the Lessee may carry on various rental activities to supplement its activities and raise funds for its programs and purposes. C. It is expressly agreed and understood that Lessor shall have the right to use portions of the leased premises at such times and in such areas as do not conflict with the regular activities and programs of Lessee. 12. Fire and Other Casually. In the event the premises are destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty to such an extent as to render the same untenantable in whole or in a substantial part thereof, and after the happening of any such contingency, the Lessee shall give Lessor or Lessor's agents immediate notice thereof. It shall be optional with the Lessor to rebuild or repair the same in accordance with the underlying HUD Grant. Lessor shall have not more than sixty (60) days after date of such notification, to notify the Lessee in writing of Lessor's intentions to rebuild or repair said premises, or the part so damaged as aforesaid, and if Lessor elects to rebuild or repair said premises, Lessor shall prosecute the work of such rebuilding or repairing in accordance with the exercise of discretion of its City Council. 13. Notices and Rent Pa ents. All rental payments shall be paid at the business office on or before the first day of each year at the Edmonds Civic Center, 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA, 98020. All notices required by this lease or breaches thereof shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the Lessor at the address set forth above, and all such notices to the Lessee shall be sent by registered or certified mail and addressed to the Lessee at 200 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, Washington, and delivery of all such notices shall be conclusively presumed to be effective upon such posting in the United States mail, postage prepaid. 14. Default and Re -Entry. if Lessee shall violate or default in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the Lessor may cancel this lease upon giving the notice required by law, and re-enter said premises. 15_ Costs and Attorney Fees. If by reason of any default on the part of the Lessee in the performance of any of the provisions of this lease, it becomes necessary for the Lessor to employ an {W55706663_DOC;1/00006.900000/) 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 62 attorney, the Lessee agrees to pay all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees expended or incurred by the Lessor in connection therewith, if the court hearing the matter determines in its discretion that Lessor should be entitled to reimbursement for said fees, costs and expenses. The amount to be paid by Lessee in such event shall be determined by the court. Lessee shall also be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees in the event it shall prevail in any lawsuit to enforce its rights under this agreement. 16. Nan -Waiver of Breach. The failure of the Lessor to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this lease, or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and c as effect. E c 17. Removal of Lessee's Pro e . In the event of any entry in, or taking possession of, E the leased premises as aforesaid, the Lessor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove a from the leased premises all personal property located therein, and may place the same in storage in a public warehouse at the expense and risk of the owners thereof. L 18. Warranjy of Non -Profit Status. Lessee warrants they are legally and properly (0 organized under the laws of the State of Washington for non-profit corporations and that the representatives of Lessee signing this Iease are legally authorized to sign and bind Lessee accordingly. 00 DATED this sr day � day of___ _D 2008. N CITY OF DMONDS: d"d ej� Gary aak son, ayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS O FORM: OFFICE & WCIT T W. Scott Snyder STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER., INC. o co By: r N N CD r f/J i (a a) J a W E a fWSS?06663.DOC;1/00006.900000/) 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 63 7.1.b I certify that T cnow or have satisfactory evidence that GARY HAAKENSON is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as Mayor of the City of Edmonds to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: /-7-0/--09 tA.y STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) ( ignature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: -D I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 'T� C)-Ck- nor;, e Co we.Q is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as Pre & I d'e p't of the South County Senior Center, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: I /� 6 10 T- �. n 0- (Sioature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: -7 ` 13 & 16 {WSS706663.D0C;1/00006.900000/) 6of7 Packet Pg. 64 EXHIBIT A The following is a legal description of the property for the City of Edmonds Neighborhood Facility known as Senior Citizens Center: Parcel A Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Great Northern Railway Right-of-way with the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., Thence Northeasterly on the said right-of-way line 450 feet; thence North 49' West 95.67 feet, more or less, to the Government meander line; thence South 51 °23' West on said meander line 288.33 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description; thence from said point of beginning run North 51 ° 23; East along the Government meander line 288.33 feet; thence North 47°32' West 319.63 feet to the inner harbor line, thence South 45°00' West on the inner harbor line 250.13 feet to the most northerly corner of the land conveyed to S.T. Engebretsen and Bertha Engebretsen, his wife, as deed filed for record under Snohomish County Auditor's file No. 1087092; thence along the Northeasterly Iine of said Engebretsen land South 38°37' East 28794 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel B Commencing at a point on the West line of Seattle and Montana Railway Right-of-way (now Great Northern Railway) at its intersection with South line of Government Lot 2, Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., thence in a northerly direction along West line of said right-of-way 150 feet to true point of beginning thence continue in a northerly direction along said Westerly line of said right-of-way 300 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles from the Westerly line of said Railway Right-of-way to Government meander line of the waters of Puget Sound; thence in a Southwesterly direction along said meander line to a point at right angles from the point of beginning, thence southeasterly to the point of beginning. {W55706663.DOC;1/00006.900000/) Packet Pg. 65 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/9/2016 City's Practice of Conducting Quasi -Judicial Land Use Hearings (30 min.) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History During the 2016 City Council retreat, the question of whether to continue holding quasi-judicial hearings before the City Council was introduced. With the land use code update underway, it seemed timely to review the City's practice of sending certain applications and appeals to the City Council for a quasi- judicial hearing. The City Council discussed the process for Council quasi-judicial reviews at the May 10, 2016 Council meeting (May 10th agenda minutes excerpt included as Exhibit 1). At the May 10th Council meeting, the Council requested additional information on the history of the Council assuming a quasi- judicial role, recent past Council quasi-judicial decisions, and what other jurisdictions do with regard to quasi-judicial appeals. This information was brought forward and the City Council discussed it on June 7, 2016. (See attachments 2, 3, and 7, along with the Narrative part of this memo, for the information.) Minutes of the June 7 meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. Staff Recommendation Discuss issue and consider moving the draft Resolution to the next Consent Calendar. Narrative NEWEST INFORMATION Given the City Council's discussion on June 7, two new items have been prepared. One is a draft Resolution (Exhibit 5) that states an intent to not have quasi-judicial decisions be decided by the City Council or volunteer boards and for this intention to be reflected in a future Development Code revision that the Planning Board will recommend. The other new item is a memo by the City Attorney about qualified vs. Absolute immunity. (See Exhibit 7.) This was prepared in response to a City Council request from June 7. PRIOR INFORMATION The narrative below largely reflects information previously provided to the City Council to help explain the City's role in quasi-judicial decisions. Types of Council Quasi -Judicial Actions Currently, there are three ways a land use action can come before the City Council for a quasi-judicial decision under a closed record review: 1) site specific rezone, 2) public agency variance request, and 3) appeal of Type III-B decision. Site Specific Rezone Packet Pg. 66 7.2 A site -specific rezone is where a property owner seeks to rezone a particular site from one zoning district to another. Site specific rezones are Type IV-B quasi-judicial decisions. Area -wide rezones (such as the recent West Gate Rezone) are Type V legislative actions. Under site -specific rezones, the Planning Board holds an open record public hearing to establish the record and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council holds a closed record review to consider the Planning Board's recommendation. Public Agency Variance Request Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.00.030 - Application of regulations - provides: C. Public Structures and Uses. 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. Public agencies are required to comply with the zoning code as are private property owners. When a public agency seeks a variance from the zoning standards, the Hearing Examiner holds an open record public hearing to establish the record and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council holds a closed record review to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Appeal of Type III-B Decisions ECDC 20.01.003 lists a number of Type III-B permits which may be appealed to City Council including conditional use, variance, preliminary plats, and design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Type III-B decisions may be made by the Hearing Examiner or the Architectural Design Board. For Type III-B decision the Hearing Examiner or the ADB holds an open record public hearing and issues a decision on the application. Any party of record may appeal a Type III-B decision to the City Council. ECDC 20.07.003 defines parties of record as: 1. The applicant; 2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; 3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type 11 decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or 4. The City of Edmonds. When a Type III-B decision is appealed to the City Council, the Council holds a closed record hearing on the record established by the Hearing Examiner or the Architectural Design Board. ECDC 20.07.005.H describes the potential actions of the Council following a closed record appeal: The city council shall determine whether the decision by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.708.080, as allowed by RCW 36.708.080(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional information. 2009/2010 Code Changes In 2009 under Ordinance 3736, the City of Edmonds established the Type I - Type V permit processes. Prior to the 2009 code update, the City's permit processes were established by the last major code update in the early 1980's which included Council quasi-judicial decisions on site specific rezones, public agency variances, and appeals of Hearing Examiner and ADB decisions. Prior to the 1980 update, quasi- judicial decisions were made by the Board of Adjustments and decisions were appealable to Superior Packet Pg. 67 7.2 Court. Ordinance 3736 retained Council quasi-judicial decision on site specific rezones and public agency variances, but removed closed record appeals to Council on most decisions with the exceptions of Essential Public Facilities and Architectural Design Board decisions. There was considerable discussion at the Council meetings about removing the Council from the appeal process (see Council minutes from the following meetings 02-24-2009, 03-17-2009, 05-05-2009, 05-26- 2009, and 06-02-2009). At that time, Planning Manager Rob Chave consolidated the list of pros and cons from the Council's discussion of Council closed record appeals. The list is contained in Exhibit 3. Ordinance 3736 was adopted on June 2, 2009. On January 5, 2010, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 3775 which re-inserted closed appeals to the City Council. A second interim ordinance (Ordinance 3787) was adopted on February 2, 2010 which also moved preliminary Planned Residential Development. The Council held a public hearing on September 21, 2010 on the Planning Board's recommendation which included closed record appeals to the City Council. Ordinance 3817 was adopted on consent at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting creating the review processes in the code today. (There have been a couple of amendments since 2010 regarding innocent purchaser process and the new critical area contingent review process established with the CAO update, but no changes to closed record reviews before Council.) See Exhibit 6 for excerpts of the minutes from the above Council meetings. Summary of Council Quasi -Judicial Decisions since 2010 Below is a summary of all closed record quasi-judicial decisions made by the City Council since 2010. Site Specific Rezones PLN20110005 - Rezone of two parcels located at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way from RS-8 (Single-family Residential; 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) to RM-1.5 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area). Planning Board recommended approval of the rezone. City Council approved the rezone. PLN20120029 - Rezone of three parcels located at 8609/8611/8615 - 244th Street SW from RS-8 (Single- family Residential; 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) to RM-2.4 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 2,400 square feet of lot area). Planning Board recommended approval of the rezone. Council approved the rezone. PLN20130008 - Rezone of parcel located at 22133 - 76th Avenue W from CG (General Commercial) to CG2 (General Commercial; difference in the two CG zones relate to allowable height) and rezone of parcel located at 22121 76th Avenue W from RM-2.4 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 2,400 square feet of lot area) to CG2 (General Commercial). This was a City initiated site specific rezone to correct the zoning of a property that was inadvertently left out of an area wide rezone. Planning Board recommended approval of the rezone. Council approved the rezone. PLN20130030 - Rezone of property located at 403 and 405 - 3rd Avenue N from RM-3.0 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot area) to RM-2.4 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 2,400 square feet of lot area). Planning Board recommended approval. Rezone was not approved by Council. Council vote was tied 3- 3. Since the rezone did not receive a majority of votes, it was not approved and the site remained zoned RM-3.0. PLN20130074 - Rezone of parcel located at 7533 - 228th Street SW from RM-2.4 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 2,400 square feet of lot area) to RM-1.5 (Multi -family Residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area). Planning board recommended approval. Council approved the rezone. PLN20150024 - Rezone of a portion of the property 21900 Highway 99 from a Contract Rezone of CG2 (General Commercial with specific contract rezone conditions) to CG2 (General Commercial without the Packet Pg. 68 7.2 contract rezone conditions). Planning Board recommended approval. Council approved the rezone. PLN20150034 - Rezone of portions of the properties located at 16404 and 16414 - 751h Place West and 16420 - 76th Avenue West from RS-20 (Single-family Residential; 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) to RS-12 (Single-family Residential; 12,000 square foot minimum lot size). Planning Board recommended approval. Council approved the rezone. Public Agency Variance Requests PLN20100070 - PUD Fence Height Variance - Snohomish County PUD fence height variance request to construct an 8-foot fence around a substation located at 9005 - 244th Street SW. Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the fence height variance. Council approved the fence height variance. PLN20150017 - Firefighters of Local 1828 and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1911 Memorial setback variance request at 275 - 6th Avenue N. The property located at 275 - 6th Avenue N is zoned Public which requires a 20-foot street setback. The variance request was to place the 911 Memorial 15- feet from the street property line. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the setback variance. Council approved the setback variance. PLN20140065, PLN20140066, PLN20140067, PLN20150009, and PLN20150013 - Edmonds School District applications for field improvements at the Former Woodway High School located 23200 - 1001h Avenue West. This project application included design review, a conditional use permit, and three variance requests. All of the permits were consolidated under ECDC 20.01.002.B. When projects are consolidated under ECDC 20.01.002.13 all permits are heard by the highest decision maker. Since the City Council is the highest decision maker on variance requests by public agencies, the City Council held a closed record review on the requested applications. The Hearing Examiner's recommendations were as follows: PLN20140065 (Design Review) should be approved in its entirety. PLN20140066 (Height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone) should be approved. PLN20140067 (Conditional use permit for bleachers, playfield lighting, and ball control fencing height in the OS zone) should be approved for the bleachers and ball control fencing and denied for the field lighting. PLN20150009 (Height variance for light poles in the RS-8 zone) should be denied. PLN20150013 (Height variance for light poles in the OS zone) should be denied. The City Council made the following decisions with regard to the various permits: PLN20140065 (Design Review) is approved in its entirety, except to the extent that it contemplates field lighting. PLN20140066 (Height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone) is approved. PLN20140067 (Conditional use permit for bleachers, playfield lighting, and ball control fencing height in the OS zone) is approved for the bleachers and ball control fencing with the portion of the application related to field lighting having been withdrawn by the applicant prior to a final decision being rendered. PLN20150009 (Height variance for light poles in the RS-8 zone) was withdrawn by the applicant. PLN20150013 (Height variance for light poles in the OS zone) was withdrawn by the applicant. In addition the City Council added five conditions of approval to the Hearing Examiner's conditions of approval. This decision, which essentially upheld the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, was appealed to Superior Court and the City of Edmonds prevailed on all accounts. PLN20150042 - Swedish Medical Center and Snohomish County Public Utilities District #2 applied for a setback variance for a new sign at the Swedish Hospital Campus located at 21601 - 76th Avenue West. Packet Pg. 69 7.2 The subject property is zoned MU (Medical Use) requires a 15-foot street setback. The variance request was to place a new sign 3 feet from the street property line. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the setback variance. Council approved the setback variance. Appeals of Type III-B Decisions P-2007-17 and PRD-2007-18 - Burnstead 27-Lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential Development located at 23700 -104th Avenue West. This was actually the second closed record appeal on the Burnstead Development. The City Council held a closed record appeal in 2007, which was ultimately appealed up to the appellate court level. The decision was remanded back to the City of Edmonds in 2011. The Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing on the remand issues in early 2012 and granted approval of the 27-lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential Development. The City of Edmonds received four appeals of the Hearing Examiner's approval (APL20120001 - APL20120004). The City Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision while modifying one of the Hearing Examiner's conditions of approval and adding one additional condition of approval. PLN20120033 - Hillman Critical Area Reasonable Use Variance and setback variance requests to construct a new single-family residence on the property located at 1139 Sierra Place. Development on the property is limited by the presence of a wetland, stream and steep slopes. The proposed 2,623 square foot house would have had a structural footprint of 2,174 square feet. The proposed development would have impacted 1,790 square feet of wetland and 3,920 square feet of wetland buffer. The onsite stream is an Np (non -fish perennial stream) which requires a 50 foot buffer. The proposal would have reduced the stream buffer to 25 feet. The proposal also included a request to reduce the street setback from 25 feet to 12 feet and the side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet in an effort to minimize impacts to the critical area. The Hearing Examiner approved the setback and critical area reasonable use variance requests with conditions. The City of Edmonds received one appeal (APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's approval. The Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision and denied the critical area reasonable use variance. The City Council reversal was due largely because the Council found that it had not been adequately determined that the proposed residence was the minimum necessary (one of the critical area reasonable use variance criteria). PLN20130022 - Design review application of the Point Edwards Building 10 located at 50 Pine Street. This application was for the last of the residential buildings in the Point Edwards master plan development. The applicant had proposed an 85 unit multifamily building that would have a different design than the rest of the buildings at the Point Edwards development. Given the change in design, a public hearing was required before the Architectural Design Board. The ADB approved the revised design of Building 10. Three appeals were received (APL20130002 - APL20130004). The City Council remanded the decision back to the ADB for the ADB to issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions to support the ADB's decision. The ADB issued Findings, Conclusions and Decision approving the proposed Building 10. The City of Edmonds received four appeals (APL20130005 - APL20130008) of the revised ADB decision. The City Council reversed the Architectural Design Board's decision and denied the application. The City Council found the portions of the ADB's decision clearly erroneous (design review criteria; codes and comprehensive plan elements/polices regarding bulk, mass and scale; integration of the building into the sloping site; height; and buffering of incompatible uses.) The City Councils decision was appealed to Superior Court. Settlement agreements were reached between a neighborhood group and the Town of Woodway before the Superior Court issued a decision. PLN20130039 - Willowdale fence height variance request for the property located at 20734 - 76th Avenue West. The property owner had constructed a 6-foot tall fence on top of a retaining wall that is Packet Pg. 70 7.2 approximately four feet in height. ECDC 17.30.00O.D provides that when a fence is constructed on top of a retaining wall that is three feet in height or greater, the fence can be no greater than four feet in height. The variance request was to be able to retain the 6-foot tall fence on top of the retaining wall. The Hearing Examiner denied the variance request because he found there are no special circumstances that necessitate the variance as required by ECDC 20.85.010.A.1.b. The City of Edmonds received one appeal (APL20130009). The Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variance request. Other Jurisdictions' Quasi -Judicial Procedures Staff reviewed the codes of a number of other local jurisdictions to assess their council's role in quasi- judicial decision making. Other jurisdictions' councils handle quasi-judicial decisions in a variety of ways. Most councils maintain quasi-judicial roles in site -specific rezones. Some councils maintain a quasi- judicial appeal role, while other jurisdictions only allow judicial appeals of hearing examiner decisions. (See Exhibit 2 for examples.) Attachments: Exhibit 1: City Council Minutes Exhibit 2: Quasi Judical Examples Exhibit 3: Council involvement in quasi judicial decisions - Pros and Cons (from 2009 Council discussions) Exh. 4: Quasi-Judical.Minutes.06.07.16 Exh. 5: Resolution re revision of quasi-judicial process Exhb. 6: Minutes 2009 Exhibit 7: Immunity research memo Packet Pg. 71 7.2.a session is for the Council to have confidential discussions. Taking minutes or notes may make a Councilmember uncomfortable speaking during an executive session. Councilmember Nelson questioned whether Resolution 853 was good policy. Although the City has been taking minutes of executive session for 20 years, he found it enlightening that a poll of 46 cities revealed none of them took minutes or notes. If one of the purposes was to be able to disclose minutes in the future, yet the nature of the topics will never be disclosed due to attorney -client privilege, it creates a false/misleading purpose. He summarized it does not make a lot of sense to be taking minutes in executive session. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson asked the next step if the Council chose to rescind the resolution. Mr. Taraday said he would prepare a resolution repealing Resolution 853 for Council consideration. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson suggested if that resolution was scheduled for Council consideration on May 24, the public would have an opportunity to provide input at the May 17 and 24 Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said two weeks would give the public an ample opportunity to speak to the Council with regard to Resolution 853. Councilmember Teitzel said he not oppose the notion of the public providing comment but he wanted to ensure the public understood that the rules as they currently exist under Resolution 853 create an illusion of openness. Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Passey's comment that the number of executive session has increased and asked whether the majority were attorney -client privilege topics. Mr. Passey answered it was a mixture of topics; there have been a lot of real estate matters, potential and pending litigation, a few related to discussing the qualifications of a candidate for public office, and collective bargaining. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson requested the City Attorney draft a resolution for further discussion on May 24 and action the following week, which will provide three weeks for public testimony before any action is taken. 7. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the Council briefly discussed this during their retreat. He explained quasi-judicial hearings are where the City Council sits in a judicial capacity, acting like judges. Most of time the Council acts as legislators; as legislators the Council has a great deal of discretion and are not bound by strict criteria or standards in making legislative decisions. The public looks to the Council as legislators; when the public appeals to the Council, they are looking to the Council as people they vote for that they want to represent them and reflect their values which is what a good legislator does. When the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Council is forced to play a completely different role, acting like a judge. When the public comes to a courtroom, they expect a fair and impartial hearing. When Councilmembers sit in a quasi-judicial hearing, they are expected to act in a fair and impartial manner regardless of who may be in the audience asking for something. Sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity puts the Council in a very difficult position, giving the illusion the Council can make whatever decision is being requested. That is in fact an illusion because Councilmembers do not have the same discretion in a quasi-judicial matter that they have as legislators. Councilmembers have much less discretion in a quasi-judicial hearing because the decision must be made in a manner that is consistent with the previously adopted decision criteria and standards in the zoning code. If those codes do not directly address the issue before the Council or in a manner that allows the Council to grant the relief being requested, the Council may not be able to grant that relief. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 72 7.2.a Mr. Taraday provided a recent example, the crumb rubber issue, where some very concerned citizens asked the Council to deny a project based on their concerns about the infill material used on those fields. The infill was not one of the decisions before Council and ultimately a majority of the Council approved the project but many did so reluctantly because it did not feel right. Councilmembers knew they were doing the right thing as a judge to approve the project because it met the standards but many were unsure about the infill material and some spoke to that from the dais. Several months later as legislators the Council was able to adopt a temporary ban on crumb rubber. In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi-judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested they ask themselves if so, why? If it because they feel the Council can make better decisions than the Hearing Examiner, that they have more expertise than the Hearing Examiner, that is a valid reason to continue this practice so that the Council can correct the Hearing Examiner's errors. He explained there was another way to accomplish that, appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision under LUPA. For example, when the Hearing Examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a LUPA appeal in Superior Court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf to convince the court that the Hearing Examiner's decision wrong. Mr. Taraday explained there are benefits to that process from a risk management standpoint. If he goes to court and argues the Hearing Examiner's decision was wrong and and the judge upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely if an appeal comes before the Council acting as the decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn a Hearing Examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn't, the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of decision -maker. Councilmember Tibbott observed if the Council relinquishes the role of judicial reviews, the Council could be participants in a Hearing Examiner's review process and advocates for citizens. He found that a powerful position and a good role for Councilmembers. He asked if it would be possible for the Hearing Examiner to do quasi-judicial reviews on a City Council night. Mr. Taraday said the Hearing Examiner's regular meeting time is Thursday. If an issue was important enough, Councilmember Tibbott suggested holding the hearing on a City Council night when citizens are more attuned to participating. Another option would be to televise Hearing Examiner's meeting for important topics like crumb rubber. Mr. Taraday said Hearing Examiner meetings currently are not televised. They are held in Council Chambers and could be televised although there would be some additional cost. Scheduling Hearing Examiner meetings on Council nights could affect the time available for Council business meetings, which is another reason for not having Councilmembers participate in quasi-judicial hearings. When quasi-judicial hearings arise, they consume a significant amount of time. Mr. Taraday explained when there is a quasi-judicial before the Council, Councilmembers are not allowed to have any contact with proponents or opponents of that matter except for what is said at the microphone. Councilmembers are cut off from their constituents when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. If the City Council allowed the Hearing Examiner to hear quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers could participate at the Hearing Examiner meeting as a member of the public but could also have unlimited contact with constituents on that issue and play a very different role than when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was unsure she wanted Hearing Examiner hearings on Council nights; it is already difficult to consider all the items on the agenda. She was unsure how sitting through each other's meetings would benefit the Council or the Hearing Examiner. Her understanding the reason this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 73 7.2.a was done initially was to save appellant's money; there is no cost to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Taraday clarified there is a $500 fee to appeal a Type IIIB Hearing Examiner decision to the City Council. He agreed there could be a cost savings for the appellant; for example, the Hearing Examiner makes a decision, several citizens contact the Council expressing their concern with the decision and the Council decides to appeal. That decision saves the citizens $500 because they do not pay the appeal fee to the Council and the Council directs the City Attorney to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision on the City's behalf. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost to appeal to court if the Council decided not to direct the City Attorney to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. Taraday answered the filing fee in court is less than $500 but the total cost depends on whether the appellant hires attorney or does it pro se. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled prior to this decision, the average cost for bringing an appeal where the appellant was not representing themselves was $5,000 which is expensive for citizens. She recognized the current process does not take into consideration the cost of staff time, Council time, etc. She summarized the reason for having the Council hear quasi-judicial appeals was the result of citizens' requests because it was more economical. She agreed having the Council in a quasi-judicial role shuts the Council out of the process. She questioned why background regarding the change was not included in the agenda packet, recalling the change was made in 2010. She suggested having more information about why and when the change was made. Councilmember Teitzel said his concern was the quality of the decision. Only one Councilmember is an attorney and although he had full confidence in the intellect of Councilmembers, in some cases acting in a quasi-judicial role requires an understanding of the relationship between the local code and state law. Rather than having a citizen request the Council make the decision, it would be better and higher quality to have a judge make that decision. If the Council believes an error has been made, the Council has the ability to direct the City Attorney to file an appeal as well as provide testimony. He supported moving away from having Council involved in quasi-judicial appeals. Councilmember Nelson referred to the dictionary definition of quasi judicial, "seemingly, apparently but not really." He said that is fitting for the role the Council is asked to play, playing the role of a judge when Councilmembers are actually legislators. He recalled the one quasi-judicial hearing he was involved in was a very frustrating experience because he was unable to be a legislator and could not talk to anybody or consider all the information he wanted to review and was limited to a narrow focus. When this was first put in place, the intent was right, but in practice the result is not what was intended. He found it such a frustrating experience that he recommended the Council avoid being in a quasi-judicial role. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked how many of the quasi-judicial decisions the Council has made have been appealed. Mr. Taraday recalled the appeal of the decision on Building 10 was dismissed and the City prevailed in an appeal of the crumb rubber decision. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a proposal to construct a house in critical area. Mr. Taraday said that did not go to court. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in 2010 citizens wanted an opportunity to come to City Council. Mr. Taraday suggested it may be interesting to research how many times the Council has reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision in the last 5-6 years, suspecting it was a very rare if ever occurrence. If the point of this process in 2010 was to provide a low cost means of reversing the Hearing Examiner and in practice that has almost never happened because the Hearing Examiner generally does a good job, then that would be useful information to have. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson recalled in the case Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, a 3rd party entered into a negotiation and purchased the property from the people who wanted to build in the critical area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 74 7.2.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in researching whether the Council has reversed any of the Hearing Examiner's decision. She recalled the Council has upheld nearly every Hearing Examiner decision; in one the Council may have upheld only part of his decision. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled another instance where a fence was lowered, perhaps that was the one the Council only supported a portion of the Hearing Examiner's decision. She noted the Council has only had 7-8 quasi-judicial in the past 6 years. She recalled when the Council was first taken out of the quasi- judicial role, citizens objected and the process was reversed. She recalled the reason was the monetary aspect. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson pointed out the Burnstead issue as another example. She referred to a Directors Report to the Planning Board from Development Services Director Shane Hope that described a Hearing Examiner decision. The Hearing Examiner considered a proposed critical area reasonable use variance on March 24; the Hearing Examiner's decision was made on April 7; the City filed a motion for reconsideration on April 12 but the Council was just learning about it this week. She asked when the LUPA appeal process expired and how would the Council know about it. Mr. Taraday agreed the current process is not set up to do what has been discussed tonight. If the City changed to a system where the City Council was no longer in a quasi-judicial capacity but wanted to be ready to file a LUPA appeal, a mechanism would need to be set up whereby the Council was informed of decisions in a timely manner. There are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson asked whether the Council's current quasi-judicial role precludes taking action to file a LUPA on the City's behalf. Mr. Taraday said it depends on whether there was an administrative appeal to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed in this instance there was not but she was unclear when the final decision was made and feared it may be too late to file an appeal. Mr. Taraday said if administrative appeals have been exhausted and the only remaining appeal is judicial, the only question is whether there is standing. He suggested if the Council was interested in discontinuing the current practice, the administrative appeal process would need to be revised to clearly articulate the possibility of the Council bringing appeals and how that process works. With regard to the decision Mayor Pro Tem Johnson was referencing, he was uncertain when a LUPA appeal would need to be filed and if the Council wanted to discuss it as potential litigation, he recommended that be done in executive session. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, relaying she received an email that Councilmembers other than Mayor Pro Tem Johnson could not be heard on the television broadcast. Following a brief recess to address a technical issue, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson advised apparently not all Councilmembers could be heard on the television broadcast but minutes of the meeting will be available. As the online streaming was operational, the issue was likely with the cable channel. Development Services Director Shane Hope suggested following up with additional information such as the history regarding the Council assuming this role, the reversal rate of Hearing Examiner decisions, what other jurisdictions do with regard to quasi-judicial appeals, and if the Council chose not to be the decision maker, how to ensure the Council received information in timely manner to make a decision regarding an appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson observed the Council is scheduled to discuss this again at the May 24 meeting. Mr. Taraday invited the Council to inform if there was any other information staff could provide to assist the Council in making an informed decision. 6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Johnson relayed to Mayor Earling, everyone wishes they were in Hawaii with him. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 10, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 75 7.2.a Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map of options and asked for a description of the Admiral Way overpass and the merits of that location. Mr. Schaefer said although it may seem out of the way for emergency response, it is a distinct location and it is screened from view or back -dropped visually by hillside. It can drop into the Port property which may provide flexibility for a landing. It would follow the Unocal access road along the bottom of the hill, climb to an overpass structure, clear the to -be -relocated Willow Creek and the railroad and drop down into the edge of Port parking area. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether it would have pedestrian access. Mr. Schaefer said it would be routinely used for pedestrian and bicycle access and could accommodate an emergency vehicle when necessary. Councilmember Mesaros commented another benefit of that alternative is the ability to circumnavigate the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the ability to tie it into the trails, through marina and Marina Beach Park was identified as a community amenity. Mr. Williams said the same could be said for the Edmonds Street alternative; it would be available for emergency vehicles to provide aid on the west side of the tracks as well as allow pedestrians and bicycles to access waterfront amenities. Councilmember Mesaros commented that alternative did not circumnavigate the marsh. Mr. Schaefer said the grades in all alternatives provide ADA access. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the Dayton Street Overpass would require Port property and demolition of existing buildings. Mr. Schaefer agreed it would require some property but would not require any demolition. It would launch from the north side of Dayton along the edge of the Salish Crossing property, climb over the parking area south of the rail station, diagonally over the intersection and drop into the Port property behind their sign. It would encroach into the yard area of new Jacobson Marine but would not impact their building. Council President Johnson commented one of the advantages of this presentation is it gives the public an opportunity to hear everything that has been considered to date, especially those not able to attend public meetings or visit the website. She asked where the Level 2 evaluation criteria were firm. Mr. Schaefer answered they were drafted and presented to the community at the last meeting. Some comments were received although fewer than at past meetings which is the reason the online open house was extended an additional week and another notice issued. Council President Johnson observed the language on the working draft page and the criteria were similar but not exactly the same. Mr. Schaefer advised the language on the working draft had to be more brief; the language on the working draft page is not the criteria, it is the purpose and need. He pointed out there are multiple components of each criterion. In Level 1 the consultant team did the first assessment against the criteria which was then validated by the Task Force. In Level 2 the consultant team is providing information and the Task Force is taking the first cut at the rating. Council President Johnson offered to provide Mr. Schaefer send her notes. She recalled an operational issue that has been discussed intermittently over the last 10 years was having a ferry reservation system on the Edmonds -Kingston route. She suggested that be considered in this effort. Councilmember Nelson (Co -Chair of the Task Force) recognized how hard the Task Force and and Mr. Schaefer have been working. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING OUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS Senior Planner Kemen Lien said this topic was discussed at the retreat and the May 10 Council meeting. Currently, there are three ways a land use action can come before the City Council for a quasi-judicial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 76 7.2.a decision under a closed record review: 1) site specific rezone, 2) appeal of Type III-B decision (ADB or Hearing Examiner), and 3) public agency variance request. The Woodway Playfields quasi-judicial hearing was an appeal of a public agency variance request. The three issues the Council requested further information on included, 1) the history of quasi-judicial decisions before the Council, 2) recent decisions by the Council, and 3) what other jurisdictions are doing. With regard to the history, Mr. Lien explained the current code framework was established in 1980 and since then the City Council has been doing quasi-judicial hearings for appeals of Hearing Examiner, ADB and public agency variance requests. Prior to that time, the City had a Board of Adjustment, a 7-member board that heard variances, condition use permits, etc., things the Hearing Examiner now hears. Decisions of the Board of Adjustment went to Superior Court. In 2009 the City established the current process framework, Type I through V permits. At that time there was considerable discussion regarding the Council's involvement in the quasi-judicial decision process. Discussion was focused primarily on the Type III-B decisions by the Hearing Examiner and ADB. He referred to minutes from the 2009 update that were emailed to Council today. Also included in the packet, Exhibit 3, is a list of pros and cons prepared by Rob Chave in 2009 regarding Council involvement in quasi-judicial decisions. When the Title 20 update was passed in June 2009, Hearing Examiner and ADB appeals were taken out of the City Council and became appeals to Superior Court. At the first Council meeting in January 2010, an interim ordinance was passed that again inserted the Council into closed record appeals. The discussion at that time did not focus on rezones or public agency variances, only appeals and whether to have oral or written arguments to Council on appeals as it is easier to track whether something is in the record when the record is written versus oral. A permanent ordinance was passed in September 2010. Mr. Lien reviewed quasi-judicial decisions since 2010 in the 3 categories: • Seven site specific rezones o Planning Board makes recommendation to City Council o Council upheld 6 o One was denied on a 3-3 vote Four public agency variance requests Council approved most requests Woodway Playfields was more complex and included five permits o Hearing Examiner recommended denial of two o By the time it reached the Council, the School District withdrew those two o Council essentially upheld Hearing Examiner decision and added a few conditions of approval to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation Type III-B decisions o Four projects 0 5 appeals (Building 10 appealed to City Council twice) o 2 reversed o Regarding Building 10, the City Council reversed the ADB decision and a critical area variance request With regard to other jurisdictions' quasi-judicial procedures, Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 4, explaining most jurisdictions have a quasi-judicial process for site specific rezones. Some include an appeal to City Council from the Hearing Examiner, others do not. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many times a City Council decision has been appealed to Superior Court. Mr. Lien answered in the last 10 years, Building 10 and Woodway Playfields were appealed to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 77 7.2.a Superior Court. There was a settlement agreement for Building 10 so no decision was issued and the City prevailed with regard to the Woodway Playfields. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the court never ruled on Building 10 decision so it was unknown whether the Council's decision would have been upheld had the court ruled. That project was of a magnitude that had the Council's decision not been upheld, there could have been real damages resulting from that application process. Councilmember Teitzel recalled the Council previously discussed the cost to appeal a decision to Superior Court versus to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered the fee for an appeal of a Type III-B decision to City Council is $500. Mr. Taraday said the filing fee for Superior Court is $250; the cost could be much more if the appellant hired an attorney. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended the Council read the 2009 minutes. She commended Mr. Lien for his research and for summarizing it for the public. Councilmember Mesaros commented there could also be attorney costs for an appeal to City Council if the appellant chose to hire an attorney. Councilmember Nelson thanked Lien for the summary. He recalled going through one public agency variance request and found the information regarding other decisions very comprehensive and helpful. Council President Johnson commented there is also a cost to the City Council for the more elaborate appeals that come to the City Council. For example, Burnstead and Building 10, the City engaged separate counsel for the City Council at a cost of approximately $5,000 per case. There is also the expense of time; they were not easy decisions and required many meetings. She said it makes sense for some quasi-judicial proceedings to come to the City Council, those that are quick and efficient. However, for the ones that seemingly take endless amounts of reading, study and evaluation, she preferred they go to Superior Court because they usually end up in Superior Court anyway. She asked if a distinction could be made in the Type III-B decisions between large and small application. She recalled two of the Type III-B decisions were very small involving one property and two were very large and required tremendous time and effort. Mr. Taraday said the City probably could distinguish; there would need to be criteria established in advance for distinguishing between them. For example, the current categories of decisions are not the universe of possible categories. One category the City Council is stuck with hearing is site specific rezones. Council President Johnson referred to the risk associated with Council serving in a quasi-judicial capacity; if the City lost in an appeal to Superior Court, the City would be responsible for much more than just the filing fee. Mr. Taraday explained the City could be required to pay damages if the City Council's decision was found to be arbitrary and capricious. In extreme cases Councilmembers as individuals can be held personally liable for decisions made when serving in a quasi-judicial capacity. In its legislative capacity, the Council has nearly absolute personally immunity. In a quasi-judicial capacity, there is the theoretical possibility of a personal liability lawsuit because the immunity is only qualified not absolute. For example, in the Mission Springs in Spokane Councilmembers were found not to be immune from the personal suit filed against them. Councilmember Tibbott thanked staff for the synopsis the Council received this afternoon and suggested it be included in a future packet. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed it would. Councilmember Tibbott recalled the Planning Board heard four quasi-judicial cases, three were straightforward and the questions Planning Board Members asked provided material for the City Council. One was more complex and the Planning Board needed more preparation to process it adequately. If the Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he asked if they would still go to Planning Board for a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Hope answered yes, the process would stay the same. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 78 7.2.a Councilmember Tibbott recommended providing Planning Board enough notice regarding upcoming hearings so they do not engage with a project before it comes to Planning Board to avoid tainting the process. He discussed this with two former Planning Board Members, one was in favor of the Council moving away from quasi-judicial reviews and the other was in favor of retain the Council in that role so he was able to see benefits on both sides, especially with rezones. If the Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he recommended identifying ways to improve the process; for example, inform the Council in advance so they do not engage with proponents or opponents. Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Council not hear more extensive appeals. While on the Planning Board, he felt members were asked to provide input regarding topics they were not trained for. There was one lawyer on the Planning Board who was able to look at the issue from a legal perspective but other Planning Board Members were not. There are benefits from a diversity of views looking at a project and offers insight; however, on complex appeals that require a great deal of study, he preferred to delegate them to the Hearing Examiner or other body. Ms. Hope agreed the Planning Board needed to have the proper training; staff has been more proactively recently in helping the Planning Board understand their role and legal requirements. Staff will consider how to distinguish between small and large projects for example according to the value of the project, property size, etc. With regard to whether the Planning Board would continue to make recommendations to the City Council regarding rezone, Mr. Taraday said they could but they do not have to; it could be done by the Hearing Examiner. Quoting Councilmember Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Mesaros said citizens elected Councilmember to primarily be legislators, not judges. The skill set Councilmembers bring to the Council is for pondering legislative opportunities and making choices for citizens; serving in a quasi-judicial role puts the Council in a difficult position, a role they not be as equipped for. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to explain qualified immunity versus absolute immunity, pointing out if Councilmembers are making decisions for which they are personally liable, they need to know what that entails. Mr. Taraday offered to provide a more in-depth analysis in writing. With qualified immunity, a Councilmember is not as fully protected personally from a suit; although there is a decent chance of having a suit dismissed, in extreme case a Councilmember could have personal liability. The prospect of a Councilmember being sued is not just a theoretically possibility; a Councilmember was named in the Building 10 lawsuit. Councilmember Teitzel said he was also concerned about the Council's skill set to serve judges. It gives him pause personally to act in quasi-judicial fashion, reviewing the record to determine whether an Administrative Law Judge or Hearing Examiner made a legal error. He felt ill equipped to make that decision as he was not an attorney and wanted to avoid being in that role in the future. He agreed the Council could be involved in site specific rezones. 3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Building Official Leif Bjorback and Fire Marshal Kevin Zweber. She referred to a pile of books that represented thousands of pages; the ordinance summarizes key changes made to the code based on State requirements. Following the presentation and Q&A, she requested the ordinance be forwarded to the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bjorback explained every three years the International Building Code (IBC) is updated and republished by the International Code Council. The IBC is a family of codes including commercial, residential fire, plumbing, energy, etc. that are used in most areas of the country including the State of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 79 7.2.b Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM June 1 ", 2016 Shane Hope, Development Services Director Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Variances and Quasi-judicial Decisions This is in response to your inquiry regarding who makes decisions on variances and quasi-judicial decisions in mid -size cities in the Puget Sound region. Below is a summary of who handles variances and quasi-judicial decisions for jurisdictions that I reviewed. Generally, variances and conditional use permits are handled through a hearing examiner as quasi-judicial matters, although a number are handled administratively. Zoning map amendments for individual properties are usually decided by the city council following a recommendation from the hearing examiner, although there are a couple exceptions as noted below. [Note: Different jurisdictions use different terminology for permit review classifications. Each type below is explained to help compare it to Edmonds' classifications.] BREMERTON Quasi-judicial decisions: Type III - Quasi-judicial decision made by Hearing Examiner • Examples of Type III permits include non -administrative conditional use permits, preliminary formal subdivisions, variances, etc. • Appealable to Kitsap County Superior Court. Type IV - Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council • Examples of Type IV permits include site -specific rezones, final formal subdivisions, development agreements, vacation of subdivisions, etc. • Appealable to Kitsap County Superior Court. Variances: A variance application is processed as a Type III Hearing Examiner decision. If the variation would not exceed ten (10) percent of the required dimensional standard from which relief is being sought, the Director may approve the variance as a Type II Director decision. BURIEN Quasi-judicial decisions: Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 80 7.2.b Type 2 - Quasi-judicial decision made by Hearing Examiner • Recommendation by Director following open record hearing. • Appealable to City Council. Type 3 - Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council • Examples of Type 3 permits include site -specific map amendments and plat approvals. • Based on public hearing and recommendation by Director and Hearing Examiner. • Appealable to King County Superior Court. Variances: Administrative decision made by the Director. EVERETT Quasi-judicial decisions: Type III-B - Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council • After an open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall make recommendation. • Appealable to Snohomish County Superior Court. Variances: A variance application is processed as a Hearing Examiner decision. ISSAQUAH Quasi-judicial decisions: Level 3 - Quasi-judicial decision made by Development Commission • Examples of Level 3 permits include: Level 3 site development permits (SDP); Level 1 and 2 administrative site development permits (ASDP) >_ 3 acres and/or on major streets; major amendments to approved site development permits; and others as determined by Planning Director/Manager. • Appealable to Hearing Examiner. • Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision is directed to King County Superior Court. Variances: A variance application is processed as a Level 4 Hearing Examiner decision. Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 81 7.2.b KENMORE Quasi-judicial decisions: Type 3- Type 4 - Quasi-judicial decision made by Hearing Examiner • Examples of Type 3 permits include: preliminary subdivision; plat alteration; preliminary subdivision revision; special use. • Following an open record hearing. • Appealable to King County Superior Court. Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council Examples of Type 4 permits include: zone reclassification not related to a site -specific comprehensive plan land use map amendment; shoreline environment redesignation; plat vacation; short plat vacation; site plan review for uses not allowed by zone pursuant to Chapter 18.105 KMC; master plans other than those required in order to obtain a comprehensive plan amendment or related zoning map or text amendment. • Based on the record established by the Hearing Examiner. • Appealable to King County Superior Court. Variances: A variance application is processed as a Type 1 (street standards) or Type 2 (zoning, shoreline, and variances requiring studies) City Manager decision. Type 1 variance applications are not appealable. Type 2 variances are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. KIRKLAND Quasi-judicial decisions: Process II -A - Quasi-judicial decision made by Hearing Examiner • Appealable to City Council. Process II-B - Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council • Examples of Process II-B permits include: zone reclassification. • Recommendation from Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. • Appealable to King County Superior Court. Variances: The City will use Process II -A to review an application for variance except for properties located within a RS, RSA, or RSX zone or for a detached dwelling unit in any zone. For variance applications for properties within a RS, RSA, or RSX zone or for a detached dwelling unit in any zone, the City will use Process I. Process I is a Planning Official decision, appealable to Hearing Examiner. Process II -A is a Hearing Examiner decision, appealable to City Council. SHORELINE Quasi-judicial decisions: Type C - Quasi-judicial decision made by Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 82 7.2.b Examples of Type C permits include: special use permits, critical areas special use permits, critical areas reasonable use permits, SCTF special use permit, and master development plans. Type C - Quasi-judicial decision made by City Council • Examples of Type C permits include: preliminary formal subdivisions, rezones, and final formal plat. • Recommendation from Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Final formal plats are reviewed by the Director. 0 Appealable to King County Superior Court. Variances: A variance application is processed as a Hearing Examiner decision. Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 83 7.2.c Why have the Council involved in quasi-judicial decision -making o, 1. The City Council is representative. As elected officials, City Councilmembers are theoretically c representative of their citizens' views and are best able to carry out their citizens' wishes. 2. The City Council is elected. If the Council makes poor decisions, the citizens can ultimately have c �j a direct impact on who their representatives are — or are not. 3. The City Council is the highest local authority. Decisions affecting land use and property should ti be made by those with a "stake" in the town — i.e. by someone who lives there. City T Councilmembers all live in Edmonds. c 0 4. The City Council can better monitor and understand how city regulations and policies interact y with specific land use decisions if they are able to see "first hand" what the issues are. 5. For an appeal, going to court is not an adequate substitute for going to the City Council. Going to court costs more time and money (e.g. hiring an attorney) than going to a City Council meeting, and this setting is more intimidating and less understandable to the average citizen. This would 'o make the appeal process less accessible to the average citizen. v Why the Council should not be involved N 1. The actual latitude afforded a decision -maker is very limited. Quasi-judicial decisions must be c made according to adopted policies and regulations. Councilmembers can only make decisions v that are supported by the same rules that others would apply. 2. Freedom to discuss issues with citizens. If the Council is taken out of the quasi-judicial decision 0 c� process, individual citizens can discuss their concerns over a specific project or development proposal with Councilmembers. Currently, that can only happen after -the -fact (after all decisions and appeals have been exhausted), which limits accessibility of citizens to their elected officials. a 3. Freedom to get involved in the details of public design projects. Currently, the City Council must be careful how it gets involved in public projects, since these can end up on a Council agenda as c an appealed quasi-judicial decision (e.g. ADB decisions on the design of public buildings). !� 4. Quasi-judicial decisions must be decided professionally. Elected officials must be educated in and understand the limits of their decision -making power and be careful to follow adopted rules and regulations, not react to citizen wishes. The number of people on one side or the other of the issue is irrelevant, contrary to the rules that may apply in a political process. It can be difficult to explain this to a constituent who believes that their elected representative should decide according to how the "majority" of the neighborhood feels. 5. Liability is a serious concern. The courts have increasingly come down hard on decision -makers who do not properly make quasi-judicial decisions. City Councilmembers can be held personally liable for their quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are best made by those professionally trained to make them — according to existing rules. 6. The political process is complex and responds to different influences than are available — or are relevant — in a quasi-judicial process. Political processes are most appropriate for dealing with goals, policies, and regulations that can be developed and discussed in an open legislative forum. 7. Taking the City Council out of the appeal process for quasi-judicial decisions removes only one intermediate step in the appeal process; going to court has always been available to a citizen as an option. In many instances (especially the most controversial), attorneys are already involved in the dispute, and having one less appeal hearing to attend could actually reduce attorney time (and fees). Removing Council from the process does not reduce citizen involvement; public hearings are still held — only the Council's limited, non -discretionary, on -the -record review is removed. Packet Pg. 84 7.2.d Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map of options and asked for a description of the Admiral Way ►.erpass and the merits of that location. Mr. Schaefer said although it may seem out of the way for et ergency response, it is a distinct location and it is screened from view or back -dropped viSUally by hill i e. It can drop into the Port property which may provide flexibility for a landing. It would [low the Unocakaccess road along the bottom of the hill, climb to an overpass structure, clear the to -be -relocated WillowCreek and the railroad and drop down into the edge of Port parking area. Councilnember Mesaros asked whether it would have pedestrian access. Mr. Schaefer said it would be routinely used for pedestrian andlbicycle access and could accommodate an emergency vehicle when necessary. Councilmember Mesaros commented another benefit of that alternative is thp'ability to circumnavigate the marsh. Mr. SclihFfer said the ability to tie it into the trails, through marina and Marina Beach Park was identified as a comnl inity amenity. Mr. Williams said the same could be said for the Edmonds Street alternative; it would W\\ vailable for emergency vehicles to provide aid on the west side of the tracks as well as allow pedeslria�s and bicycles to access waterfront aanenities. Councilmember Mesaros commented that alternative did not circumnavigate the in i�Ir. Schaefer said the grades in all alternatives provide ADA acbVss. Y/ Councilmember Teitzel asked if�e Dayton Street OverpasY/Would require Port property and demolition of existing buildings. Mr. Schaef agreed it would re7aggotially e some property but would not require any demolition. It would launch from the orth side of Daytoong the edge of the Salish Crossing property, climb over the parking area south of t e rail station, over the intersection and drop into the Port property behind their sign. It would croach ir} the yard area of new Jacobson Marine but would not impact their building. Council President Johnson commented one o9 e advantages of this presentation is it gives the public an opportunity to hear everything that has been dons ered to date, especially those not able to attend public meetings or visit the website. She/askedere th Level2 evaluation criteria were firm. Mr. Schaefer answered they were drafted and po the eon munity at the last meeting. Some comments were received although fewer than at pas which is e reason the online open house was extended an additional week and another notice Council President Johnson ob rved the language on the won ing draft page and the criteria were similar but not exactly the same. Schaefer advised the language o the working draft had to be more brief, the language on the work' g draft page is not the criteria, it is tlt urpose and need. He pointed out there are multiple componei of each criterion. In Level I the consultan team did the first assessment against the criteria which w S"tliett validated by the Task Force. In Level the consultant team is providing informati/anddask Force is taking the first cut at the rating. Council nson offered to provide Mr. Schaefer send her notes. lie recalled an operational issue thascussed intermittently over the last 10 years was having ferry reservation system on the Edston route. She suggested that be considered in this effort. z [member Nelson (Co -Chair of the Task Force) recognized how hard the Task once and and Mr. x w ,r have been working. y.; c m Earl ing declared a brief recess. z M 2. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO CONTINUE CITY'S PRACTICE OF CONDUCTING Q QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE HEARINGS Senior Planner Kernen Lien said this topic was discussed at the retreat and the May 10 Council meeting. Currently, there are three ways a land use action can come before the City Council for a quasi-judicial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 85 7.2.d decision under a closed record review: 1) site specific rezone, 2) appeal of Type III-B decision (ADB or Hearing Examiner), and 3) public agency variance request. The Woodway Playfields quasi-judicial hearing was an appeal of a public agency variance request. The three issues the Council requested further information on included, 1) the history of quasi-judicial decisions before the Council, 2) recent decisions by the Council, and 3) what other jurisdictions are doing. With regard to the history, Mr. Lien explained the current code framework was established in 1980 and since then the City Council has been doing quasi-judicial hearings for appeals of Hearing Examiner, ADB and public agency variance requests. Prior to that time, the City had a Board of Adjustment, a 7-member board that heard variances, condition use permits, etc., things the Hearing Examiner now hears. Decisions of the Board of Adjustment went to Superior Court. In 2009 the City established the current process framework, Type I through V permits. At that time there was considerable discussion regarding the Council's involvement in the quasi-judicial decision process. Discussion was focused primarily on the Type III-B decisions by the Hearing Examiner and ADB. He referred to minutes from the 2009 update that were emailed to Council today. Also included in the packet, Exhibit 3, is a list of pros and cons prepared by Rob Chave in 2009 regarding Council involvement in quasi-judicial decisions. When the Title 20 update was passed in June 2009, Hearing Examiner and ADB appeals were taken out of the City Council and became appeals to Superior Court. At the first Council meeting in January 2010, an interim ordinance was passed that again inserted the Council into closed record appeals. The discussion at that time did not focus on rezones or public agency variances, only appeals and whether to have oral or written arguments to Council on appeals as it is easier to track whether something is in the record when the record is written versus oral. A permanent ordinance was passed in September 2010. Mr. Lien reviewed quasi-judicial decisions since 2010 in the 3 categories: • Seven site specific rezones o Planning Board makes recommendation to City Council o Council upheld 6 o One was denied on a 3-3 vote Four public agency variance requests Council approved most requests • Woodway Playfields was more complex and included five permits o Hearing Examiner recommended denial of two o By the time it reached the Council, the School District withdrew those two o Council essentially upheld Hearing Examiner decision and added a few conditions of approval to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation • Type III-B decisions o Four projects a 0 5 appeals (Building 10 appealed to City Council twice) 4 o 2 reversed C� o Regarding Building 10, the City Council reversed the ADB decision and a critical area w variance request c a� With regard to other jurisdictions' quasi-judicial procedures, Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 4, explaining most jurisdictions have a quasi-judicial process for site specific rezones. Some include an appeal to City Council from the Hearing Examiner, others do not. Q Councilmember Mesaros asked how many times a City Council decision has been appealed to Superior Court. Mr. Lien answered in the last 10 years, Building 10 and Woodway Playfields were appealed to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 86 7.2.d Superior Court. There was a settlement agreement for Building 10 so no decision was issued and the City prevailed with regard to the Woodway Playfields. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the court never ruled on Building 10 decision so it was unknown whether the Council's decision would have been upheld had the court ruled. That project was of a magnitude that had the Council's decision not been upheld, there could have been real damages resulting from that application process. Councilmmember Teitzel recalled the Council previously discussed the cost to appeal a decision to Superior Court versus to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered the fee for an appeal of a Type Ill-B decision to City Council is $500. Mr. Taraday said the filing fee for Superior Court is $250; the cost could be much more if the appellant hired an attorney. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended the Council read the 2009 minutes. She commended Mr. Lien for his research and for summarizing it for the public. Councilmember Mesaros commented there could also be attorney costs for an appeal to City Council if the appellant chose to hire an attorney. Councilmember Nelson thanked Lien for the summary. He recalled going through one public agency variance request and found the information regarding other decisions very comprehensive and helpful. Council President Johnson commented there is also a cost to the City Council for the more elaborate appeals that come to the City Council. For example, Burnstead and Building 10, the City engaged separate counsel for the City Council at a cost of approximately $5,000 per case. There is also the expense of time; they were not easy decisions and required many meetings. She said it makes sense for some quasi-judicial proceedings to come to the City Council, those that are quick and efficient. However, for the ones that seemingly take endless amounts of reading, study and evaluation, she preferred they go to Superior Court because they usually end up in Superior Court anyway. She asked if a distinction could be made in the Type III-B decisions between large and small application. She recalled two of the Type III-B decisions were very small involving one property and two were very large and required tremendous time and effort. Mr. Taraday said the City probably could distinguish; there would need to be criteria established in advance for distinguishing between them. For example, the current categories of decisions are not the universe of possible categories. One category the City Council is stuck with hearing is site specific rezones. Council President Johnson referred to the risk associated with Council serving in a quasi-judicial ? capacity; if the City lost in an appeal to Superior Court, the City would be responsible for much more M than just the filing fee. Mr. Taraday explained the City could be required to pay damages if the City Council's decision was found to be arbitrary and capricious. In extreme cases Councilmembers as individuals can be held personally liable for decisions made when serving in a quasi-judicial capacity. In its legislative capacity, the Council has nearly absolute personally immunity. In a quasi-judicial capacity, there is the theoretical possibility of a personal liability lawsuit because the immunity is only qualified not d absolute. For example, in the Mission Springs in Spokane Councilmembers were found not to be immune t from the personal suit filed against them. x w Councilmember Tibbott thanked staff for the synopsis the Council received this afternoon and suggested 4) it be included in a future packet. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed it would. E Councilmember Tibbott recalled the Planning Board heard four quasi-judicial cases, three were straightforward and the questions Planning Board Members asked provided material for the City Council. Q One was more complex and the Planning Board needed more preparation to process it adequately. If the Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he asked if they would still go to Planning Board for a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Hope answered yes, the process would stay the same. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes .tune 7, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 87 7.2.d Councilmember Tibbott recommended providing Planning Board enough notice regarding upcoming hearings so they do not engage with a project before it comes to Planning Board to avoid tainting the process. He discussed this with two former Planning Board Members, one was in favor of the Council moving away from quasi-judicial reviews and the other was in favor of retain the Council in that role so he was able to see benefits on both sides, especially with rezones. If the Council continued to hear site specific rezones, he recommended identifying ways to improve the process; for example, inform the Council in advance so they do not engage with proponents or opponents. Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Council not hear more extensive appeals. While on the Planning Board, he felt members were asked to provide input regarding topics they were not trained for. There was one lawyer on the Planning Board who was able to look at the issue from a legal perspective but other Planning Board Members were not. There are benefits from a diversity of views looking at a project and offers insight; however, on complex appeals that require a great deal of study, he preferred to delegate them to the Hearing Examiner or other body. Ms. Hope agreed the Planning Board needed to have the proper training; staff has been more proactively recently in helping the Planning Board understand their role and legal requirements. Staff will consider how to distinguish between small and large projects for example according to the value of the project, property size, etc. With regard to whether the Planning Board would continue to make recommendations to the City Council regarding rezone, Mr. Taraday said they could but they do not have to; it could be done by the Hearing Examiner. Quoting Councilmember Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Mesaros said citizens elected Councilmember to primarily be legislators, not judges. The skill set Councilmembers bring to the Council is for pondering legislative opportunities and making choices for citizens; serving in a quasi-judicial role puts the Council in a difficult position, a role they not be as equipped for. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to explain qualified immunity versus absolute immunity, pointing out if Councilmembers are making decisions for which they are personally liable, they need to know what that entails. Mr. Taraday offered to provide a more in-depth analysis in writing. With qualified immunity, a Councilmember is not as fully protected personally from a suit; although there is a decent chance of having a suit dismissed, in extreme case a Councilmember could have personal liability. The prospect of a Councilmember being sued is not just a theoretically possibility; a Councilmember was named in the Building 10 lawsuit. Councihnember Teitzel said he was also concerned about the Council's skill set to serve judges. It gives him pause personally to act in quasi-judicial fashion, reviewing the record to determine whether an Administrative Law Judge or Hearing Examiner made a legal error. He felt ill equipped to make that decision as he was not an attorney and wanted to avoid being in that role in the future. He agreed the d Council could be involved in site specific rezones. i1 3. TITLE 19 B ,DINC AND FIRE CODE UPDATES x W Development Services rector Shane Hope introduced Buildin Official Leif Bjorback and F re Marshal m Kevin Zweber. She ferred to a pile of books that repr ented thousands of pages; t e ordinance E z summarizes key ch ges made to the code based on State/equirements. Following the pr entation and 0 Q&A, sh/reques d the ordinance be forwarded to the Cr�6sent Agenda.Mr. Bjoplained every three years the Inter�`3ational Building Code (ISC) is updated and republise International Code Council. ie IBC is a family of codes incl ding commercial, residentiumbing, energy, etc. that are ed in most areas of the country inc uding the State of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 88 7.2.e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI- JUDICIAL PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city has undertaken a comprehensive review of the city's land use permit processing regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council has played a quasi-judicial role in certain land use permits for many years; and WHEREAS, the city council has been deliberating whether to continue serving in that role; and WHEREAS, the city council understands that many citizens want the city council to serve in a quasi- judicial role, believing that the council would be more responsive to the desires of the public than a hearing examiner who is not elected; and WHEREAS, that desire of some of the public underscores one of the main difficulties with the council serving in that role, namely, that the council may be pressured to make a decision that may be contrary to the standards that the council has adopted to govern such decision -making; and WHEREAS, that difficulty also increases the legal risk to both city and to the councilmembers themselves; and WHEREAS, council engagement in quasi-judicial decision -making also prevents the city council from being able to freely discuss pending land use matters with constituents and suggests that councilmembers should not testify before the hearing examiner out of concern that they might later need to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal to the city council; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that it can adopt additional procedures that will ensure that the city council stays abreast of pending land use applications and that the public interest in access to justice is adequately addressed; now therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council intends to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the city council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. Packet Pg. 89 7.2.e Section 2. The city council hereby requests that city staff and the planning board prepare and forward to the city council revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that are consistent with this resolution. RESOLVED this day of August, 2016. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Pg. 90 7.2.f natural soil layer or soil amendment for any major land redevelopment. Preservation or creation of that type of soil characteristic could be included as a way of mitigating stormwater runoff impacts. Council President Wilson suggested coordinating the requirement for a thatched covering on exposed soil with Development Services. He learned recently that an 18" diameter tree holds 100 gallons of water and therefore removing trees impacts the capacity of a site to retain water. He asked how the City could incorporate retention of significant stands of trees into this Plan. Mr. Eubank advised that could be included as a policy objective in the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Council President Wilson commented he was specifically interested in preserving large stands of trees. Mr. Shuster recalled staff recently discussed the possibility of allowing stormwater credits as an incentive for retaining or adding certain size trees on a site. Councilmember Orvis asked if Development Service fees could be used to cover the cost of DOE's unfunded mandates. Mr. Bowman answered yes. Mr. Shuster advised approximately $50,000 of the Stormwater Program update was funded via a grant from DOE. With regard to tree preservation, Mr. Miller commented it was problematic to save trees that were uplifting sidewalks. He noted any trees that were removed were replanted. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 10. WORK SESSION ON RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES, CLOSED RECORD APPEALS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of tonight's presentation was to provide the Council an overview of the draft regulations, address any questions the Council may have and set March 17, 2009 for a public hearing on the proposed changes. He explained objectives of the rewrite were to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential liability, and 3) address Hearing Examiner procedural concerns. He identified the major proposed changes: • Establishing permit types. • Tables identifying the different permit types and the decision -making process. • Submission requirements and procedures. • Public notice requirements establishing the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the notice. • Establishing SEPA consistency regulations. • Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures. • Creating a new section dealing with Development Agreements. With regard to the fonnat, he envisioned Title 20 would be reformatted to place the process and procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures section would have seven subsections: • Chapter 20.01 - types of development project permit types • Chapter 20.02 - type I -IV development project permit applications • Chapter 20.03 - public notice • Chapter 20.04 - consistency with development regulations and SEPA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2009 Page 13 Packet Pg. 91 7.2.f Chapter 20.06 - open record public hearings Chapter 20.07 - closed record appeals Chapter 20.08 - development agreements Mr. Bowman displayed the development project permit application framework for decisions found in Chapter 20.01. He explained this was not in the current code and a person would need to search the code to find this information. The table defines the different permit types and the table in Chapter 20.02 identifies who makes a recommendation, who makes the final decision, whether a notice of application. was required, whether there was an open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision, whether there was a closed record review and judicial appeal. Mr. Bowman reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare the notice content and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. Affidavits for posting and mailing are required prior to any public hearing. Failure to provide proper notice will result in the project not going to public hearing or the appeal being dismissed. Mayor Haakenson asked how public notice was currently provided. Mr. Bowman answered the applicant/appellant submitted the mailing list and staff prepared and mailed the notice and posted the property. He advised some of the cost of the current process was passed on to the applicant. Councilmember Plunkett asked the standard used to determine if mailing was accomplished, recalling there have been instances when residents have claimed not to have received notification. Mr. Bowman answered along with the affidavit of mailing and posting, the applicant/appellant submitted their mailing list. Staff would also drive by the site to ensure posting was accomplished. Councilmember Plunkett asked how many other cities had the applicant do the public notice. Mr. Bowman answered he knew Bothell did but would research that for the March 17 public hearing. City Attorney Bio Park advised the affidavit was submitted under penalty of perjury. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.06, open record public hearings, establishes clear procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding the processing of reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof (in a permit applicant, the burden of proof is on the applicant; in an appeal the burden of proof is on the appellant/proponent). Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.04, consistency with development regulations and SEPA, formalized what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently covered. Councilmember Bernheim commented on the difficulty of evaluating the new code without reference to the existing code. Mr. Bowman explained the reason for the changes was to bring the code in line with the Regulatory Reform Act, to make the code easier to understand and to streamline information. He offered to provide citations to the existing code by March 6 to allow the Council to track the changes that were made and how they relate to the existing code. Council President Wilson agreed with the suggestion regarding addressing half of the amendments on March 17 and the other half the first Tuesday in April. Mayor Haakenson encouraged the Council to complete this by March 17 because Mr. Bowman was retiring on March 31 and no one else on staff had his institutional knowledge. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.07, closed record appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2009 Page 14 Packet Pg. 92 7.2.f appeal. Mr. Park commented there were a few substantive changes in this section including permitting parties of record to submit written arguments based on the record to the Council to avoid oral arguments that should not occur in a closed record appeal. Councilmember Plunkett commented that was a substantive change. Mr. Bowman offered to highlight that type of change in the code. He noted having argument submitted in writing made the Council's process much easier; the biggest problem with closed record reviews was the introduction of new information. Mayor Haakenson commented written argument also made it easier for the chair of the meeting, who must determine whether argument was on the record. Councilmember Plunkett stated there were some advantages but there were also disadvantages with not allowing oral argument. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.08, establishes a new section dealing with development agreements, establishes processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. He recalled the fee ordinance established fees for a development agreement to ensure the City Attorney and staff s time spent reviewing the development agreement were recovered. He explained development agreements required a public hearing before the City Council. Mr. Park explained a development agreement was an agreement in advance of development between the City and the proponent. The agreement establishes the standard of development and requirements that will apply to the development. He assured the regulations in place at the time the development agreement is established apply, there are no exceptions. Development agreements provide more consistency for a multi -stage development and provide ease of process. Councilmember Orvis recalled a development agreement case in Spokane where there were trades made between the City and the developer. Mr. Park answered the provisions of the development agreement must be consistent with the code at the time the agreement is established. He noted some codes allowed "trades" such as building height in exchange for open space, etc. Mr. Bowman encouraged Councilmembers to email him any questions prior to the public hearing. He agreed to provide the Council an annotated version of the ordinance that included citations to existing code sections and to identify substantive changes. Councilmember Orvis referred to the table in 20.01, types of development project permit types, and clarified preliminary plats, general variances and conditional use were moved from Type III-B to Type III -A. Mr. Bowman agreed, commenting there is currently a bifurcated process whereby a preliminary plat goes to the Council but the Planned Residential Development (PRD) goes to the Hearing Examiner. Because a developer typically does a preliminary plat at the time of a PRD, both should be in the same category. Mr. Bowman advised a site plan, shoreline substantial development variances and plat vacations were heard by the Hearing Examiner. The Council retains its authority over Architectural Design Board as the Hearing Examiner is not design -oriented. He advised the Planning Board conducted the open record hearing on site specific/contract rezones (Type IV-B) and the Council conducts the closed record appeal. He offered to also highlight changes made to the table. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 30 and the statement that applicants may submit written or oral argument. Mr. Bowman stated an appellant could submit oral argument, and suggested Council consider requiring argument be submitted in writing in advance of the hearing to ensure the record maintained its integrity. Judicial appeals considered whether the integrity of the hearing process was maintained. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on the March 17 agenda for a public hearing. Mr. Bowman offered to email responses to a Councilmember's questions to all Councilmembers and to provide a list of questions/answers at the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2009 Page 15 Packet Pg. 93 7.2.f Councilmember Bernheim recalled he submitted his application to the Group of 33 eight hours after the deadline and was not invited to participate. He favored including anyone who was interested on the Committee. Councilmember Wambolt commented deadlines should be adhered to unless there were extenuating reasons. He pointed out the Committee had been advertised for three weeks and there were already 53 members, an adequate representation from the community. He did not support accepting any additional applications. Councilmember Plunkett commented additional applicants should be welcomed and was in the spirit of openness and transparency. In view of the Council's support for accepting additional members, Council President Wilson advised he would support the motion. He noted Councilmember Wambolt and he had been meeting as the revenue work groups since November and encouraged other Councilmembers to participate in this process. Councilmember Wambolt asked how long applications would be accepted. Council President Wilson clarified the motion was to accept any application until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 23. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson advised the Committee meetings would be advertised as special meetings in the event four or more Councilmembers attended. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES, PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES CLOSED RECORD APPEALS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council had a work session on these amendments on February 24 and had been provided additional information prior to tonight at their request. The objectives of the rewrite are to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential liability, and 3) address Hearing Examiner procedural concerns. He identified the major proposed changes: • Establishing permit types. • Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision -making processes. • Submission requirements and procedures. • Change the public notice requirements to establish the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the notice. • Establishing SEPA consistency regulations. • Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures. • Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements. With regard to the format, Title 20 will be reformatted to replace the process and procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures section will have the following seven subsections: • Chapter 20.01 — Types of development project permit types • Chapter 20.02 — Type I -IV development project permit applications • Chapter 20.03 — Public notice requirements • Chapter 20.04 — Consistency with development regulations and SEPA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 7 Packet Pg. 94 7.2.f • Chapter 20.06 —Open record public hearings • Chapter 20.07 — Closed record appeals • Chapter 20.08 — Development Agreements He reviewed the table in Chapter 20.01 establishing the type for various permits and a second table in Chapter 20.01 that identified the decision process for all permit applications that addressed recommendation, final decision, notice of application, open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision, closed record review and judicial appeal. Mr. Bowman reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare the notice and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. Affidavits for posting and mailing are required prior to any public hearing. Failure to provide proper notice will result in beginning the process again. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.04 requires consistency with development regulations and SEPA. This chapter formalized what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently addressed in the code. Chapter 20.06, open record public hearings, establishes clear procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding the processing of reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof. Chapter 20.07, closed record appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.08, development agreements, is a new section that addresses development agreements, establishes the processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. Councilmember Plunkett asked for an approximation of how many permit types the proposed changes would remove the City Council from considering in a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Bowman estimated 5-6 and offered to identify specifically which ones. Councilmember Bernheim recalled he requested a transition table. Mr. Bowman answered that was sent to the Council on March 6. He provided a comparison of the proposed amendment to the existing code: • Types of project permit applications — proposed Chapter 20.01, compared to staff review in 20.95 and 21.00 under Hearing Examiner, Planning Board and City Council review. • Development project permit applications — proposed Chapter 20.02, compared to 20.95 Application and Review • Public Notice — proposed Chapter 20.03, compared to Chapter 20.91 Public hearings and Notice • Consistency with development regulations and SEPA; new, therefore there is no comparison • Open record public hearings — proposed Chapter 20.06, compared to 21.00 Hearing Examiner, Planning Board and City Council review • Closed record appeals proposed Chapter 20.07, compared to 21.05 Appeals and Court Review • Development Agreements 20.08, new, therefore no comparison. Mr. Snyder pointed out this was a complete rewrite/restructure, therefore it was difficult to make comparisons between the existing code and the new code. He explained the City's original code provisions date from 1980. Since then, SEPA, Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and other state imposed changes have been added to the code, making it very unwieldy, particularly the appeal process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 8 Packet Pg. 95 7.2.f Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, acknowledged this issue was complex. He questioned whether the proposed changes reduced public oversight and transparency to land use decisions. He viewed the Council as a check and balance in decisions. He recalled comments by residents during a neighborhood meeting at Seaview Elementary that most had day jobs and did not have time to invest reviewing development proposals versus developers for whom that was their day job. This placed residents at a disadvantage and they relied on the Council to provide the check and balance. He urged the Council to consider how checks and balances and oversight were provided in the process. Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented the recommended amendments to Chapter 20, particularly to Chapter 20.06, made it extremely difficult and onerous for citizens to appeal decisions of the ADB, etc. by adding many hurdles and costs to the process. She noted the filing process was very cumbersome and she questioned the deadline for filing appeals, at 12:00 p.m. rather than the end of the business day. She also preferred appeals be directly to the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner or a higher court. She noted elected officials knew the rules and were just as smart as the Hearing Examiner. She commented decisions by the Hearing Examiner that result in higher court trials were an unnecessary expense to the City. She urged the Council to reconsider the amendments in Chapter 20.06, fording most unnecessary, burdensome and expensive. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed interest in transparency for the public. She referred to Planning Board Member Reed's request for a spreadsheet in January 2008 that identified the City's current review process, advising that information was not available to the public. She acknowledged the code had been rewritten but the public should have access to the same information the Council was provided. She urged the Council to reject the amendments because the process had not been transparent. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out this was a huge document and required supervision via the appeal process. Rather than appeals going to Superior Court, he preferred they be to the City Council. Via the appeal process, the Council had the opportunity to learn about problems with new regulations. He disagreed with the change in the notice/posting requirement, commenting the City was experienced with that process whereas it would be new to an applicant and there was potential for error. He suggested the deadline for submitting appeals be consistent such as 5:00 p.m. He referred to the appeal regarding the PRD on the former Woodway Elementary site, commenting if the Council had been able to make a decision on perimeter, the City, the applicant and the appellant could have saved a great deal of money and a decision could have been made much sooner. He suggested since the document was so voluminous and contained so many new procedures, the Council hold a second public hearing. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed with the suggestion to make the submission deadline consistent. Next, he explained the GMA and the Regulatory Reform Act put citizens at a disadvantage and developers at an advantage in establishing a record with regard to land use decisions. The Regulatory Reform Act attempted to shift what the legislature saw as inappropriate political intrusion into the process by imposing very tight guidelines regarding what could be heard and when it could be heard. He noted 95% of the document was boilerplate and reflected either case law or Regulatory Reform. He explained there was no way for the Council to make a situation right and be a judge; in a quasi judicial decision, the Council must follow the law and could not make a legislative decision. He emphasized regardless of who held the hearing, there must be a complete record and basic due process requirements and rules of evidence must be observed. With regard to the Burnstead appeal referenced by Mr. Hertrich, Mr. Snyder questioned whether the City had 16-20 hours to hear an appeal. One of the reasons a Hearing Examiner was used to hold that type of hearing was to establish a clear record developed by a professional that could now be reviewed on appeal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 9 Packet Pg. 96 7.2.f With regard to the public's comments regarding the unnecessary expense of Superior Court review, Mr. Snyder pointed out that was a requirement of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA); land use permit decisions were appealable to Superior Court. He explained when staff began this rewrite approximately 18 months ago, the intent was to place the legal requirements on the City Council and Hearing Examiner in one place in a straightforward manner. If the Council held a second public hearing, he suggested focusing on the policy decision changes. He offered to provide a citation from the GMA, LUPA, Regulatory Reform, etc. whenever the City was obligated to do things in a certain manner. He summarized most of the decision making process was not discretionary; what the Council hears and whether it goes to the Council or Hearing Examiner is a policy decision, other issues such as burden of proof are dictated by case law or statute. Mr. Bowman commented if the Council chose to hold a second public hearing one of the key policy issues was shifting the responsibility for public notice to the applicant. He noted as staff was reduced, it was appropriate to shift that responsibility. With regard to where the Council would be removed from quasi judicial hearings, he confinned under the proposed amendments that would occur in five incidences: conditional use permit; variances; preliminary plat and major amendments to a plat; shoreline substantial development permits and variances; and draft EIS/SEPA. Contrary to Ms. Larman's comment, the Council would retain the appeal on ADB decisions on major design appeals. Mr. Snyder advised the City currently had a provision that violated state law; a wide open permit review procedure. In accordance with case law, only conditional use permits with a specific condition can be reviewed; all other permits, once final, cannot be revoked. The City's current ordinance allows reopening of an approved permit. Councilmember Orvis observed the Planning Board recommended the City Council be removed from quasi judicial hearings and asked whether the Planning Board had considered decisions made by the City Council versus decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Planning Board reviewed any case law. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Park and Mr. Snyder provided legal advice during discussions. Mr. Snyder advised removing the Council from quasi judicial decisions was the recommendation of Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) because the pressure for Councils to make things right in a political sense was the biggest source of liability statewide. He reminded of the Hotel Group application which if appealed the City likely would have lost. Mr. Bowman recalled the Planning Board discussed Nycrum v Chelan County and Mission Springs v Spokane during their deliberations. Mr. Snyder observed Councilmember Orvis' point was if done right, the Council was no more liable than a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the court cases where the Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner versus disagreed with the Hearing Examiner had been reviewed. He recalled three decisions in which the City was overturned where the City Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner. He referred to Lutheran Daycare v Snohomish County, a Hearing Examiner decision to deny a conditional use permit that the Council agreed with and then received an arbitrary and capricious ruling. He concluded using the Hearing Examiner to make decisions did not prevent arbitrary and capricious rulings. Mr. Bowman agreed, pointing out the odds were reduced significantly. He noted the City's current Hearing Examiners were all attorneys and very good at what they did. Mr. Snyder expressed his preference not to discuss the Burnstead case until the order was in. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council could speak to the judge's opinion on the Burnstead case. Mr. Snyder noted there were 43 grounds for appeal, the judge overturned 40 and 3 were upheld but the order regarding the remedy, whether remanded to the City or cleared up by the order, has not yet been determined. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether he could speak to the judge's published opinion in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 10 Packet Pg. 97 7.2.f the Burnstead case. Mr. Snyder explained the opinion was not final and was appealable. If the Council wished to discuss it, he preferred to recess to Executive Session. Councilmember Plunkett observed there were other policy issues in the proposed amendments in addition to the public notice and quasi judicial public hearing such as the requirement for argument to be in writing and development agreements. Mr. Bowman viewed the development agreement as a regulation rather than a policy question. He agreed the requirement for argument to be in writing was a policy decision. If the Council chose to retain its position as the arbitrator before appealing to court, he highly recommended argument be in writing. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a development agreement could be a policy decision. Mr. Snyder explained the ability for a development agreement is provided for by state statute. The purpose of including it in the code was to address an issue a citizen raised regarding where development agreements were addressed in the code. Mr. Snyder advised these amendments also clarify written appeal requirements which he viewed as a due process requirement. He agreed the requirement for written submissions rather than oral presentation to the Council on appeal was a policy decision for the Council. Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether the City had to allow development agreements. Mr. Snyder advised they were provided for in State law and an applicant could apply for one; the City had the option of saying no. In response to Ms. Larman's comments regarding the Council being as smart as the Hearing Examiner, Councilmember Wambolt disagreed, pointing out the Hearing Examiners are very competent and more experienced than he is in land use matters. He preferred the Hearing Examiner remain involved in decisions. With regard to Mr. Senderoff's preference for the Council to be involved in decisions, he acknowledged citizens wanted the Council involved because they were elected. He noted the WCIA preferred the Hearing Examiner make decisions rather than the City Council. Mr. Snyder relayed the WCIA recommended the Hearing Examiner be used as much as possible. He recommended hearings be held by a Hearing Examiner regardless of whether the Council retained the decision -making authority on appeal, recognizing the difficulty for elected officials to say no to evidence that was not on the record. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich regarding the notice requirement, observing it would be difficult for someone not skilled in that process. He asked whether the recommendation to shift the responsibility for the notice/posting was in anticipation of a reduction in staff. Mr. Bowman acknowledged it was likely there would be a reduction in staff and if the responsibility were not shifted, it would be one more thing for the reduced staff to do. He assured having the applicant do the noticing worked; he was involved in making that change in Bothell and received only one complaint regarding notice requirements in six years. Councilmember Bernheim asked how late the city offices were open. Mr. Bowman answered 4:30 p.m. Councilmember Bernheim suggested the 5:00 p.m. deadline be changed to 4:30 p.m. He agreed it should be consistent throughout the document and suggested "close of business hours." Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there had been any other cases decided by the Hearing Examiner and appealed to Superior Court that were reversed/modified. Neither Mr. Bowman nor Mr. Snyder could recall any other than the Burnstead case. Councilmember Bernheim was in favor of having the applicant post/mail notice, commenting in most instances the applications would be submitted by experienced developers. Mr. Bowman agreed that would be the case in the vast majority of instances. Councilmember Bernheim asked what type of case a citizen would be required to provide notice. Mr. Bowman answered it would most likely be an appeal. Councilmember Bernheim observed the City could provide notice for citizen appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 11 Packet Pg. 98 7.2.f COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PERMIT PROCESSING AND PROCEDURES. It was the consensus of the Council to change 5:00 p.m. in the code to 4:30 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS, TO REVERT THOSE DECISIONS SO THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Bowman explained under Type III -A the Council would not be reviewing preliminary plats, general variances, sign permit variances, and conditional use, shoreline substantial development and variances and plat vacations and alterations. With the amendment proposed by Councilmember Orvis, those would become Type III-B. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, WAMBOLT AND OLSON OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mitchell Stern, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their time and service to the community. He recognized the closure of Yost Pool was about dollars, noting it was also about part-time jobs for high school and college students, physical and mental health for adults and children, increased demand due to the projected closure of the Lynnwood pool for the summer 2010 and possibly 2011, obesity related health issues, the uniqueness of this facility, and the revenue potential from residents inside and outside Edmonds. He recommended review and refinement of all aspects of revenues and expenditures associated with Yost Pool to ensure its operation was self-sustaining. He recommended a Yost Pool Committee be created to do an in-depth review of the issues and return with a full recommendation regarding projected operation for the summer 2009 and beyond. He expressed his willingness to participate on the committee. Janis Freeman, Edmonds, announced the next meeting of Sustainable Edmonds on Saturday, March 21 at the Port of Edmonds Conference Room from 2:00 — 4:00 p.m. The topic will be "The Edible Garden, Growing Food in Our Own Yards" and three expert gardeners will share their knowledge. She advised everyone was welcome and there was no charge although donations were welcome. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented on her involvement in the dog park community and the art community. She relayed three friends received a letter on the Mayor's stationary that appealed for participation on the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and stating the levy committee would be formed to discuss the City's future and determine what services were important to the citizens of Edmonds. It further stated severe cuts would begin immediately without citizen input on services and named several such as Yost Pool and the Discovery Program. The letter was followed by the Mayor's press release on Friday stating these cuts had already been made. With these cuts already in place, it appeared the citizens Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 12 Packet Pg. 99 7.2.f pursuing studies in musical theater. Elizabeth Melnikas is a talented musician who plays the flute and the saxophone and plans a performing and teaching career in the arts. And, Ingrid Porter is a dancer with a promising career in the art of dance. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT LEVY PROPOSAL AND DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING 2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY. Mayor Haakenson explained the draft levy proposal and resolution were developed by Council President Wilson and neither staff nor the Council had the opportunity to provide input yet. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, asked whether the funds from the levy would be sufficient for the future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his concern with specifying certain uses for the levy funds because residents would expect the funds be used for those purposes; however, staff had the ability to transfer money via Interfund Transfers that was only approved by the Council after the fact. He recommended changing the process to require Council approval of Interfund Transfers before they occurred. In response to Mr. Rutledge's question whether this was the final levy, Council President Pro Tern Wambolt answered this would be the last levy until the next one, anticipating this would not be the Last levy in the City's history. If the levy passed, he was hopeful there would be enough revenue growth during those years and that the legislature would allow cities to raise property taxes by an amount greater than I %. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments, Council President Pro Tern Wambolt pointed out if the levy passed, none of the City's services would be enhanced and there would be additional cuts if the levy did not pass. The levy was required to maintain the status quo with the exception of the cuts made by Mayor Haakenson in March. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20 RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES CLOSED RECORD APPEALS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was the second public hearing on amendments to Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code; the first hearing was held in March. He explained this was part of the overall code rewrite; the objectives of the code rewrite were to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential for legal liability, and 3) address the Hearing Examiner's procedural concerns. He identified the major proposed changes: • Establishing permit types. • Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision -making processes. • Submission requirements and procedures. • Change public notice requirements and procedures to require the permit applicant to provide the notice. • Establishing SEPA consistency regulations. • Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures. • Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 4 Packet Pg. 100 7.2.f With regard to the format, Title 20 will be reformatted to place the process and procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures section will have the following seven subsections: • Chapter 20.01 — Types of development project permit types • Chapter 20.02 — Type I -IV development project permit applications • Chapter 20.03 — Public notice requirements • Chapter 20.04 — Consistency with development regulations and SEPA • Chapter 20.06 —Open record public hearings • Chapter 20.07 — Closed record appeals • Chapter 20.08 — Development Agreements He reviewed a matrix in Chapter 20.01 that identified the permit type and decision process. He reviewed a second matrix that identified the procedures for Type I — V permits that addressed recommendation, final decision, notice of application, open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision, closed record review and judicial appeal. Mr. Chave reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare the notice and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. The code contains requirements regarding when and where notice must be provided. Failure to provide proper notice will result in beginning the process again. He noted this change would also reduce administrative costs to the City. Mr. Chave explained Chapter 20.04 requires consistency with development regulations and SEPA. This chapter codifies what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently addressed in the code. Chapter 20.06, Open Record Public Hearings, establishes clear procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding processing reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof. Chapter 20.07, Closed Record Appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes a consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Mr. Chave recalled former Development Services Director Duane Bowman identified five areas where the Council would no longer be involved in appeals under the proposed regulations: 1) appeals of Conditional Use Permits 2) variances, 3) preliminary plat/major amendments to a plat, 4) shoreline substantial development variance permits and 4) appeals of Draft EIS or SEPA decisions. Mr. Chave explained Chapter 20.08, Development Agreements, is a new section that addresses development agreements, establishes the processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. Mr. Chave identified the following reasons for having the Council involved in quasi judicial decisions: 1. Council is representative. 2. Council is elected. 3. Highest local authority. 4. Can better monitor and understand interaction between policy and decision. 5. Cost to go to court. Mr. Chave identified the following reasons for not having the Council involved in quasi judicial decisions: 1. Very limited latitude in quasi judicial matters. 2. Restricts ability to discuss with citizens. 3. Freedom to get involved in public design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 5 Packet Pg. 101 7.2.f 4. Quasi judicial decisions must be decided professionally not legislatively. 5. Liability 6. Political process best for legislative matters. 7. Intermediate step — still have ability for court appeal. Mr. Chave clarified under the proposed ordinance, the Council retains the ability for a quasi judicial appeal on major ADB projects. He recommended the City regularly update the code rather than waiting for a major code rewrite such as was occurring now. With regard to shoreline appeals, he clarified the Council did not currently make a decision, they only ruled on the appeal. The final decision was made by the Shoreline Hearings Board. With regard to substantial development permits, the decision was made at the Hearing Examiner level but it was reviewed by the State. With regard to CUPs, preliminary plat decisions, the Council would be removed from the appeal process. However, in his experience, attorneys were usually involved at the appeal level under the current process. Councilmember Plunkett noted another significant change was in a closed record appeal, the applicant, appellant and parties of records must submit materials in writing. Mr. Chave explained the code currently allowed parties to make argument based on the record at the closed record appeal but they were not allowed to introduce new factual information. Under the proposed rules, verbal argument would not be allowed and argument was confined to written statements. He explained with verbal argument, it was virtually impossible during a hearing to determine whether or not information was new. However, having the information provided in writing would allow a determination to be made whether the information was part of the record and not new information that could potentially prejudice the appeal hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked who would redact the written statements submitted for a closed record appeal and if the information were redacted, how would the Council be informed. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered he disliked interrupting speakers during a closed record appeal when it appeared their commentary was outside the record. He envisioned it would be up to the other party to object to anything in the written materials submitted for the closed record appeal; staff and he would prefer not to redact any materials. He summarized staff would review the materials submitted but it would be up to a party to object if they believed information was being injected into the record. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated the Council would then receive two or more opinions on what materials should be redacted, from the applicant and appellant and possibly other parties of record. Mr. Snyder envisioned a rule would be established to allow written objection to anything in the record and the Council would make an initial determination before beginning its deliberations to dispose of any procedural objections. Mr. Snyder commented this would also provide a discussion on the record and an indication regarding what material was considered. Councilmember Bernheim asked how the Hearing Examiner was selected and appointed. Mayor Haakenson advised Council representatives participated in the interview process; Council President Pro Tern Wambolt and Councilmember Orvis participated in the interview and selection of the current Hearing Examiner. Mr. Chave summarized the Council's involvement was via the interview process and approving the Hearing Examiner's contract. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the five decisions the Council would no longer participate in, CUP, general variances and sign permit variances, preliminary plats, shoreline development and draft EIS and asked what discretion there was in approving/denying an appeal. Mr. Chave answered the rules were quite strict; there were specific criteria in the code with regard to variances and the Hearing Examiner has been very strict about applying them. CUPs also have specific criteria. Shoreline permits, whether a shoreline substantial development permit or a variance, must comply with the Shoreline Master Program which is the reason the State retains authority over the shoreline pen -nits. Local jurisdictions when Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 6 Packet Pg. 102 7.2.f enacting and enforcing a Shoreline Master Program are acting as the State's agent. Preliminary plat is a ministerial decision, applying the criteria, and there is very little discretion. With regard to SEPA, Mr. Chave clarified it was not a decision on an EIS but a threshold determination, whether additional study was needed. It was often difficult to explain to the public that if they were interested in the project, they needed to participate in the hearing about the project because design issues, etc. were not environmental impacts that would be addressed by SEPA. He summarized SEPA was a very technical analysis and did not lend itself to discretionary decision. Mr. Snyder commented the difficulty was applying the Substantial and Competent Evidence Doctrine. He acknowledged the process was inherently skewed in favor of the developer who will retain experts and give a series of expert opinions or address facts in the record. The difficulty for citizens was they often raised questions but seldom provided evidence. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was possible for the Council and Hearing Examiner to reach different conclusions when reviewing the same record. Mr. Snyder agreed decisions were often close. He noted Washington Cities Insurance Authority's (WCIA) concern about liability was based on their experience with City Councils being susceptible to argument to make something right. Councilmember Orvis referred to Councilmembers being personally liable, noting in the Spokane case the Council injected themselves into a ministerial decision, they were acting outside what State law allowed and their attorney advised them not to. He summarized for a Councilmember to be personally liable they would have to do something really unwise. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt pointed out the list of reasons why to have the Council involved in quasi judicial decision -making and why not to have the Council involved, Exhibit 5, was added since the March 17 hearing. All the other information was the same. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would take comment tonight and deliberate on May 19. He opened the public participation portion of the public hearing John Reed, Edmonds, a member of the Planning Board, advised the Planning Board held 7 meetings on revisions to Chapter 20 from mid-2007 to March 2008. He was opposed to some of the proposed changes, pointing out citizens directly affected by land use decisions began the process at a disadvantage because staff and developers understand the process. Citizens do not understand the process and often come into the process late and are not aware how to proceed. He pointed out many issues are discussed and decided by the Planning Board with little or no public input because citizens know they can present their case to the Council. He requested the Council make two changes to Chapter 20, 1) restore the Council's role as quasi judicial authority from which they were proposed to be removed, and 2) restore verbal argument to the quasi judicial appeal process; Councilmembers needed to hear citizens' emotions. The Planning Board spent 10 months and 7 meetings developing the proposed amendment; the Council should take the necessary time before taking action on these important changes. He urged the Council to increase citizens' opportunity for land use participation as well as increase the Council's role in these decisions. He disagreed with the Council effectively telling citizens if they disagreed with something happening next door, their only option was to hire an attorney and go to court; many could not afford to do so and would not take that step. He urged the Council before voting on these changes to explain to the citizen why they were voting in the manner they did. Dr. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented it was ironic while Americans were demanding more oversight and transparency in government, the Council was considering this legislation. He recalled his earlier comments regarding how the Council would provide checks and balances regarding land use issues when they would no longer be the highest decision maker. He disagreed that the Council did not have an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 7 Packet Pg. 103 7.2.f oversight responsibility, pointing out the U.S. Congress was a legislative branch that had oversight responsibility. He disagreed with staffs indication that Council would have more oversight via the ability to discuss citizens concerns on specific projects because they will not be involved in quasi judicial hearings. He pointed out the difficulty for citizens to keep abreast of issues before Council as well as before the Hearing Examiner and assumed even the Council may not be aware of permits before the Hearing Examiner. He understood quasi judicial cases were challenging for the Council because they must follow the law, pointing out true leaders accept the responsibility of explaining the requirements to constituents. He questioned how Councilmembers could position themselves as environmental proponents while voting to reduce public oversight and transparency over shoreline substantial development and shoreline variances. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented the first time she spoke regarding Chapter 20 was in regard to the lack of transparency to the public when they were not provided the matrixes. She received the matrixes 10 days later and found them very insightful, illustrating that the Council would be removed from decisions on substantial shoreline variances. She stressed the Council should be responsible for hearing citizens and responsible for reviewing development on the Edmonds shoreline. Betty Larman, Edmonds, recalled her appeal of a building permit to the Council on which the Council agreed. She thanked Council President Pro Tem Wambolt for removing this item from the Consent Agenda. She expressed concern with how quickly four Councilmembers passed the amendment, commenting they had reneged their responsibility by agreeing to allow the Hearing Examiner to hear appeals. She disputed the argument that the Hearing Examiner was more knowledgeable, pointing out several decisions have been lost on appeal. She observed staff wanted the Council to remove themselves from difficult decisions which she viewed as weakening the City as it did not allow citizens to have their voice heard without going to court. She urged the Council to uphold citizens' rights to come to their elected representatives and for the Council to hear, not read, their comments regarding important issues. She summarized the Council should be the final authority on all appeals and urged the Council to reject the ordinance as written. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented when he was on the Council, he considered it the highest honor to act as a judge in quasi judicial matters. Removing the Council from that role diminishes their ability to represent the community. He referred to the matrixes and suggested adding descriptions about the permit types and who was responsible for each decision. He asserted by removing themselves from final authority on final plats, the Council was in violation of its responsibility. He urged the Council to take as much time as the Planning Board to review and make a decision on the proposed amendments. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attends many Planning Board, Architectural Design Board and Hearing Examiner meetings. He pointed out at Hearing Examiner meetings, the Hearing Examiner will often ask for comments in writing to ensure clarity. He asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to comment on the lengthy Burnstead court case. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing In response to Mr. Rutledge's comment, Mr. Snyder responded the Burnstead appeal was very atypical in the length of time, the level of briefing, and the number of hours and was hopefully an anomaly. He commented the belief that having the Council in the process would affect appeals one way or another was erroneous. Whether a citizen or developer, it was likely a close decision would be appealed and the LUPA process was typically fairly quick. He did not anticipate having the Council involved in the process would change the number of appeals that occurred. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 8 Packet Pg. 104 7.2.f picked up Sunday morning. She applauded the City's Parks & Recreation Department employees for their hard work. She reiterated the suggestion she made at the Citizen Levy Review Committee meetings to install a parking fee kiosk at Marina Beach Park as a pilot project. She reported on the popularity of the dog park; they use 12,000 bags a month in the winter/spring months and 24,000 bags in the summer. She relayed dog park and Marina Park users' willingness to pay for parking, remarking the fees collected could fund 1-2 City employees. She noted 27% of the State's park budget was from user fees. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, described his visit to the new ACE Hardware and his inability to find the entrance or a sign directing him to the entrance. He was told by the store manager who he encountered on. the street that the City would not allow him to put up better entrance signage. He assumed for a business to be successful, customers must be able to find the entrance and recommended the City proactively work with a new business before they opened particularly in an unfinished building. He summarized the Council talked about economic development but did not seem to recognize how to help ensure new businesses get off to a good start let alone create a vision that finds synergy between residents, businesses, property management companies and developers. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wambolt's report regarding meetings with Fire District 1 and relayed residents' concern with the source of the money and the cost to the Edmonds taxpayer. Next, he advised the Sno-Isle Library was considering asking voters for an increase and suggested the Council state their position with regard to a Sno-Isle Library levy. He also informed that the Edmonds School District planned to place a capital levy on the 2010 ballot. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, encouraged the public to speak at the June 2 public hearing regarding the utility tax increase on water. Next, he encouraged the Council to discontinue their discussion regarding a plastic bag ban, finding that effort a waste of time. He noted citizens were more concerned about the economy, the budget, etc. and the Council should be discussing how to reduce salaries and realign staff. Susan Paine, Edmonds, encouraged the Council not to cut the street trees downtown. She understood they disrupted the sidewalk but encouraged the Council to consider other ways to address that issue such as grates. She explained the trees downtown offer a human scale in an urban environment. She preferred the larger trees that contributed to ambiance of the City's quaint older style to the recently planted small trees that do not contribute to the visual environment. In response to Mr. Rutledge's comment regarding Fire District 1, Councilmember Wambolt clarified the City did not need to come up with any money; Fire District 1 needed to identify the funds to purchase the Fire Department's capital equipment. The $l million per year he referred to at the last meeting was the savings to the City's General Fund if the proposal with Fire District 1 were finalized. 6. CONSIDERATION OF AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20 RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES, PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES, CLOSED RECORD APPEALS, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. After listening to public comment at several hearings and during public comment, City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated there were three issues that needed to be addressed, 1) the perception that the changes in Title 20 would limit communications between the public and the Council, 2) a belief that having matters come to the Council will give citizens "home field advantage," and 3) a confusion of the issue of legal cause with legal liability. Regardless of whether the Council stays in the quasi judicial role or not, citizens' expectations of how the Council would act in a quasi judicial capacity must be reasonable. He recalled a comment at the last Council meeting praising the way the hearing regarding short term rentals Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 5 Packet Pg. 105 7.2.f was conducted. He pointed out when the Council sat as a legislative body, people could say anything, the Council could consider any facts and talk to anyone; there were few limits on what the Council could consider. Conversely, when the Council sat in a quasi judicial capacity, there were strict rules regarding communications with the public and what the Council could consider. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the Council not have contact with any of the parties or their constituents regarding pending matters. The Council cannot engage in comment with the public on matters going through the design process if they come to the Council and all the Council can consider is the record created at the initial proceeding which the Council does not conduct. Mr. Snyder commented there was a perception at the public hearing that if the Council remained involved in appeals, citizens have a home field advantage. He agreed there were close cases and if the Council was the decision -maker, they could decide those close cases. One of the difficulties and the reason WCIA was concerned was as elected politicians, the Council was used to trying to satisfy the public's will. He quoted from Washington cases that community displeasure cannot be the basis for permit denial. He noted one of the reasons City Council decisions were "tagged" more often than Hearing Examiner decisions with liability claims and large awards was the process was not as controlled and things tend to be said to Councilmembers that create a record that gives rise to liability. He provided another quote, while community sentiment can be instrumental in the development of zoning requirements in the planning process, it cannot alone form the basis of the zoning decision. He pointed out if the Council retains the role of a quasi judicial body, it must apply the criteria in the code in the same manner the Hearing Examiner does. He acknowledged WCIA was concerned with liability for Councilmember decisions versus Hearing Examiner decisions. It was not necessarily that Hearing Examiner decisions were overturned more or less than City Councils, but City Council decisions more often gave rise to large liability awards than Hearing Examiners do because of the surrounding circumstances. He referred to Councilmember Orvis' reference to the Mission Springs case where the Spokane City Council got involved in a permit they should not have. He noted a more relevant case was the West Mark City of Burien case that resulted in a $10.7 million award for delays in the issuance of the SEPA permit. In that instance, the 216-unit apartment building on the waterfront in Burien was extremely unpopular in the community. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Edmonds Hearing Examiner did SEPA appeals now. Mr. Snyder responded SEPA appeals were one of the items proposed to be removed. Mr. Snyder explained one of the reasons liability was a concern to City Attorneys, City Councils and the WCIA was due to the way the rules have been established. Under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) each party bears its own costs in Superior Court. If the case is appealed, the loser pays which is the reason most LUPA cases are resolved at the Superior Court level. During the course of Regulatory Reform, the legislature created incentives/penalties for City Council to stay as neutral as possible. Chapter 64.40 of the WAC establishes damages, attorney fees and costs for any delay in the permit process beyond 120 days. If a decision is found to be arbitrary and capricious the City is subject under constitutional law and state statute for delay damages and takings claims. RCW 82.02.020 creates liability for the City monetarily, attorney fees and damages if excessive development fees are required. He summarized it was not that the City Council could not do it right, he assured they could. But citizens should understand regardless of whether they go to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, what they say will be limited, how they say it will be limited, what the Council can consider is limited and community displeasure cannot play any role in the decision -making process. At the legislative level, public sentiment is an important factor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 6 Packet Pg. 106 7.2.f Councilmember Orvis agreed if a Hearing Examiner or a City Council decided to impose arbitrary and capricious standards on an applicant, they could be tagged for damages. And if the Council in order to avoid being arbitrary and capricious began to ignore law, they would encounter a problem with WCIA such as in Ridack v. Gunderson. Mr. Snyder commented Ridack v. Gunderson was an isolated situation and the remedy today would be a LUPA appeal. He emphasized the Council or the Hearing Examiner must enforce the code the way it is written and it did not matter if that was unpopular. Councilmember Orvis referred to a Seattle case where the mayor waived fire codes to allow the homeless to continue to occupy a building. The building subsequently burned and the city took liability. Seattle has also been tagged for being arbitrary and capricious. He commented the Council was protected in both those situations if they fairly and objectively argued code. Mr. Snyder explained the public appeared to have a perception that the rules would be more favorable by retaining the Council as the decision -maker. He emphasized the rules must be the same regardless of where the appeal takes place. With regard to the Council's role in shoreline decisions, Planning Manager Rob Chave explained shoreline regulations originated with the federal government via the Coastal Zone Management Act and the federal government allowed states to develop a method of regulating the shorelines. In turn, the state basically delegates to local governments the ability to regulate shorelines by adopting the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) which is approved by the state; essentially the city is acting as an agent of the state. Exempt activities under shorelines are identified in the WAC and the city has no control over whether they are exempt or not. Shoreline substantial development permits go to the Hearing Examiner and are potentially appealable to the City Council. Once the local decision is made, it is sent to the state where there is a waiting period during which the state assesses the decision to determine whether they want to challenge it. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and variances are approved by the state. Mr. Chave reviewed an example of the ability to appeal: In 2003 Washington State Ferries (WSF) asked for a CUP under shorelines for the overhead loading; they had allowed a previous CUP to lapse. The permit went to the Hearing Examiner and conditions were imposed setting a timeframe for the overhead loading to be in that location and at the expiration of that time period it needed to be moved or the state needed to apply for another CUP. The state did not appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. The local decision was finalized and sent to the State Department of Ecology (DOE) for approval, denial or imposition of different conditions on the CUP. DOE agreed with the Hearing Examiner and formalized the decision. WSF appealed DOE's decision to the Shoreline Hearings Board. The Hearings Board agreed with DOE and the Hearing Examiner and imposed the same conditions. WSF eventually appealed to Superior Court where the shoreline decision was nullified on the basis the overhead loading was an essential public facility which overrides the local decision -making authority. He summarized even with the Council's ability to act as an appellate in shoreline cases, the Council's decision could be completely ignored. Councilmember Wambolt recalled a citizen stated if this change were made, staff could allow developers to waive shoreline environmental regulations, reduce setbacks or allow taller buildings and these issues could not be appealed to elected officials. He asked whether building heights could be changed without the approval of the City Council. Mr. Chave answered no, advising those requirements were in the zoning code or the SMP. Councilmember Orvis recalled the Hearing Examiner had approved at least two height limit variances for PFDs. Mr. Chave responded height variances are occasionally heard by the Hearing Examiner and are very narrowly decided. Shoreline variances were different. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Hearing Examiner had considered setback variances. Mr. Chave agreed there could be and have been decisions by the Hearing Examiner on setbacks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 7 Packet Pg. 107 7.2.f COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC CHAPTER 20. Councilmember Wambolt commented he was sensitive to concerns that staff could do things that the Council was not aware of. He recalled this occurred with several condominium projects that received ADB approval, yet what was constructed was not what was approved due to changes approved by staff. However, he questioned whether all of a developer's minor changes should be presented to the Council. He was satisfied with the amendments to Chapter 20 and appreciated the tutorial provided by Mr. Snyder. If these amendments created a great deal of problems, they could be changed. Councilmember Plunkett agreed the Council was capable of sitting as quasi judicial members because the City has one of the most experienced mayors in the state who has demonstrated the ability to fairly and judiciously mediate quasi judicial hearings. The City has the best municipal attorney in the state. The City Council had proven numerous times in quasi judicial hearings that they are judicious and thoughtful. He did not support moving more land use decisions to attorneys, judges, Hearing Examiner and staff and reducing public hearings at the Council level. He did not support the proposed motion. Councilmember Orvis was opposed to the motion because it limited the public's ability to communicate with the Council by not allowing oral argument. He recalled Betty Larman's presentation to the Council regarding Old Mill Town was legal, addressed the code, did not stray from the record and cited examples that showed how the application did not meet the code. That type of argument would no longer be allowed; only written argument would be allowed. Second, he did support an ordinance that would allow staff or the Hearing Examiner to change and waive codes via a variance. He stressed changing code was the Council's job and the Council should hear all variances with a recommendation to the Council by the Hearing Examiner. He noted variances could be made for height limits, setbacks and for the environment. With regard to liability protection, he noted the Planning Board did not cite any Council actions that had exposed the City to liability. This Council has a great quasi judicial record and have been overturned only twice recently, both times when the Council agreed with the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Orvis commented the WCIA's statewide recommendation was due to other Councils' mistakes; the Edmonds Council has not been overturned for disagreeing with the Hearing Examiner. Recently a Hearing Examiner made a decision that was not appealable to the Council but the Council became involved when the City was sued. He referred to a Snohomish County case versus a Lutheran Church where the County agreed with the Hearing Examiner decision on a CUP and was tagged for being arbitrary and capricious. He summarized arbitrary and capricious decisions could be made by a Council or a Hearing Examiner and allowing the Hearing Examiner to make a final decision did not protect the City from liability. Councilmember Wambolt noted Councilmember Orvis' comments about the Council's record were likely correct; fortunately quasi judicial hearings were not common occurrences. He noted although the current City Council had a good record, that may not be the case for future Councils. Councilmember Bernheim spoke in favor of retaining City Council review because it kept the Council directly involved. For appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision, the Council can defer to the Hearing Examiner's review. In cases when the right decision could be either way he wanted the City Council to make those decisions. He agreed these appeals did not occur very often and therefore it was not a burden on the Council. It would keep the Council involved and when there was room for discretion, it allowed the Council to exercise it. Council President Wilson recalled he made the original motion to direct staff to prepare the ordinance. Since then he has wavered in his decision. He recalled when the issue arose in regard to a PRD, he did Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 8 Packet Pg. 108 7.2.f not support sending PRDs to the Hearing Examiner. He referred to Councilmember Orvis' comment that the Hearing Examiner could approve variances for setback and heights, a situation he was not comfortable with. He was uncertain how the Council could separate the issue of appeal to the City Council and adopt the other amendments to Chapter 20. Councilmember Orvis suggested amending the table on page 3 of Exhibit A COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO RESTORE THE TABLE TO THE COUNCIL'S EXISTING AUTHORITY AND TO RESTORE ORAL ARGUMENT. Council President Wilson preferred to require written argument to prevent any new information from entering the record. He suggested amending the motion to require written argument. Councilmember Orvis advised he would not support the motion without oral argument. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESTORE THE COUNCIL'S EXISTING AUTHORITY REGARDING DECISIONS. Mr. Snyder clarified staff would revise the table in 20.01.030.0 to reflect the Council's current decision - making authority. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Snyder offered to return with an ordinance in a legislative format and to highlight the changes made to the table. Mr. Snyder suggested Councilmember Orvis reword the amendment to instruct staff to return with a revised ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A REVISED ORDINANCE IN WHICH TABLE C IS REVISED TO REFLECT THE COUNCIL'S CURRENT AUTHORITY. MOTION CARRIED (6- 1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT VOTING NO. Mayor Haakenson commented although he appreciated Councilmember Plunkett's comments about his ability to run a closed record review, he viewed them as the single worst thing the legislature had given City Councils. He noted the anguish on citizens' faces in the audience when they are unable to speak to the Council about the subject matter in a closed record review. Second, both sides have attempted to get new information into a closed record review which was not allowed. He summarized it was very difficult for staff and him to determine what was new information and as a result it may get into the record and the Council may make their decision on information that should not have been provided. He concluded closed record reviews were a bad deal for citizens and he urged the Council if nothing else to require written information to avoid new information being inserted into the record. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 9 Packet Pg. 109 7.2.f For Council President Wilson, Mr. Snyder advised Sections 20.07.005.0 and D required written argument. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO ALLOW ORAL ARGUMENT. Councilmember Bernheim commented although information may be entered into the record by allowing oral argument, whether the new information became part of the findings of fact and became a basis for the Council's decision -making was more important than what was actually said. He did not object to continuing to allow oral argument, finding it helped clarify the issue for the decision -maker. Councilmember Plunkett commented in all past quasi judicial decisions, the oral argument was very important and his ability to adjudicate would be diminished without hearing oral argument. He pointed out Mayor Haakenson and Mr. Snyder did an excellent job monitoring the proceedings. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 7. REPORT REGARDING THE STREET TREE PLAN AND REMOVAL AND REPLANTING OF STREET TREES AT 5TH & DAYTON. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh recalled on April 22 Council President Wilson scheduled a review of the Street Tree Plan in advance of the removal and replacement of trees at 51h & Dayton. He explained the Street Tree Plan was Appendix F of the revised 2006 Streetscape Plan adopted by Council, making it part of the Comprehensive Plan. He read the vision of the Street Tree Plan, stating it exists to benefit the local community and business climate through enhancement of the identity and character of the downtown, gateways, neighborhoods and primary roads of travel. Street trees provide seasonal interest, summer shade and a transition between the street and adjacent buildings and properties. The Plan recommends species which provide these benefits, be hardy, relatively easy to maintain and tolerant of urban conditions. The City may modify and amend these tree species selections in the future. He recalled concern were raised that the tree caliper of recently planted trees did not match the recommended size of 3" caliper. He explained it was important to understand why entire intersections or row of trees were planted at the same time. He identified areas in the Plan where the caliper discrepancy and the need to replant as parcels were addressed: • Species Selection — there are 14 criteria in this section with the final criteria being "Appropriate mature size and form for their location." • Terms of Maintenance — current mature trees have no root barriers to encourage downward roots. • Implementation — when possible plant entire blocks or series of blocks in the same time sidewalks are reconstructed which will provide uniformity in size and fonn. • Downtown Plan — specific street trees are identified for planting on particular stretches in the downtown. All trees shown on the map shall be a minimum 3" caliper unless otherwise approved. • Tree Planting Procedures — planting procedure recommendations address avoiding conflict of roots with underground utilities and pavement. Installation size and branching height should be chosen to maximize the tree's survival rate. In retail, commercial and mixed use areas, install minimum 3" caliper with minimum 7-foot branching height unless otherwise approved by the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2009 Page 10 Packet Pg. 110 7.2.f COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO AMEND SECTION 6.80.020 TO ADD, "THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL WORK WITH RETAILERS, RETAIL ASSOCIATIONS, UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO CREATE EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF REUSABLE BAGS. THIS MAY INCLUDE SIGNAGE AT STORE LOCATIONS AND INFORMATION LITERATURE AND EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND WILL TAKE PLACE BEFORE AND AFTER THE OPERATIVE DATE. Councilmember Peterson commented as a result of conversations with retailers, retail associations, unions and other organizations, he wanted to ensure the implementation of the ordinance was as smooth as possible. He acknowledged the ordinance was asking consumers to change their behavior and an education process would assist with that effort. It would allow smaller retailers who may have stocks of single -use plastic bags an opportunity to use those bags, give larger retailers time to train their employees and remind consumers to bring their bags into the store. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson commented he considered himself to be fairly green, a former trustee of Washington Conservation Voters and a current trustee of the Cascade Land Conservancy. He recognized Councilmember Peterson for moving the conversation forward in a very progressive manner. He referred to the six tasks on the Council's Sustainability Agenda that all Councilmembers were assisting with. He was proud that Edmonds was having this conversation. To those who suggest the Council should be focusing on the economy, he assured the Council was focused on the economy, doing whatever possible to ensure the City remained on stable footing. Council President Wilson recalled one of the reasons the Council chose sustainability as its focus was it had little to no financial impact and could also be an economic driver. He was supportive of a ban on plastic in concept and was open to exploring it. He pointed out the Council's sustainability agenda stated the Council would consider a plastic bag ban. The Council was considering three ordinances to ban plastic bags and Councilmember Bernheim proposed an ordinance that would institute a per bag fee. Seattle chose not to ban plastic bags because it would significantly increase CO2 emissions. He commented in economics there were situations where the price did not adequately reflect the cost. A free bag did not reflect the cost to the grocery store and to the environment. He preferred to have a fee on plastic bags but the City did not have adequate code enforcement staff and he agreed it may be uncomfortable for retailers. Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Wambolt that this had been a useful exercise but it had run its course. He preferred to wait to see the outcome of Seattle's vote. He commented although. San Francisco voted to ban plastic bags, one representative indicated if he were to vote today, he would not vote to approve a ban. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, PETERSON AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 6A. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G: ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS AND REPEALING CERTAIN CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS; AMENDING VARIOUS ECDC SECTIONS THAT REFERENCE SECTIONS IN REPEALED CHAPTERS IN TITLE 20 ECDC. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Wilson inquired about the votes regarding the ordinance at last week's meeting. Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled there were two 4-3 votes, the first to return the Council to quasi Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 10 Packet Pg. 111 7.2.f judicial matters as is done today, and the second to allow written comment only for quasi judicial closed record reviews. This ordinance incorporates both of those items. Councilmember Orvis commented there appeared to be a 3-way split among Councilmembers with regard to, 1) closed record review with oral comments, 2) closed record review with written comment, and 3) not having the Council involved in quasi judicial reviews. Council President Wilson commented this version of the ordinance reflects the direction the Council gave to staff to retain the Council in closed record reviews. Councilmember Plunkett commented some Councilmembers did not support requiring written argument at the close record review and he recalled an amendment made to last week to allow oral argument failed. Mayor Haakenson asked the outcome if the Council did not approve the ordinance. Mr. Chave answered the current code would continue to be followed. Council President Wilson asked how long staff had been working on the changes to Title 20. Mr. Snyder answered staff began the revision the process in October 2008. Councilmember Plunkett observed there were other aspects of the rewrite in addition to quasi judicial review and oral versus written comment. Mr. Snyder agreed there was a great deal more than that; it was an attempt to synthesize four chapters in the code. Council President Wilson read from last week's minutes: Councilmember Orvis moved, seconded by Councilmember Plunkett, to direct staff to bring back a revised ordinance in which Table C is revised to reflect the Council's current authority. Motion carried 6-1, Councilmember Wambolt voting no. Councilmember Orvis pointed out last week's minutes also reflect his statement that he would not support the ordinance unless it allowed oral public comment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND TO REQUIRE ALL ARGUMENT IN A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW BEFORE COUNCIL BE WRITTEN. Council President Wilson commented the vote on this motion last week was 4-3, with Councilmembers Wambolt, Olson, Peterson and himself in the majority and Councilmembers Orvis, Plunkett and Bernheim in the minority. UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MAIN MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Council President Wilson asked Councilmember Wambolt what he would like changed. Councilmember Wambolt advised he preferred to have the quasi judicial hearing before the Hearing Examiner. If quasi Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 11 Packet Pg. 112 7.2.f judicial closed record reviews were before the Council, he wanted the argument in writing rather than oral. Council President Wilson asked Councilmember Orvis and Councilmember Plunkett what they wanted changed. Councilmember Orvis answered he wanted the Council involved in closed record appeals and to allow oral comment. Mr. Snyder clarified only parties of record were allowed to speak during a closed record review. He explained neither Mayor Haakenson nor he liked to interrupt speakers during a closed record review to object to testimony. He suggested including language that would allow parities of record to make brief oral presentations to the Council and place the burden of objecting to matters outside the record on the parties. Council President Wilson commented he did not find oral testimony appropriate because it placed the Council as well as the petitioners in jeopardy because no new information could be introduced at the closed record review. He suggested the only way to achieve four votes may be to return to the original motion that required hearings be held before the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that would not be the best policy in his opinion but may be the only policy that the Council could agree to. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE PRESENTED LAST WEEK THAT MOVED THESE ISSUES TO THE HEARING EXAMINER AND EXCLUDED THE COUNCIL ENTIRELY. Council President Wilson clarified he only made this motion because he did not believe it was possible to get four votes any other way. Councilmember Orvis commented although he read the written records, the oral comments provided a different perspective. He accused Councilmember Wambolt of taking a stand that required the Council to do what he wanted or he would not approve the ordinance. He emphasized the public wanted the Council to be involved in the closed record review. Councilmember Wambolt commented he simply agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation. Councilmember Orvis responded the Planning Board did not cite any Council cases; they simply followed WCIA's recommendation. He concluded the best way to get four votes was to allow oral comment and for the Council to hear quasi judicial reviews. For the audience, Council President Wilson explained land use decisions were quasi judicial and it was the recommendation of the professionals that they be decided by a Hearing Examiner. There was a perception that the Council's opinion could be swayed by campaign contributions, thus the threat the Council could jeopardize the decision -making process. He emphasized there was no public hearing when. closed record reviews were before the Council; in that process the two litigants present their case to the Council and there is no opportunity for comment from anyone other than parties of record. The question before the Council was whether argument to the Council should be in writing or oral. He summarized the role of the parties of record did not change; the only change was their comments would be in writing. Councilmember Orvis asserted passage of this ordinance would allow a developer who did not want to obey the rules to apply for a variance. The appellant could then make their case to the Hearing Examiner and under the existing regulations; the Hearing Examiner's decision could be appealed to the Council. The proposed ordinance did not allow appeals to the Council; they would be to Superior Court which could cost the appellant $20,000. Without oral argument the public was shut out and their public officials were inaccessible. He commented the reason appeal courts hear oral argument was because oral argument provided a different perspective. He summarized when oral argument was lost, the Council lost the ability to make a good decision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 12 Packet Pg. 113 7.2.f Councilmember Plunkett commented land use decisions were the most difficult but most important decisions in a community. Placing more land use decisions in the hands of judges, hearing examiners, staff and attorneys was not what the citizens of Edmonds want. The citizens of Edmonds want land use decisions heard by the City Council. He agreed oral testimony added flavor and context that was not provided via written comments which is the reason judges hear oral argument. He commended the Planning Board for doing a thorough job examining information provided by AWC, pointing out they did not examine any Council decisions. The Planning Board also made several inflammatory comments about quasi judicial decisions by Council but none related to cases heard by this Council. He concluded the Council had been judicious and effective in their quasi judicial hearings, oral arguments were exceedingly important, and the public preferred to have the Council hear land use decisions. Council President Wilson commented everyone needed compromise; he was willing to be the fourth vote to have the Council hear quasi judicial appeals or to take the Council out of that process. Unless the Council was willing to compromise, this ordinance would at least be a step forward. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED 4-2, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, WAMBOLT AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. 613. AUDIENCE COMMENTS George Murray, Edmonds, commented by their action the Council had cut the public out of the hearing before the City Council. He agreed with Mr. Snyder's recommendation to take this issue out of Title 20 and continue discussing it. He urged Councilmember Peterson to state his position before votes were taken. Next, he referred to the presentation of the Transportation Plan to the Planning Board. The Plan has funding requirements of $106 million and potential revenue of $36 million. The Planning Board asked staff to prioritize projects within available funds. Also at that Planning Board meeting, a consultant reported on improvements that could be made to Yost Park. He expressed his disappointment in the Council's action, concluding it was the wrong decision on an important issue. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, commented on the passion many citizens have for issues. As a Board Member of the South County Senior Center, she announced two fundraising events on June 13, a Red Hot Patio Sale where the public could purchase gently used items between 9:00 and 2:00 and an Italian dinner with a view and silent auction. She invited the public to attend and/or volunteer at both events. Donations can also be mailed to the South Sound Senior Center or online at SCSCEdm.org. Dave Page, Edmonds, assured he did not favor additional government, he preferred limited government, noting the City's government was enough. He suggested forming a Sunset/Scrub Committee to purge the code of laws that no longer served their purpose. As an example of how complex government has become, he explained 30 years ago he could provide the Planning Department with a legal description and have a survey done and have a dividable lot created within three weeks. This is now a five -step process that takes an average of a year and costs thousands. He recalled a project that required a second ADB review due to a change in the plant materials. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, provided the Council a 10-page development package given to the Parks & Recreation Department in 2002 and suggested $440,000 be added to the proposed levy. He referred to Seattle's "Parks for All," a 10-year $198 million levy. With regard to land use decisions, he preferred the Council remain in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 13 Packet Pg. 114 7.2.g — CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM Date: August 4, 2016 To: Edmonds City Council From: Beth Ford and Jeff Taraday, City Attorney's Office Re: Absolute and qualified immunity for city council members Intrndmetinn The subject of immunity arose recently in the context of deliberating the city council's future role in land use decision - making. The following is a summary of the types of immunity granted to city council members acting in their different capacities for the city. Councilmembers are granted absolute immunity for legislative actions, while they receive qualified immunity for administrative actions. Where most city council action regarding land use is administrative, most acts will be subject to qualified immunity. Affirmative defense to § 1983 claims City councilmembers may be the subject of lawsuits for any of its many different types of actions. One type of lawsuit brought against city councilmembers in their individual capacities are actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Under § 1983, a plaintiff can recover for violations of constitutional or federal statutory rights, but not for wrongs arising out of ordinary tort law. Some types of § 1983 claims include takings and denial of due process. But city councilmembers have two potential affirmative defenses to a § 1983 action, either absolute or qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities. Whether absolute or qualified immunity applies depends on what type of action the city councilmember is taking. 142 U.S.C. § 1983: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA98109 I P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 I www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 115 7.2.g 2 1 P a g e Different Types of Immunity Absolute immunity City councilmembers have the affirmative defense of absolute immunity in a § 1983 suit in two instances: when the councilmembers are engaging in legislative action or actions regarding rezones. Legislative actions Councilmembers have absolute immunity for legislative actions. Absolute immunity for legislative action is long -held in federal and state law. Art. I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides: "...for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." Art. II, section 17 of the Washington State Constitution contains a similar provision: "No member of the legislature shall be liable in any civil action or criminal prosecution whatever, for words spoken in debate." In Bogan v. Scott -Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 1185 S. Ct. 966, 140 L. Ed.2d 79 (1998), the Supreme Court held that local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore a councilmember may not be sued under § 1983 for a legislative action taken by the council. It is important to note: Not all votes of city councilmembers are considered legislative action. "The Supreme Court has generally been quite sparing in its recognition of claims to absolute official immunity."z "Although a local legislator may vote on an issue, that alone does not necessarily determine that he or she was acting in a legislative capacity. Rather, whether actions are, in law and fact, an exercise of legislative power depends not on their form but upon whether they contain matter which is properly to be regarded as legislative in its character and effect."3 Therefore, a court will look to the nature of the action, not solely to the identity of who performed the action, to determine if legislative absolute immunity applies. In general, "[a]ctions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative."4 Another test of whether an action is legislative is whether or not the action creates a new law or executes a law already in place: "The power to be exercised is legislative in its nature if it prescribes a new policy or plan; whereas, it is administrative in its nature if it merely pursues a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself, or some power superior to Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 969, 954 P.2d 250, 260 (1998) (citations omitted). 3 Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 954 P.2d 250 (1998) (citations omitted). 4 Durocher v. King Cty., 80 Wn.2d 139, 152-53, 492 P.2d 547, 555 (1972). Packet Pg. 116 7.2.g 3 1 P a g e For example, a city council can vote on the issuance of a permit, and because the vote is directed at a single entity, the action will be considered administrative and not legislative.6 Rezone actions City councilmembers may also receive absolute immunity for rezone actions. This type of action appears to be a mix between a legislative, administrative and adjudicatory action, in that a council must pass an ordinance in a rezone action but where the rezone is directed at a particular area subsequent to general comprehensive planning.7 Washington courts have held that a City Council has absolute immunity from tort liability when making a rezone decision.8 As such, in this limited circumstance, the Council is likely shielded from tort liability. ' Durocher v. King Cty., 80 Wn.2d 139, 152-53, 492 P.2d 547, 555 (1972). 6 See, e.g., Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 954 P.2d 250 (1998) ("The motion passed by the Spokane City Council was not legislation generally applicable to the entire community but rather an act directed specifically at Mission. It was administrative or executive in nature, not legislative, and therefore legislative immunity is not available here...."); Durocher v. King Cty., 80 Wn.2d 139, 153, 492 P.2d 547, 555 (1972); Kaahumanu v. Cty. of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1224 (9th Cir. 2003) ("The Maui County Council's decision to deny the CUP was ad hoc, affected only the plaintiffs and did not bear all the hallmarks of traditional legislation. Despite its formally legislative character, the decision was administrative and the individual members of the Maui County Council are therefore not entitled to legislative immunity."); Bateson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir. 1988) (denying legislative immunity for city council members who had refused to issue plaintiff a building permit or approve a minor plat). 7 Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 463, 573 P.2d 359, 365 (1978) ("The process by which [rezones] are made, subsequent to the adoption of a comprehensive plan and a zoning code, is basically adjudicatory."). 8 See, e.g., Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 805, 774 P.2d 1158, 1164 (1989) ("A rezone action is quasi-judicial in nature and the City Council has judicial immunity from tort liability when making a rezone decision."); Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 460, 573 P.2d 359, 363 (1978) (holding that a rezone action is adjudicatory in nature, as opposed to a comprehensive zoning action by the city council which is legislative in nature); see also Buckles v. King Cty., 191 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board was subject to absolute immunity with regard to its ruling on a rezone decisions). Packet Pg. 117 7.2.g 4 1 P a g e Qualified immunity Where a city councilmember is engaging in administrative action, she has a lesser level of immunity from suit called qualified immunity. Most of the city council's actions with regard to land use decisions is likely considered administrative, such as making decisions regarding specific permits. Government officials who are performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that would be known by a reasonable person.9 Even if the plaintiffs rights are in fact violated, no liability accrues if the right was not clearly established or if the official could have reasonably believed that his or her conduct was lawful.10 The standard for qualified immunity can be divided into three questions: (1) identification of the right that the plaintiff alleges to have been deprived of; (2) determination of whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the deprivation so as to require the reasonable officer to be aware of its application to the facts of the case;" and (3) whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his conduct was lawful. The standard for an official seeking the shield of the qualified immunity defense is an objective standard. The plaintiff need not prove that the individual defendant had a specific intent to cause a deprivation of civil rights. Similarly, it is no defense to a section 1983 action that a defendant ' Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 64-65, 830 P.2d 318, 336 (1992) ("Government officials performing discretionary functions... cannot be held personally liable for damages under section 1983 of the federal civil rights statute unless their conduct violates clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights; such persons are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim under section 1983 if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law."); Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1, 25, 829 P.2d 765, 778 (1992) (holding that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from all liability for civil damages if their "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."). 10 See, e.g., Feis v. King County Sheriffs Dept., 165 Wn. App. 525, 267 P.3d 1022 (Div. 12011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1036, 277 P.3d 669 (2012). 11 In determining whether a right was "clearly established," the court must consider prior court decisions as well as similar laws: "The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 635, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3037, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987) (citations omitted). Packet Pg. 118 7.2.g 5 1 P a g e had no specific intent to cause a deprivation of civil rights. Instead, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant's conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.12 In sum, city councilmembers should be aware that, for other than legislative or rezone actions, their immunity is qualified. Qualified immunity is declined, and city councilmembers can be sued in their personal capacities, for violations of § 1983 if their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that would be known by a reasonable person.13 Conclusion Councilmembers should be aware that different actions may result in different types of immunity from suit. Not all actions of the council are covered by absolute immunity; those administrative actions that are not legislative or rezone actions only receive qualified immunity. City council actions regard land use decisions other than rezones would likely be considered administrative and therefore subject to only qualified immunity. 12 Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65, 830 P.2d 318, 336 (1992). 13 Sintra v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1, 25, 829 P.2d 765 (1992). Packet Pg. 119 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/9/2016 Civic Center Master Plan Update (60 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History Civic Center Field was recently acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District. The property officially closed on February 9, 2016. The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning this property once acquired. The kick off meeting to launch the master planning process with the City Council was held on May 3rd, 2016. The Planning Board was briefed on the progress and gave guidance to the consultant team. The DRAFT minutes from the meeting of July 27, 2016 are attached. Staff Recommendation Provide input and guidance. Narrative Since the kick off meeting with the City Council, the consultant team from Walker Macy, and city staff have been fully engaged in the Master planning process. We have had many stakeholder meetings, an open house attended by 150 people, a virtual open house, and several Project Advisory Committee meetings. The consultant and staff presented these initial results to the Planning Board on July 27, 2016. The Planning Board has some good thoughts and comments, which are reflected in the draft minutes attached. This will be the second meeting with the City Council. The team will be presenting some preliminary results from all of the public input thus far. The Council will be asked to give input on the information, and provide guidance to the team as we start to work on alternatives for the master plan. City Council President Kristiana Johnson, and Councilmember Dave Teitzel are represented on the Project Advisory Committee for the planning process. Attached for your reference are the following: 1. Presentation for this meeting. 2. Master Plan schedule, dates. 3. Master Plan schedule, calendar 4. Open house feedback summary 5. Virtual open house feedback summary 6. Stakeholder interview summaries 7. PAC team agendas and minutes Packet Pg. 120 7.3 8. Draft Planning Board Minutes from 7.27.16 Attachments: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates Schedule 160705 Open House Feedback Data 160705 Online Open House Prelim Feedback Data 5.17.16 Stakeholder Notes FINAL 5.23.16 Stakeholder Notes FINAL 5.27.16 Stakeholder Notes FINAL 5.12.16 PAC Meeting Agenda 5.12.16 PAC Meeting Minutes Final 7.7.16 PAC Meeting Agenda 7.7.16 PAC Meeting Minutes final Draft Planning Board Minutes 7.27.16 Packet Pg. 121 Jo" ok Nt r4--- At 770 40 Al �7 I, AtOo t4 iF 7.3.a Agenda • Existing Park Program • Potential Park Program • Open House Overview • Open House Results • Preferred Program Direction for Plan Options • Next Steps Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 123 T, Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) 7.3.a Existing Activities • Taste of Edmonds • 4th of July Fireworks • Wenatchee Youth Circus (concluding operation 2016) • Sports tournaments • Arts Festival (parking) • Boys & Girls Club (Field House) • Grand Stand • Parking • Storage • Soccer • Tennis • Lacrosse • Skate park • Basketball • Baseball • Football • Track • Playground • Petanque Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 125 7.3.a Festivals & Events Civic Field Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 126 7.3.a Active Recreation v .2: U M M r N C O cC C d N d L O U U rn 0 00 0 m r C N E t V Cu r Q Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 127 rt N 00 x ME y TO", u Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) Lq? I�p Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) Civic Passive Active 7.3.a Potential Additional Activities • plaza • cafe • water feature • performance space • permanent art • temporary art • promenade • covered market space • museum display • restrooms r CL L y fC L U c2 U cl M r N C CU 0 0 �a .3 0 U U �o .00 �o r a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 132 7.3.a Potential Additional Activities Ipassiv� • multi -use lawn • horticultural gardens • stormwater gardens • berms • shade trees • picnic areas • strolling paths • shade pavilion Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAII Packet Pg. 133 7.3.a Potential Additional Activities • exercise path • creative play • seasonal games • classes • activities clubhouse • concessions N C 0 CU d L 0 U U o 1 00 0 o a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 134 �� .�� sad• + • a •\. �•+ •� +♦,+•�+� ia•� '� , f a � liea Events *' ` 0 E41 Faw) I Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) 7.3.a 4 Informational Boards BACKGROUND Projeal De9crlp1len Ni6tdy Scope. Sth6tlula arld ProE6ss Ed—? C+-c C.— r»e✓Od M.— r+a� THE SITE Special Consido=n ions CWio Hard Today F_xledrg Spuc6ures 7P Mi CONTEXT . O-1—n Con neo[ions r.arcn Cnn nnl mi•� • C .a .. .. •� _ _ate i E coloyic al Con l cxl V—S AdwiUm at Edmonds P. WALKER Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAJ Packet Pg. 137 ARCHITECTURE _ kpu s & Girls CI .r Gl#Rmq&"&41[ids soccer tennis lacrosse skate basketball baseball U RRENT ACTIVII SPORTS / PLAY soccer basketball tennis baseball lacrosse track skate park playground playground football EVENTS Taste of Edmonds Wenatchee Youth Circus 41h of July Fireworks {concluding operation Sports Tournaments _ 2016, Arts Festival (Parking) petanque Boys & Girls Club Grand Stands (pending structural review) sports events formal track large festivals 7.3.a 5 Interactive Boards POSSIBILITIES What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas) F zae Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAJ Packet Pg. 139 7.3.a 5 Interactive Boards N HIM it r� y7?jf t. t.' What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas) activitles clubhouse creative play Other ideas?... (list them here) Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 140 m a 3 0 a n C. 0 n CD r-r CD CD �i i ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑OG:. .. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaOO❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑G0❑00❑00❑❑0 ❑❑❑❑❑❑G0❑00❑00❑❑0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaOO❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ ❑❑❑❑❑000000000000 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑0000000000❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑0000000000-� 131313131313000017JL. ❑��DDDDDDDDOO�i ❑000000000000000a ❑❑❑❑❑❑0000000000a ❑000000000000000a ❑❑❑❑❑❑00000000❑❑❑ aaaaaaaaannaaaaa❑ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ aaaaaaaaaaaaa 0000000000000000 N, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ 0000000000000000❑ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa❑ ❑0000❑0000000000❑ 00000000❑❑u❑0000a 00000000000000000 ❑❑❑❑❑GG^100000000 CQCQCI 1LJ'JC M71 F C n m W m Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) Ul v W 7.3.a 5 Interactive Boards PIN A COMMENT ON CIVIC CENTER PLAYFI ELD Tack a comment on the site or margin. Special Considerations the planning el tort wit consider the lull sae w th special cons deration for six of the acre that fall under Cons alion Easemept Deed resincllons as Idlrn . • No parking • Mu81 be preserved as Open space (Le. ei lher passive Or aClive recreahonl • Mesimum 10%irripevious corer (not including pathways) • fJO synthetic turl • fJO new playfields, exisung fields Can remain it desired • Temporary *e tival use tan be aMornmddatgd The twO acres Ina) nolude Ifs Freld HOuse footprint are exempt from the deed reslridicns. Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAJ Packet Pg. 142 aaaau? urea ..�a:a.aau..a:aua::. - .. as u�a:aaaa�a�sa - + - r i j; � rs 000'rr -tea.. • • .,�-t < :. - �� .. L�rr a ��ia.,,i 7, i LZ O y (D A Ro a Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) m a 3 0 a n 0' n CD CD CD' a c.D Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (143�3 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) AIM 1 7.3.a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 146 7.3.a ciNT I C C 'L - r _ 'F1 LlWA M occer ■ , • .. , . • .. , ' ' ' tennis Lacrosse • POSSIBILITIES MMUMMIMPI Whal might you like to Seel jPiace pins inside the colored areas) Eu•rs C,v c Comer ayhe" Mas pW, Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 147 m a 3 0 CZ (n C 0 n CD CD Q1 CD Q Q1 .-r CD 0 M rt (Q 00 Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) 7.3.a Open House Attendance June 23rd In -Person Attendance: 131 signed in 141 attended June 24-July 7 Online Statistics: 1,350 total page views 180 responses received Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 149 7.3.a Open House Results - Themes Theme In -Person Votes Online Votes Total Active 53 21 74 Passive 50 12 62 Civic 20 3 23 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan Packet Pg. 150 7.3.a Open House Results - Activities Activity Type (Current v. Possible) Category Activity In Preson Votes Online Votes Total Vol Possibilities Current Activities active restrooms 41 43 36 33 77 active petanque 76 Possibilities active jogging/walking path 43 28 71 Current Activities active soccer 35 32 67 Possibilities passive shade trees 29 27 56 Current Activities active skate park 25 25 50 Current Activities active playground 21 29 50 Current Activities active tennis 24 25 49 Current Activities arch B&G Club 16 32 48 Possibilities passive strolling paths 28 19 47 Possibilities passive multi -use lawn 17 25 42 Current Activities active formal track 15 25 40 Possibilities events performances (sm. music+theater) 10 29 39 Possibilities passive horticultural gardens 18 17 35 Current Activities active baseball 14 20 34 Possibilities civic market 5 29 34 Current Activities active basketball 13 18 31 Current Activities arch Grand Stands 16 14 30 Possibilities civic performance space 12 17 29 Possibilities active creative play 15 13 28 Possibilities passive picnic areas 12 15 27 Possibilities active seasonal games 16 10 26 Possibilities passive stormwater gardens 13 13 26 Possibilities civic permanent art 10 16 26 Possibilities civic water feature 10 15 25 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 151 7.3.a Stakeholder Meetings Program Date Requests to Interviewed Constituency Type Md Group / Individual Preferred Program Remove i Comments M Precedents 5/17/16 Stakeholder Boys & Girls Club City Council (Dave Teitzel) Architecture Architecture 18,000-25,000 sf facility Kingston Community Center Alderwood 5/17/16 Stakeholder Boys & Girls club building is "charming" 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Dave Teitzel) Architecture Adjunct museum for Police and Fire 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Diane Buckshnis) Architecture Small Pavilion 5/19/16 Stakeholder City Staff Architecture Boys & Girls Club plus muti-use facility 5/17/16 Stakeholder Economic Development Commissions Architecture Concession area; stage; glass roof pavilion Directors Park, Portland 5/17/16 Stakeholder Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Architecture Boys & Girls Club should remain on site 5/23/16 Stakeholder City Council (Kristiana Johnson) Architecture as senior housing, artist live -work, mixed use / outdoor cafe, affordable housing 5/23/16 Stakeholder Historic Preservation Commission Architecture Field House should remain and be rehabilitated; demonstration shingle mill 5/23/16 Stakeholder City Council (neil Tibbott) Architecture Concert/event venue 5/23/16 Stakeholder Museum / Market Architecture Museum display / fire engines, historical artifacts 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Center for the Arts Architecture B&G club to relocate to ECA campus 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Dave Teitzel) Art That captures light and wind or glass. 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Diane Buckshnis) Art 5/17/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Art Festival Foundation Art Temporary or Permanent 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Arts Commission Art Temporary incorporated into art walks 5/17/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Art Festival Foundation Bike Racks 5/17/16 Stakeholder Boys & Girls Club Blacktop Like Basketball, with fencing 5/17/16 Stakeholder Holy Rosary Bleachers 5/17/16 Stakeholder Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Bleachers Spectators should be encouraged 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Dave Teitzel) Community Gardens 5/17/16 Stakeholder City Council (Diane Buckshnis) Community Gardens "can be beneficial' 5/18/16 Stakeholder City Staff Community Gardens Or lower intensity uses around residences 5/17/16 Stakeholder Economic Development Commissions Education Environmental Education / Stormwater 5/17/16 Stakeholder Economic Development Commissions Events Movies, music 5/17/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Art Festival Foundation Events Arts festival, wine events, etc. 5/17/16 Stakeholder Planning Board Events 5/17/16 Stakeholder Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Events 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Arts Commission Events Concerts (200-300 pp); theater; 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Events Taste of Edmonds; only portion of fest that could relocate is vendor parking along north edge; power supply could earn city money 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Center for the Arts Events Could book outdoor concerts at the park 5/23/16 Stakeholder Edmonds Arts Festival Events Interested in moving Arts Festival to Park 5/23/16 Stakeholder Sno-King Youth Club Flag Football 5/17/16 Stakeholder Planning Board (Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Football 5/20/16 Stakeholder City Staff Games Like chess, ping-pong, etc. Occidental Park 5/17/16 Stakeholder Economic Development Commissions Gardens Demonstation, stormwater, p-patch 5/23/16 Stakeholder City Council (neil Tibbott) Gardens 9/17116 ItA-1,nld— Rnvc P. Girlc Uuh Gra Piald Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WA Packet Pg. 152 7.3.a i Schedule M M a L d City Council Briefing, August 9 2 L Open House 2 (Master Plan PAC Meeting, September 1 d Li V Alternatives), August 24 M M V 0 Planning Board Briefing, September 14 L a c 0 0 City Council Briefing, September 27 0 0 E a Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan WAI Packet Pg. 153 M 2 CL v _. y O W N O E41 FIN"I Attachment: 160809 City Council Presentation #2 (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) 7.3.b Civic Master Plan Proposed Dates May 3rd: City Council Kick off meeting, 5:30 — 6:45 pm, Brackett room May 12t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00 —11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 May 17 and 23rd: Stakeholder meetings ( Chris and Carrie, FAC Room 113) June 23rd: Open House, 6-7:30 pm, Library Plaza Room July 7t": Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 July 27t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 9t": City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, Council Chambers August 24t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room September 1: Project Advisory Committee meeting, 10:00-11:30 am, Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 September 14t": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers September 27t": City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers October 12t": Open House, 6:00 — 7:30, Library Plaza Room October 14t": Project Advisory Board meeting, 10:00-11:30 am., Frances Anderson Center, Room 302 November 91": Planning Board meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers November 22nd: City Council meeting, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers January 17, 2017: City Council final adoption, 7:00 PM, Council Chambers Packet Pg. 155 Phase 1 - Develop Park Design Program 0- 1. Kickoff meeting with PAC 2. Site visit with Parks Staff and interested PAC members 3. Assemble and review background and historical information 4. Identify and locate natural and man-made features 5. Prepare a base plan based on materials gathered 6. Conduct meetings with Parks, Engineering, Public Works, and Planning 7. Provide a graphic summarizing site opportunities and constraints 8. Develop park program options based on input from Parks staff and City officials 9. Open House #1 10. Develop preliminary Park Design Program 11. Review final park program plan with Planning Board and City Council Phase 2 - Develop Schematic Design 1. Assist PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for Master Plan alternatives 2. Develop three schematic design options 3. Assist the PAC in establishing evaluation criteria for schematic design 4. Prepare three schematic designs based upon the the approved design program 5. Prepare a narrative which summarizes the existing conditions 6. Meet with City Council and Planning Board. 7. Meet with the Parks staff team to review schematic designs 8. Open House #2 9. Meet with City, County, State, and Federal to review schematic design direction 10. Meet with the PAC to review comments from community workshops 11. Provide updates to the Planning Board and City Council 12. Create a single, draft schematic design based upon preferred elements 13. Create a draft Implementation Strategy/Phasing Program 14. Identify scope and schedule of permitting process 15. Attend meetings with Parks staff to review preferred Master Plan alternative 16. Open House #3 17. Meet with City to review schematic design/phasing program 18. Meet with Planning Board and City Council 19. Refine draft schematic design and phasing program 20. Review cost estimates 21. Meet with PAC to review workshop comments 22. Refine final schematic design 23. Prepare SEPA checklist if needed 24. Present Final Master Plan to City Council for Adoption n X m c� May 2016 • June 2016 July August 2016 2016 September 2016 • •• October 2016 • • • November 2016 • •• December 2016 Legend Task Duration Meeting '4 w 0 Attachment: Schedule (1433 : Civic Center Master Plan Update) EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 In -Person Data 7.3.d Activity Type (Current v. Possible) Activity Votes Category Current Activities petanque 43 active Possibilities jogging/walking path 43 active Possibilities restrooms 41 active Current Activities soccer 35 active Possibilities shade trees 29 passive Possibilities strolling paths 28 passive Current Activities skate park 25 active Current Activities tennis 24 active Current Activities playground 21 active Possibilities horticultural gardens 18 passive Possibilities multi -use lawn 17 passive Current Activities B&G Club 16 arch Current Activities Grand Stands 16 arch Possibilities seasonal games 16 active Current Activities formal track 15 active Possibilities creative play 15 active Current Activities baseball 14 active Current Activities basketball 13 active Possibilities cafe 13 civic Possibilities stormwater gardens 13 passive Current Activities large festivals 12 events Possibilities plaza 12 civic Possibilities perfromance space 12 civic Possibilities picnic areas 12 passive Possibilities water feature 10 civic Possibilities permanent art 10 civic Possibilities performances 10 events Possibilities clubhouse 10 active Possibilities promenade 9 civic Possibilities berms 8 passive Possibilities shade pavilion 8 passive Current Activities sports events 6 events Current Activities football 5 active Possibilities market 5 civic Possibilities art installations 4 events Possibilities on -site parking 4 active Current Activities lacrosse 2 active Possibilities culinary events 2 events Possibilities fun -runs 2 events Possibilities concessions 2 active Possibilities bleachers 1 active Other Suggestions & Concerns Underground Parking Page 1 Packet Pg. 157 EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 In -Person Data 7.3.d Handball Courts Disc Golf Pickleball leave as is with upgraded fields Sustainability/LID features demonstration areas "natural" jungle gym for youth and adults ethno-botanic gardens Community Garden (P-patch) Benches, picnic tables Lighting Fencing Permanent Covered Market Rain Protection 4th Ave Corridor Connection Theme Votes Active 53 Passive 50 Civic 20 Attendance: 131 Signed In 141 Counted by Parks Staff (exclusive of staff and consultants) Page 2 Packet Pg. 158 EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data 7.3.e Website analytics (June 24 — July 1) 0 203 unique visitors • 274 sessions • 1,350 total page views • 4.93 pages viewed per session (average) 0 Average session duration: 00:04:28 Feedback received The online open house surveys received 135 responses. Welcome Page: 43 total responses What is your relationship to the park? I live near the park 28 1 live and/or work near the park 13 1 do not live and/or work in Edmonds 3 1 work near the park 1 How often do you use the park I visit the park frequently 25 1 visit the park occasionally 8 1 visit the park rarely 8 1 have never been to the park 2 Did you attent the open house? No 23 Yes 19 Possibilities Page: 30 total responses What activities do you think should continue in the park? Activity Votes Petanque 23 Boys and Girls Club / Field House 22 Soccer 22 Children's playground 21 Tennis 18 Skate park 18 Running track 16 Lacrosse 15 Basketball 12 Baseball 12 Bleachers 9 Grandstands 9 Football 8 Page 1 Packet Pg. 159 EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data 7.3.e What new activities would you like to see in the park? Activity Votes Excersise path 22 Creative play 11 Seasonal games 8 Classes 7 Activities clubhouse 7 Concessions 4 What passive features would you like to see in the park? Activity Votes Shade trees 21 Multi -use lawn 17 Strolling paths 15 Horticultural gardens 14 Stormwater gardens 10 Picnic areas 10 Berms 9 Shade pavilion 9 What civic feature would you like to see in the Dark? Activity Votes Restrooms 21 Water feature 13 Permanent art 12 Performance space 11 Temporary art 10 Promenade 9 Plaza 5 Cafe 4 Covered market space 2 Museum display 2 Parking: There is currently no parking provided at Civic Center Playfield. Should parking be provided in th No 18 Yes 5 No opinion 4 What is your opinion of hosting large events in the park? I would prefer not to have large event 13 Large events bring vitality and income 11 I enjoy all or some of these events 5 How frequently should large events be scheduled for the park? I don't think there should be large eve 9 1-2 times per year 7 Page 2 Packet Pg. 160 EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data 3-6 times per year 9 7-10 times per year 4 What small-scale, local events would you like to see in the park? Music 20 Fun -runs 14 Theater performances 12 Art installations 10 _ Markets 8 a Culinary events 8 I would prefer not to have more evens S (L L How frequently should small-scale, local events be scheduled? 1-2 times per year 9 L 3-5 times per month 7 1-2 times per month 7 c) 2 Park Themes Page: 31 total responses v M M Park Themes 1- high 2 - modera 3 - low r Civic 2 9 13 cv Passive 10 8 9 r C Active 16 9 5 Age a0i Over 60 17 LL E 45-59 5 .@ L 30-44 S a. 18-29 2 a) 0 x Gender m Male 11 O Female 17 c Prefer Not To Answer 1 O LO 0 Are you a resident of Edmonds? 0 Yes 24 m r No 0 a� E If yes, how long have you lived in Edmonds? Over 10 years 16 a 1-5 years 4 6-10 years 3 Less than a year 1 1 identify as: White/Caucasian 20 Page 3 Packet Pg. 161 EDMONDS CIVIC PLAYFIELD OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY Open House 1 Online Preliminary Data Prefer not to answer 2 Other 1 Other Suggestions & Concerns not otherwise represented (see full notes) proper clay track (meandering path not a substitute) community garden plots alley safety / visibility - no bushes horseshoe pit obstacle course sustainability demonstration features sell some property for development (housing/retail) relocate the Taste of Edmonds Page 4 Packet Pg. 162 WALKER IMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 5/17/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 10am: Boys and Girls Club Attendees: Bill Tsoukalas (Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County) * Brandie Lovelace * Bob Wilcox * Diana Clay * Jim Marino * Renee McRae * Carrie Hite * Chris Jones * Ann Marie Schneider • Interest is to remain on the property • Options? Current lease to 2021 • Previous conversations seeking perpetuity with Mayor and Council • Have been on property since '62, want to stay in downtown Edmonds and remodel / expand • 18 - 25,000 sf typical foot print for Boys and Girls ClubsVision to build new community center, but perceived as conflict with new Senior Center / Community Center on near waterfront • Would like better facility (i.e. build / rebuild) and portion of property allocated to use • Current capacity 150 kids, existing building is at capacity • No formal long-range plan at this time. No capital campaign at this time. • May be possible to initiate planning process in parallel to Civic Field planning • [Carrie] Should get through first phase of public meetings and determine whether the B&G Club will remain and have a footprint, then adjust plan from there • Geese feces is an issue • Kingston Community Center and Alderwood; Snohomish are good precedents • New facility could serve as Boys and Girls Club, and community center or shared space Priority Program ° Kids play structure close to the building ° Black top area with fence - e.g. basketball court - small kid's use (chalk, 4- square, etc) ° Track and field used often (center is mucky clay) ° Grassy area highly sought after ° Baseball field is rarely used ° Parking is difficult particularly on 6th Avenue during the Farmer's Market Boys and Girls Club has 2 vans that need parking 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 163 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 2 of 10 10:30 am: Mayor Earling • Prefer a people friendly, passive landscape without a lot of athletic fields • Precedent: Boston Commons - lots of open space • Activity areas probably should stay activity areas in support of Boys & Girls Club for at least some portion. B&G club should remain on site if possible. +; • New Senior Center/ Community Center on waterfront has some challenges 0 0. • Wants the Boys & Girls Club in current location • Community generally supportive of Taste of Edmonds, not really another location for it coo • Small town atmosphere is a draw a m • Would like more events for the evolving demographics N • No adjacent/ concurrent projects currently in planning Z • Believe we should remove the track, but leave some kind of walking path around the park `m • Emergency services (Police & Fire) likely need to remain due to downtown proximity U • V .2: U Packet Pg. 164 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 3 of 10 11:00 am: Holy Rosary Attendees: Cheri Orsi, Holy Rosary School Office Manager • PE Teachers, Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) use Civic Field • Extended care director has been using Edmonds Elementary for outdoor program, not sure why not using civic field • Track used for practice right now (400m competitive). Primary and elementary meets in different locations, (Everett, St. Mary Magdeleine and somewhere north) • Only large area of church property is in front, which has water issues due to Shell Creek • CYO soccer, 3rd -8th grade, 10 teams (max) average 6 teams practice 1-2 times per week after school • Softball throw, javelin, (current field events) • Would like a longjump pit • Get rid of geese • Would like better track surface (injuries and all weather; would like 8 lanes (currently 7 lanes); and improved conditions in center of track • Restroom facilities needed • Upgrade bleachers - more inviting and safe • Keep or update play structure • Not currently used for park for church festivals • Not currently used for after -dark activities • Cheri lives adjacent to play area (front yard) • Hate to give up park space for parking - central location allows people to walk • More thoughtful access, entry/ exit points Packet Pg. 165 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 4 of 10 11:30 am: City Council, Dave Teitzel • Design should be for community, with Taste of Edmonds needs as secondary • Softer edges with active elements more central • Residents enjoy watching soccer games from decks - don't block views • Walking path, meandering, perimeter • Mixed view of Taste • More events ok, but not large/noisy 0 • Group discussion about criterion/threshold for new events 0. • Saturday Market could be relocated to park coo • Water feature would be nice a • Rarely see people running on bleacher stairs m N • Bleachers / grandstand should probably be removed • Consider changing the name of park [Carrie] We have a naming process and plan to undergo `m renaming after master plan is complete m • If the fence stays, needs to be more attractive U • Boys & Girls Club building is charming • Adjunct museum possible for police and fire V • Off -leash area? Edmonds not dog friendly • Skate park well used - some noise issues Packet Pg. 166 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 5 of 10 11:50 am: City Council, Diane Buckshnis • Charlotte, NC precedent, near stadium, open space • Only issue is parking • Prefer family and sports oriented, trails to walk, there are a huge number of passive parks already • Geese are a problem • Grandstands should go. Tenants will need to find other storage • Sports tourism - half marathon? Fast -pitch? We don't have hotels downtown. Does city want this? • Art pieces should be considered • Small pavilion possible • Put skate park in a corner • Support kids - keeping them healthy • Community gardens can be beneficial • Look at surrounding parks and don't duplicate (music already at Hazel Miller and City Park) Packet Pg. 167 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 6 of 10 1:00pm: Planning Board Attendees: Phil Lovell (Chair) Dan Robles (Board Member) • Relationship to city is "awkward" • Five stations and municipal buildings • Don't care what happens in the park. City will have "hands full" ameliorating a park in the middle of the city • Needs to be screened with trees, etc. from residents North & East, not just gardens • No strong feelings about park program • Should be a draw • [Dan] Likes events at the park • Adjacent municipal services keep park safe, paramedics close by • Park should augment adjacent amenities • Tie into downtown core, arts center, Holy Rosary, etc. • Parking is a big issue city-wide. No formal study being done. o No Parking on site. Or site could be all parking, or parking underground o Parking also needs shuttle • Bikes - ( Phil) not enough riders, no interest in more bike infrastructure - ( Dan)"electrification" of bikes and cars should be considered • Tech sector needs should be considered - engineers and architects (in response to current restrictions on types of businesses allowed downtown) • Create space in the park for cell phone conversations or business use • Saturday Market is good event for city, could spill into park or move to park • Full-size soccer field is an issue (should not be in downtown park). It should be dealt with by the school district; not a universal enough appeal • Priority should be downtown, public use, walking, consuming, kite flying • Will there be inter -local agreements? for sport field relocation? Packet Pg. 168 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 7 of 10 1:30pm: Edmonds Art Festival Foundation Attendees: Terry Vehrs (President) Ann Wood (Board Member) Susan Loreen (Board Member) • 50% of grandstand storage is park use - Edmonds Christmas decorations • Horticulture Program at Edmonds Community College are possible partners • Peter Kirk Park has great lighting - Lighting brings people and should be considered • Possible temporary art installations • Can Boys & Girls Club be incorporated into Senior Center? • What do we need to provide, as it relates to Boys & Girls Club and rec. facility? • Chateau St. Michelle wine event, entertainment, arts festival; all possible uses for repurposed facility. Alcohol can be allowed with special permit • Bellevue Downtown Park is nice - ice skating, etc. • What do you do for teens and other segments? • What about parking? • Bicycle racks - (see Bend, OR.) • Currently engage teens in the arts through scholarships, grants and student/youth section at Arts Festival • Possible to use current art program for art on fences during construction • How do we plan for homeless use? [Carrie] Government just ruled that people can sleep in the parks. Edmonds is reviewing the implications of this for the city • Edmonds has 1% for Art program • Interested in discussing permanent art or art pieces Packet Pg. 169 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 8 of 10 2:00pm: Planning Board Attendees: Carreen Rubenkonig (Vice Chair) • Walking element to continue • Grandstands not necessarily needed • Strong supporter of skate park • See park as active more than passive • Wish more people would come watch, more spectators currently encouraged, no seating • No issues with current activity. Love Boys & Girls Club • No dog park • More events at one time; safety in numbers; for evening events, busier is better • There should be a fence to keep kids from wandering • No ADA parking currently, minimally should have 1-2 spaces • There are currently no buses on 61h or 7th • Drop- offs should be on both 6th and 7th • Permanent restroom facilities needed • Sees as "open" primarily for sports fields • Semi -pro football team practices there in dirt area, they are looking for other sites to play • Interested in football being played there Packet Pg. 170 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 9 of 10 2:30pm: Economic Development Commission Attendees: Patrick Doherty (Community Services and Economic Development Director) Mike Schindler - (Former Chair - Commissioner at present), Darrel Haug • Park should become downtown signature park - seen as extension of downtown center (Similar to downtown Bellevue Park) • Downtown movie night events • Would probably change the name • How do you passively program the park? Fountain, square, would love to see an attraction • Would like walking paths and fields too; multi -use area • Spontaneous activity should be encouraged - movable tables and chairs, life-size chess, etc. • Possibly a p-patch or demonstration garden • Kid attractions - fountain, lights, music, toy boat pond • Environmental education, stormwater gardens • Outdoor stage • Tension with downtown business and events / festivals some benefit, some don't • Connectivity notjust wayfinding - park should programmatically feel like an extension of downtown. Genteel and sophisticated enough for after -dinner strolling • Parking tough, make sports program less appealing • Concession area, cafe and hardscape would be nice. May take time to get tenant • Glass roof pavilion - Directions Park - is great, nice to have some rain come. Packet Pg. 171 7.3.f STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 10 of 10 3:00pm: City Staff Attendees: Phil Williams, Public Works Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Mike DeLilla, Utilities Engineer Shane Hope, Development Services Director John Dowling, Acting Deputy Fire Marshal Karl Roth, Police Special Ops (reviews all special event applications) Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician • Park should be a vital part of downtown, not just for particular functions [Shane] • Drainage issues - 6" below site is a lot of peat. Believe it was cedar mill shaving dump -site. SE corner is the worst; generally poor drainage; 3' down when digging skate park was gushing with water; believe there may be clay layer below • Restrooms should be considered • Track is heavily used; should be something similar; possibly a walking path around perimeter • Community gardens or lower intensity uses around residences • Is it possible to have a multi -use portion of the Boys & Girls Club if they rebuild? • Residents will not like using streets for festivals • Would be nice to have games, non-traditional, like in Occidental Park • Visibility, views for residents will be an issue • Utilities to remain? City wants to put sanitary sewer line through park, ideal corridor aligned with old right-of-way, off of Edmonds (Edmonds & 7th to west and connect to police and fire) 70-80ft from existing stormwater line • Noise ordinances? Special use for larger events • There is very little crime in general; few security concerns • Security fence to remain? Open for discussion. Protection for children needed - 71h Avenue traffic, etc. Fence keeps the balls in • See (PRO) Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan for other park program and reviews - surveyed every six years • Dogs allowed? On leash probably best • Mid -block crossing on 7th? Don't want to put one at Bell Street; maybe Sprague. New lit crosswalk just put in at new Spray Park • Issue with people cutting between fire and police buildings to access park. People walk out in front of cars in parking lot. Not much room for a more formal connection. May be best to close off this cut through to force people past 9-11 memorial or other routes. All existing parking is needed. Need access from 2 directions for police and fire. • How much grading can happen? Option for hilly features? Yes. • Difficult to bike to and from site due to steep hills in some directions • Can HWA or someone do core drilling to test soils? Packet Pg. 172 WALKER IMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 5/23/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 10am: Edmonds Petanque Club Attendees: Michelle Martin (President and Founder), Dick Van Hollebeke, David Rockwell • Early 20t" Century. Toss steel balls close to wooden ball; teams 2-3 persons each • Played in 94 countries, 600,000 licensed competitors • Edmonds is FPUSA Member— regional, national, and international tournaments Edmonds club is fastest growing club in the U.S. Game is becoming very popular in the Pacific NW • Club contributes to maintenance, which is low • ADA accessible courts currently needed (access over curb) Fixed position is a "ring" — "fixed feet" • 2010 first court in Edmonds along 6t", great visibility • EPC is a non-profit 501c3, $351year membership, $15 goes to federation Received $4,000 Hubbard Foundation grant for 4 courts • 5 tournaments, raised > $18,000 in sponsorship and registration fees • Host Edmonds Food Bank Tournament annually in August • Received another grant for 5t" court • 6 week camp, 2 days per week, with Boys and Girls Club; also Cub Scouts, High School, etc.; Sister city in Japan also come every 2 years • Original count remains as demonstration court during festival • Club has been awarded "Citizens of the year" • Other clubs - Seattle, Portland ( 22 courts), Port Townsend ( 18 courts) are larger . EPC need many courts to support larger club • Current courts at Civic Playfield are the only courts in Edmonds • Courts can be between within 1.5 meters of a fence • Minimum 20 courts to host a regional tournament. Would like 8 framed permanent courts. Remainder could be temporary on dirt or hard packed area (similar to baseball — no grass, no sand) • Ideal surface is crushed rock • 4 - 6 tournaments (i.e. Bastille Day — 60 participants from Tacoma, Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Portland, Walla Walla, etc. • Portland (Westmoreland and Park Blocks) courts are lined out with string and chalk • Would like clubhouse with small kitechenette, meeting space and storage for equipment • Need one picnic table at each court Need 250sf of storage — canopies, hose hookups (wet down counts), scoreboards, etc. • Courts used every day, 20+ people day • Sat / Sun / Wed play organized games 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 173 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 2 of 13 10:30 am: Edmonds Arts Commission Attendees: Beverly Shaw (Chair), Lesly Kaplan, Suzy Maloney • Visual beauty is very important • Flow between proposed 4t" Ave Corridor and future park • Concerts in City Park, 200 — 300 people • Would like performance space, i.e. Shakespeare Festival • Hazel Miller Park also has concerts • Interaction feature very desirable — i.e. "on the fence" at Boys and Girls Club • EAC does arts advocacy — with library, schools, etc. • Largest EAC event is Write on the Sound — writer's conference; usually centered at library and Frances Anderson, etc. First weekend in October • "It's a central park" • Park design priority should not be festivals • Grand stands are ugly • Need to support kids. Boys & Girls Club needs updating • Kirkland Park — Peter Kirk Park, lost small town / old fashioned look. Bellevue Park — beautiful, ice skating, tents, art (installations, sculpture) Interested in writing, visual arts, music and theater • Would like flexible performance space • Parking always an issue • Civic Playfield topography is more accessible than many other places • 3rd Thursday Art walk — (separate commission) would like event through park to be part of walk • Children's play area important. Also need to consider larger / older kids (i.e. Friday nights for teens) Packet Pg. 174 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 3 of 13 11:00 am: 1. Sno-King Youth Club: Adam Quaintance (Executive Director), Steve Alseth(Board President) 2. Edmonds Eagles Lacrosse Club (boy's youth): Alan Gk, jeremy-,Ree#Melissa Curtis, Harry Ostrander Edmonds Lacrosse Club (boys h sGho i � i i'youth and high sGho n' Tom a. m"'"v�"-ra vm-w-�wvr vvrar�r�9Trr�you zr^aTi9T' Fridge • Sno-King runs many fields, uses from Lynwood to Shoreline • 8,000 youth, membership is growing • Civic Playfield, Fall 2015 - 193 soccer games • 41 teams use Civic Field on a regular basis in fall, 75% use in spring • Fields are rented from Parks • T-Ball (practice), flag football, soccer (T-Ball games at Former Wood way) • Have created a "Save Civic Field" web page, not yet launched — to share concerns • Can private money be allocated to park? Yes, phasing plan • Civic Field has largest soccer play space available. Need large field (few others). Concurrently use small and large fields. - U5 field — 40 yards (under 5 year olds) - U9, U10 field — close to regulation size ) • Dirt used as practice space — especially because of lighting in fall • Like synthetic turf; would like to be able to maintain the fields themselves • Woodway Field — currently use for T-ball, flag football, indoor gym • Trying to move away from Hickman • Majority of users are local to Edmonds, Edmonds School District • Meadowdale lower football field used; don't like dirt/mud • EPR partnering with Lynwood — synthetic fields with lights • Stagger start times to alleviate parking; streetside parking and church lot • Goals and equipment brought to games, no storage. Lock up items on fence • Concessions would be nice • Gym space would be helpful Lacrosse is growing; demand for field space is high • Players are 3rd grade to high school • Spring sport primarily / share space with Sno-King • Need game fields more than practice — football field size (true dims for lacrosse are slightly larger) • 8-10 boys teams (High School); middle school 4 teams (Eagles) plus 8 teams 8-10 girl teams (High School); will probably have girls middle school teams next year Packet Pg. 175 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 4 of 13 11:30 am: City Council, Kristiana Johnson • Flatness is an asset. Has always been used as athletic fields • Historic context - Junior High School track (1908 first Edmonds High School) - Track & field - B&G Club was Field house • Semi -pro football team still plays on dirt and grass • Rusty chain -link fence limits access; could enlist others to repair • Skate park location in middle of a lot of "stuff' • Huge opportunities, such as senior housing, artist live -work, mixed use / outdoor cafe, affordable housing (on 2 acres) • Dahlia is city flower — display gardens would be nice • Community builds; fixing fence for example • Adopt -a -Park could help: Friends of Hutt Park, Friends of the Marsh — community groups • Chamber of Commerce gets most of the money from entry fee to Taste of Edmonds • Taste could be reorganized to make it more contemporary - Kiwanis and Rotary manage gates and make money - Parking provided at High School (few miles away) and shuttled in Packet Pg. 176 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 5 of 13 11:50 am: Historic Preservation Commission: Attendees: Emily Scott (Chair), Larry Vogel (Vice Chair) • HPC focus is on structures. No assessment done on Civic Playfield structures to date; Grand Stands and Field House • No HPIF's (Historic Property Inventory Forum) will be required for permitting • Believe it was marshy lands prior to development; not sure if dumping of material was done • Internal park staff is taking first pass at structural analysis • Steve Waiteon HPC is good resource, historic preservation professional — commissioner • Bola — recent report — much information was inaccurate (windshield survey 2004, 2007) Civic Field not included • Stages of history — brass plagues — historic walk. Brochure available • Also have Historic Walking Tour • 1890's was dense old growth forest. Brackett clearcut downtown by 1890's. Produced lumber and shingles. Shipping to Alaska and California by late 1800's • Last mill closed in 1951 • Make Boys and Girls Club a demonstration shingle mill • Major route on "Mosquito Fleet" • Field House should remain and be rehabilitated Packet Pg. 177 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 6 of 13 12:10 pm: City Council, Neil Tibbott • Children have used for soccer and skateboard park • Surprised that ball fields are being considered, not best use for downtown park • Large fields useful for gatherings and festivals • Concert / event venue would be nice • "Taste" is no longer tasteful. Some local merchants have difficulty with late night crowds. Mostly people coming from other cities. Doesn't show —off or engage Edmonds in any great way • Art Festival more locally attended • Park will be significant in shaping future of Edmonds, types of gatherings • Current site not welcoming • Would like gardens and meandering paths • Good place for taller, bigger trees / or smaller to preserve views • Could be a regional draw, depending on events. Should be "friendly" • Like Cal Anderson Park • Bellevue Beaux-Arts, little neighborhood parks • Grand stands in poor shape and scaled oddly / for kids • Petanque is good use / cool • Like that we have events there. Would like better walkways Packet Pg. 178 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 7 of 13 1:00pm: Museum/Market Attendees: Bill Lambert (Board President), Dean Averill (Vice President), Jeri, Dave Dean in charge of the white elephant booth and the items for it stored under the grandstands. • Plaza last year in front of museum cost was approx. $200,000 • Farmer's market proceeds help support museum (25 years) - 130 vendors every Saturday — 22 weeks, May — October - 135 booths - 10,000 people on Saturday • More than half of museum's income comes from the Market • Year-round market not possible currently because of weather • 2023 vision — weather protected Farmers Market and annex to Carnegie Library • 1938 and 1925 antique fire engines housed across street in Firehouse 17. Bring out for Market and 4th of JUly • Recognition of city civil servants is important • Would like covered market and display / museum and storage (30x40) • Rent space in Mukilteo for artifact storage • Historic display — pioneers, artifacts, education • Historic Edmonds is a destination • Museum runs on volunteers, partners with the community, economic driver • City owns museum building, rented • Working on museum certification. Would like museum to be a focal point • Fire Department not city owned — contracted to Fire District 1 • Edmonds Fire Foundation was 501c3, when moved to county • UW School of Museum Studies is helping. Displays change every 3 months. • Market space can be used for church bizarres, etc. • Bellingham by Boundary Bay has year-round market — dual use parking and market • Would like fire museum across from 9-11 Memorial. New plaza slated for 5th and Bell in front of police station • Ask Ed or DEMA about market relocation, current location good for local businesses • Market manager (Christiana Martin)- also does lake Forest Park, formally Kirkland • Can apply for grants with city (building owner) • DEMA — Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association • Barbara Chase — Floretum , 150-20 member gardening group could be potential resource Packet Pg. 179 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 7.3.g EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 8 of 13 1:30pm: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Attendees: Greg Urban (President and CEO of Edmonds Chamber of Commerce) • Taste is'/z of annual Chamber profit. $100,000 net on a good year • 28-30,000 people, $4/pp. Beer and wine garden primary profit- markers • Currently require diesel generators for power. Power capabilities could be profitable for city • Redmond picnic shelter / market • Weather protected shelter would be helpful • No plans to expand the footprint of the Taste • Shuttle buses on 7th Avenue • Fireworks — 21/2" shells — 200' radius • Only portion of Taste of Edmonds that could relocate / reduce is vendor parking in North edge (full length) • 35-40 food vendors (10x10 or 10x20) half of track area • Water pulled on -site • Booth fees - $350 per booth • Flow of people from all 3 gates is comparable • Fence for controlled access • $15,000 for portable restrooms (60-80) • 4th of JUly 10-12,000 — 6th closed from Bell to upward • Year round Farmers Market would be good for City • Questions about viability for concessions / vendors — foot traffic, kids, neighbors, year-round is uncertain • Waterfront Festival may be relocating. Port tiring of it • 20,000 people/yr. come to dive at Brackett's Landing Preserve Packet Pg. 180 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 7.3.g EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 9 of 13 2:00pm: Edmonds Arts Commission Attendees: Samantha Saether, Lois Rathvon (commissioners) - No show - Packet Pg. 181 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 10 of 13 2:30pm: Edmonds Center for the Arts Attendees: Joe Mclalwain (Executive Director), Bob Rinehart (Past President and PFD board), Steve Shelton (Board Member) • 4t" and Bell — Steve Shelton House, wife's dance studio on Bell • Gymnasium next to ECA on 6th. Conversation with B&G Club to rehab gymnasium on ECA campus. Mike (regional director) came to look at facility last week; open to partnering with other non -profits; importance of downtown presence not clear • Gymnasium is a community asset. Currently lease it out. Needs upgrade and management; built in 1939, has historic value; NBA regulation size with bleachers; old men's locker room under southern edge; 20 ft deep end to end • Edmonds Public Facilities Agency (taxing district) — owns whole campus/block • B&G Club needs indoor space • Long term vision for ECA campus — music building and office building removed (gym and theater remain); o potential partners; B&G Club and Edmonds Community College o Offices, green room, dressing room, etc in new office building o New B&G Club building attached to gym and theater; new construction could include cafe, expanded lobby, donor room, etc. • 60,000 people use ECA, 700 seats • North edge could become 2-level parking garage with event room on top; opportunity for community college students to engage in business • 4t" Ave edge of ECA could be pocket park, sculpture park, or other connector to 4t" Ave Arts corridor • Safe, well -lit corridor on 6t" would be needed for B&G Club • ECA could book concerts for an outdoor venue at the park Packet Pg. 182 7.3.g STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 11 of 13 3:00pm: Edmonds Arts Festival Attendees: Diane Cutts (President) and 3 others (Janet Jensen, Sharon, ?) • Arts Festival is on Father's Day Weekend, Fri -Sun Diane's first year as Festival President; Sharon and Janet are artist booth directors • Artists park on Civic Field, starting Wednesday night, through Monday • Can easily shuttle people to Frances Anderson Ctr • Sponsors and directors also park at Civic • Other schools not an option as they are often still in session 240 artists / 50,000+ attendees (some years 80,000+); 400+ volunteers • 4-5 day permit from Parks • 59t" year of festival • Parking in dirt field, camp on North, directors park on SW corner • Roughly 250 vehicles • No sports or other activities on site during event — consumes all of Civic Field • Some parking at Old Woodway High School and Port Parking with shuttle runs (Sherwood Forest) • Artist booth fee includes parking, many have large works • Some older artists have mobility issues, need proximity • Festival dates are well-known and coordinate with other Northwest festivals • Possibility to re -think festival relationship to park — food trucks, tents • Could possibly use some of Community College parking and Port's North lot • Outdoor amphitheater key to festival; music performances • Need some indoor gallery space • Currently close 8tn Ave and have food vendors there • 30 board members • Festival nets 60-200k; flat fee based; no commissions; all profits go to Festival Foundation Packet Pg. 183 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 7.3.g EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 12 of 13 330pm; Gity ounGil, Tom MesaroS LL r� a Packet Pg. 184 STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES 7.3.g EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD 5/17/2016 Page 13 of 13 3:50pm: City Council, Mike Nelson • No strong vision for the park • Occasionally use track; son plays soccer; prefer some replacement for track facility in city • No opinion on grand stands • Think activation should be on 6t" Ave edge, not bifurcating space • Space is currently run down • If we try to please everyone/all park will not be anything • Are there things we could have here that we don't have at our other parks? • PRO's plan inventory list has snapshot of available sports fields Packet Pg. 185 WALKER IMACY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 May 26, 2016, 11:30 AM Floretum Garden Club Attendees: Sally Wassail, Marilyn Lindberg, Barbara Chase, Tia Scarce a� c� Q. • It is currently very stark, ugly fences c a • Would like softer landscape, berms, nice landscaping; • Meandering pathways • Parking; should we consider? L • Urban type park with gardens, i.e. butterfly garden c • Trees: but not too tall '> • Noise buffers toward the residential area v • Tree: possibly the Puget Sound Juniper? • Educational and attractive J • Stormwater LID, i.e. raingardens z rn m 0 z L 0 t i r ti CV r C d E L V R r r Q 105 S MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 186 7.3.h STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES EDMONDS CIVIC FIELD Page 2 of 2 May 27, 2016, 8:30 AM Councilmember Tom Mesaros • Inventory other parks, close amenities and complement these areas • Focus on youth • No track, but put in meandering pathway • Gathering place • Concessions: accommodate with limited menu • Yakima: Franklin Park; Scottsdale, Arizona, Thompson Park; good example • Picnic shelters • Would like to see the BG Club stay onsite • No fence • No parking needed • No amphitheater, we have that at City Park • Traffic study on 7cn . Packet Pg. 187 WALKER IMACY STING AGENDA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Time: 10:00-11:00 Topic: Project Introduction & Kickoff Meeting Date: 5/12/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Introductions - Team and Attendees Edmonds Renee McRae, City of Edmonds Project Overview — Background and Team Selection Process Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds Walker Macy Presentation Frances Chapin, 1. Firm Background City of Edmonds 2. Project Understanding Chris Jones, 3. Public Process & Schedule Walker Macy 4. Site Context Ann Marie 5. Program Schneider, Walker Macy a. Is our preliminary list of program appropriate? Rob Chave b. What should be added or taken away? Dave Teitzel c. What are the priorities for program? Valerie Stewart d. What are the opinions about Taste of Edmonds -any possibility it would not Barbara Chase remain on site? Doug Sheldon 6. Capital cost and Operations & Management Steve Shelton Questions and discussion on project scope and process Lesly Kaplan Joe Mclalwain Site Visit (immediately following meeting at 11:00 am) Alex Witenberg Kyla Blair Pat Woodell Bob Rinehart John McGibbon Diana White Emily Scott Dick Van Hollebeke Mike Echelbarger Q 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 188 WALKER IMACY STING MINUTES Time: 10:00-11:30 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Topic: Project Introduction & Kickoff Meeting Date: 5/12/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282.01 Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds Introductions of team and attendees Renee McRae, City of Edmonds Project Overview and Presentation (Carrie Hite and Walker Macy) Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds Questions and Discussion: Frances Chapin, City of Edmonds Chris Jones, • The grandstand is undergoing structural review. Walker Macy Lara Rose, • Historical analysis was added to the scope; Walker Macy has added Bola Architects to Walker Macy their team specifically for this. Ann Marie Schneider, Walker • The park grant funding has restrictions on approximately 6 of the 8 acres that prohibits Macy certain things such as impervious cover (only 10% allowed, excluding pathways) Rob Chave • The council is in the process of reviewing vacation of the public rights -of -way from the Valerie Stewart former streets and alleys that transected the property Barbara Chase Doug Sheldon • The project team will be in conversation with the Boys and Girls Club to determine their Steve Shelton interests Lesly Kaplan • Park users currently use the church parking lot to the north for parking. Parking will be Joe Mclalwain considered in the list of possible park programs. The project team will need to know daily Alex Witenberg use requirements for design consideration. Kyla Blair • Are there city ordinance and/or curfew limitations on park hours and evening uses? Pat Woodell Currently yes, there may need to be some review depending on desired uses. Bob Rinehart . What is the process for capturing public input? It may be useful to start at a higher level John McGibbon and suggest themes such as Health & Wellness before getting specific on program. Diana White • Discussion around the public process: Public Open Houses generally include a short Emily Scott presentation and small group interaction. We will also be employing graphics and models to elicit information and ideas. At the second Open House, three schemes will be shown Not in Attendance: that demonstrate possible designs that incorporate ideas and priorities from the Dave Teitzel community. The final Open House will present a single scheme that has been distilled Dick Van Hollebeke from the prior three as priorities and desires are refined. • There will be a kiosk on site for park users to provide feedback. 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 189 PAC Meeting #1 Edmonds Civic Field 5/ 12/2016 Page 2 of 3 • A parkour trail and Tai Chi are other program considerations. LaCrosse is also currently very popular. • PAC would like Walker Macy to also share examples of things that didn't work on prior park projects such as Pioneer Courthouse Square. A lessons learned discussion will be considered for our next PAC meeting. • What kind of park access hours will there be and will the fence remain? This is open for discussion. • If PAC members have additional comments or theme suggestions for Open House #1 they can send them to Carrie to be shared with the project team. • The next PAC meeting is scheduled for July 7. We will be reviewing input from stakeholder interviews and Open House 1 to determine program priorities. Site Visit • The Boys & Girls Club (BGC) has a bi-annual track meet. This is the only formal event that uses the track. Residents and workers regularly use the track for exercise. • Many residents walk through the park to get to downtown / work. • There are problems with geese. Any design interventions to reduce geese should be considered. • Skate park noise is a challenge; currently there are mats along the fence to reduce noise. • The baseball field is rarely used (only by the 12 and under children) for baseball. It's more frequently used for soccer and lacrosse. • Views are precious, trees should be low. • The grandstand is "historic" (which means greater than 50 years old) but this does not necessarily make it "significant." • Parks maintenance staff is limited and sometimes utilizes volunteers. A "friends of" group for the park should be considered. The Edmonds Community College Horticultural program may also be a good resource for support. • Adjacent streets should be considered in the park design. During the Taste festival, buses drop off along 7th and vendors park on the baseball field. On -street parking and re -striping should be considered for parking solutions. There is interest in a mid -block crossing, particularly across 71h , for better/safer pedestrian access to the park. There is not a recent parking study for the City. • A park restroom, shade structure, or even a year-round pavilion are all open for discussion and will be dependent on the intent for the existing BGC and grandstand condition report. Retrofit of some portion of the existing grand -stand could also be considered. • There are standing water issues on the southeast portion of the site. Packet Pg. 190 PAC Meeting #1 Edmonds Civic Field 5/12/2016 Page 3 of 3 • Emergency vehicle access during events is challenging. Action Items: Item Description Action by Due date 2 Post presentation, including existing list of park WM & EPR 05/13/2016 uses a+ a Packet Pg. 191 WALKER IMACY STING AGENDA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Public Input Review & Preferred Meeting Date: 7/7/2016 Program Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Field Master Plan Project #: P3282 Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Edmonds Public Input Review Renee McRae, city 1. Open House Overview of Edmonds 2. Turnout and Results Rich Lindsay, City a. Live Version of Edmonds b. Online Version Frances Chapin, City of Edmonds 3. Stakeholder Interviews Summary Chris Jones, Walker Macy Preferred Program Direction for Plan Options Lara Rose, 1. Activities / Priorities Walker Macy 2. Events Ann Marie a) Taste of Edmonds Schneider, Walker Macy b) Arts Festival and Others? Rob Chave Dave Teitzel Deed Restrictions Clarification - Valerie Stewart 1. Recreation fields existing vs. new Barbara Chase 2. Structures 3. Parking (underground) Doug Sheldon Steve Shelton Site History & Structures Lesly Kaplan 1. Clarification of site history Joe Mclalwain 2. Architecture Alex Witenberg a. Grand Stands Kyla Blair b. Boys & Girls Club Pat Woodell Bob Rinehart Schedule - July/ August (Design Alternatives) 1. July 27, Planning Board Meeting John McGibbon 2. August 9, City Council Briefing Diana White 3. August 24, Open House #2 - Design Options Emily Scott 4. September 1, Next PAC Meeting Dick Van Hollebeke Additional Discussion Mike Echelbarger 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I PHONE: 206.582.3874 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 192 WALKER IMACY STING MINUTES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING Time: 10:00-11:30 Topic: Open House 1 Review and Guidance Meeting Date: 7/7/2016 Location: Frances Anderson Center Project: Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Project #: P3282.01 Master Plan Attendees: Carrie Hite, City of Introductions of team and attendees. Edmonds In attendance: Carrie Hite, Renee McRae, Frances Chapin, Todd Cort, Chris Jones, Ann Marie Renee McRae, City Schneider, Rob Chave, Valerie Stewart, Barbara Chase, Steve Shelton, Alex Witenberg, Kyla of Edmonds Blair, Mike Echelbarger, Bob Rinehart, John McGibbon, Diana White, Emily Scott, Kristiana Rich Lindsay, City Johnson, Dave Teitzel, Linda Malan for Pat Woodell of Edmonds Absent: Lesly Kaplan, Rich Lindsay, Joe Mclalwain, Doug Sheldon, Dick Van Hollebeke Frances Chapin, City of Edmonds One citizen, Roger Hertrich was also in attendance. Chris Jones, Walker Macy Open House Recap and Input Review Ann Marie Schneider, Walker Macy Questions and Discussion: Rob Chave • Role of the PAC is to provide guidance to consulting team on feedback received from Valerie Stewart community. Recommendations will then be shared with the Planning Board, whose role Barbara Chase is intermediary. Doug Sheldon Steve Shelton • Almost half of the PAC was present at the in -person open house. Lesly Kaplan • Carrie provided updates on deed restrictions, the State allows for facilities that support Joe Mclalwain outdoor recreation such as restrooms, parking, shade structures, etc. No definitive Alex Witenberg answers yet from Snohomish County whose funds are generally more restrictive. Kyla Blair • A copy of the presentation power point will be posted online the day after the meeting. Pat Woodell • Draft meeting minutes will be posted and PAC members will be allowed to comment Bob Rinehart within a brief time -frame following the meeting. John McGibbon Diana White • Request was made to receive presentation materials in advance (current meetings Emily Scott materials went out the day before). Project team will try to publish them earlier going forward, however they are often compiling data from the Open House until a day or two Christiana Johnson before the meeting. Dave Teitzel Mike Echelbarger Citizen: Public Engagement Attachments: • Open House There was high turnout at the in -person open house and to -date for the online open Results / house (which doesn't close until EOD the 7t"), with some overlap in participants. Presentation 105 5 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 1 SEATTLE, WA 98104 PHONE: 206.582.3874 1 WEB: WALKERMACY.COM Packet Pg. 193 7.3.1 PAC Meeting #2 Edmonds Civic Center PlayField 7/7/2016 Page 2 of 4 Questions/concerns were raised about individuals participating in both and double - voting. There is no way to prevent participants from multiple votes and this is taken into consideration to the degree possible. Suggestions were made to remind participants that they may only vote once. • Discussion ensued about the challenges in capturing public input, which is an "imperfect process" by nature. Surveys are a good place to start but offer limited utility. There was general agreement that we need to develop realistic parameters to start honing in on. • Suggestion was made to put the online survey link on the District website. • Concerns were raised about young adult outreach and the fact that the project public input process does not coincide with school terms. This is a challenge given the project schedule, there are plans to engage a group of Parks Dept. summer youth interns. • Also discussed assistance from Kyla for facilitating social media coverage (e.g. Twitter and Facebook sharing). • The issue was raised that the public open house (in -person) better accommodates the elderly (which is why the online open house is also offered). It was suggested that PAC members also share the online open house links with others, particularly those with children. • Question was raised to group on whether the list of priority programs that came out of the open houses was in -line with their expectations; a significant majority agreed that the list seemed to be a reasonable representation of community sentiment. Structures • What is the Boys & Girls Club envisioning for their building? Team updated the PAC on the stakeholder meeting discussion, that the Club would like an 18-25,000 SF facility and a long-term lease. There is generally strong support from the City Council and conversations with the City and with the ECA about options for expansion or relocation are ongoing. The direction of these conversations will have a significant impact on the park design. • Importance of having the Boys and Girls Club in the city was expressed. • Grand Stands have a significant impact on park design and a decision is needed soon for design consideration. There are structural and safety concerns, and the structure is not ADA compliant. • The HPC offered no recommendation on the Grand Stands. • After consultation with the State, the Development Services Department has concluded that removal of the structure, with proper documentation before it is removed, is appropriate. • Most agreed that removal of the stadium, if it doesn't have historic significance, is desirable. One member suggested keeping the steps, possibly creating a lookout area. Packet Pg. 194 7.3.1 PAC Meeting #2 Edmonds Civic Center PlayField 7/7/2016 Page 3 of 4 • Most agreed that some historic acknowledgement/marker should be considered for the site. • Some have historic and emotional attachment to the bleachers and would like to consider that portions of it remain. Others stated it should only remain unless it is important and integral to the new park design. • It is possible to use some of the grant funding for demo of the Grand Stands, this would have to be determined soon. • Large event seating could be provided by other options, i.e. portable bleachers. • Carrie will talk to the state RCO office about completing a Cultural Resources report for the Grand Stand, and possibly the Field House. The PAC agreed that if the report results show that the Grand Stand is not of historical significance its removal is appropriate. The scope of the report was removed from the Civic Center Playfield contract and will be a separate but related initiative. • Approximately 50% of Grand Stand storage is used by the City. The City is seeking a replacement/new facility to consolidate their storage. Other stakeholders have been briefed on the situation and options are being discussed. Events • Sentiment to not design for festivals was raised, and has been heard repeatedly via community and stakeholder input. The design team needs guidance however, on what level of footprint to consider in the design process. The PAC agreed that some reorganizing and possible consolidating of the Taste of Edmonds footprint should be explored and considered. Particularly there are large areas used for vendor parking. • Middle -scale events should be considered and weren't well represented in the questionnaire (e.g. a summer market with option for some street closures). Relocation of the current market to the park edge along 6t" should also be considered. Program • Some felt strongly that the park should be active, others felt that purely active program only serves a segment of the community and that passive program is equally important. • The importance of beauty and the significance of a downtown signature park should be considered. • Having some shade trees is important, but need to consider the height and views • Options for some program to be accommodated in other parks should be considered such that Civic Playfield can be special. • Options to consider multi use spaces was discussed, i.e. Petanque. Packet Pg. 195 7.3.1 PAC Meeting #2 Edmonds Civic Center PlayField 7/7/2016 Page 4 of 4 • Questions were raised about the 2-acre unrestricted area and whether there should be consideration for development, in addition to Boys and Girls Club expansion, for example low income or senior housing. It is believed that there are not funding restrictions to keep this area as part of the park but that the intent of the purchase, and the funding, was to keep it as part of the park. Most felt that private redevelopment would not be an appropriate use. • Program should include a mix of active, passive and civic. Many uses are not mutually exclusive. • The project team is experienced in developing flexible use space (space that accommodates multiple programs), which will be a key component in the park design Packet Pg. 196 7.3.m CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 27, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, said he is a member of the community planning group for the Civic Center Master Plan. He is very much in favor of the process, which is a golden opportunity to design a park in the middle of the town. His interest is in creating a plan that is best for the community and results in the best overall use of the nearly eight acres of parkland. He participates on the planning group to specifically represent the viewpoint of the Edmonds Petanque Club, but not at the exclusion of other viewpoints. The Petanque Club was voted Citizen of the Year for Edmonds for all of the public outreach it has done. The Club is the largest user of the Civic Center Field as it is presently configured, and the courts draw a large number of people of all ages. The overall size of the park is 348,000 square feet, and the the Petanque Club is hoping that the master plan will accommodate eight permanent courts, each about 750 square feet, for a total area of roughly 6,600. This would be less than .5% of the overall park space. In addition, the club is hoping that the final design will include open space (perhaps 150' x 150') that can be used for many different activities, including Petanque tournaments. Rather than grass, this could be a dirt surface that is suitable for a multitude of uses. He concluded that the consultant's presentation to the Board will amaze them as to the potential possibilities, and it is important that all viewpoints are represented. Packet Pg. 197 7.3.m DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director dated July 8, 2016. Board Member Stewart reported that she attended the grand opening for the Green Resource Center. She recalled that the concept was first discussed by the Planning Board in 2010 as a place where green materials could be accessible to the public and developers. Former City Council Member Strom Peterson pursued and obtained funding for the project, which is now a reality. She thanked all who were involved in the project, which the City can be proud of showcasing to the surrounding communities. Chair Lovell asked if any action was taken by the City Council relative to the sign code. Mr. Chave said the City Council is considering a couple of amendments, and the code should be presented to the Council for final adoption on August 2°d RECOGNITION OF PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH Ms. Hite announced that July has been named Parks and Recreation Month by the National Recreation Association, which gives an opportunity for cities to recognize the importance and value of parks and recreation in communities. Open space, park land and park activities increase the quality of life for citizens and communities. She invited the Edmonds community to participate in the City's wide array of programs that are scheduled throughout the summer, and she commended the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff for all of their effort. Chair Lovell referred to the City's proclamation, designating July as Park and Recreation Month. On behalf of the Board and as a private citizen, he thanked the Parks staff for their continuous effort with respect to parks and recreation opportunities. A lot has happened in recent years, and more is underway. Irrespective of the economic conditions that existed in previous years, by and large the citizenry of the towns and cities greatly supported their parks and recreation programs, including authorization for additional funds via park levies to supplement and add to parks programs and/or physical plans. Everyone in Edmonds, young and old, places a very high value on parks and the work that staff does. UPDATE ON CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN Ms. Hite said the topic of tonight's discussion is the Civic Center Master Plan. The consultant has prepared a great presentation, and the staff and consultant are seeking guidance and additional ideas from the Planning Board as the process moves forward. She reviewed that the City closed on the purchase of the property from the Edmonds School District in February of 2016, and immediately sent out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a consultant team to assist the community in developing a master plan for the 8-acre site in the downtown. Walker/Macy was selected as the consultant. Ms. Hite announced that a kick-off meeting to launch the master plan was held at the May P City Council Meeting and was well attended. Since that time, a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to listen to public comments, help the staff and consulting team decipher the information and provide guidance to the Planning Board and City Council as they decide what is going to be best for the community. Two PAC meetings have been held since the kick-off meeting, along with an in - person open house and virtual open house that were well attended. The staff and consulting team met with stakeholder groups over a period of three days (Boys and Girls Club, Petanque Club, Sno-King Youth Club, etc.) to solicit their thoughts. The PAC has reviewed all of the preliminary input that is now being presented to the Planning/Park Board for additional guidance. A presentation to the City Council is scheduled on August 9th. The input provided by the Planning Board and City Council will be used by the consulting team to prepare alternative designs to present at the next open house. She said she anticipates that the master plan will be a robust conversation in the community for the next six months. There are both conflicting and collaborative interests, and the community must be very thoughtful as decisions are made. Chris Jones, Principal and Landscape Architect, Walker/Macy, said he has been pleasantly surprised at the amount of interest and involvement in the Civic Center Master Plan, which has been a very democratic process from his perspective. City staff has done a great job of shepherding a difficult public project through. He provided an aerial photograph of the site to illustrate the significance of place and scale of the park. He emphasized that there are no plans and/or concepts on the table, and there are not any preconceived notions of what should and should not be in the park. It is his job to see that the Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 198 7.3.m master plan is done through a democratic process that responds to community sentiment. He reviewed some of the activities that currently occur on the site: • The Taste of Edmonds generally takes over the majority of the site once each year. He and Ms. Hite have met with the Chamber to explore options for consolidating the event's footprint so that the park can be successful 365 days per year. • Active recreation uses include Petanque, skate park, and youth sports activities. • There are two existing structures on site: the field house and grandstands. The Historic Preservation Commission recently recommended that the entire Civic Center site be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Properties. They further recommended that the fieldhouse be listed as a historic structure. While the grandstands were not included in the action, the Commission recommended that the master plan recognize the significance of place and what the grandstands reflect of the community. The grandstands are currently undergoing structural review. Mr. Jones said that as they consider potential park programs, it is important to keep in mind that there are site and/or deed restrictions on six of the eight acres. He provided a graphic to illustrate the two acres that have no restrictions, as well as the six acres where deed restrictions apply. The restrictions include prohibiting parking and minimizing impervious surfaces. Also, large structures would be prohibited, but small structures would be allowed. No artificial turf fields would be allowed within the deed -restricted areas, either. Mr. Jones advised that the potential park themes have been organized around the following components: • Civic Uses could include a plaza, caf6, water feature, performance space, art, promenade, covered market space, museum display and restrooms. • Passive Uses could include multi -use lawn areas, horticulture or stormwater gardens, berms, shade trees, picnic areas, strolling path and shade pavilion. • Active Uses could include an exercise path, creative play, seasonal games, classes, clubhouse and concessions. • Event Uses could include theater performances, markets, music, culinary events, art installations and fun runs. Using the information collected to date and discussions by the PAC, Mr. Jones advised that nine boards were developed for the open house. The four informational boards provided contextual information on the site, the surrounding conditions and adjacencies that should be considered, the deed restrictions, and scales of similar -sized parks that people may be aware of in the Northwest. The five interactive boards revolved around the active/passive recreational elements of the site. The five boards were put up around the room and participants were asked to vote on what activities they would like to continue, what other program elements they would like to see, what active recreation activities they would like to see (including restrooms, bleachers, etc.), other ideas they have that should be captured as part of the master planning process, and where Civic Center currently falls relative to passive and active uses. Mr. Jones said that model stations were also set up at the open house. An aerial photo of the civic site was provided, with the deed restricted area clearly identified. Puzzle pieces of different scaled program elements (i.e. soccer fields, basketball courts, parking, promenades, water features, bleachers, etc.) that could fit within the park were provided, and participants were invited to place the pieces on the site map. There were over 130 attendees at the open house, where Mayor Earling gave a brief introduction and reiterated the significance of the project to the community. The staff and consultant provided a brief presentation, and the remainder of the time was used for the community to interact with the boards and place the pins to identify the program elements they wanted to see at the park. The feedback was amazing, and the design team is very thankful for the amount of involvement the community has had. He reviewed that active uses were clearly the most important elements for the park, with passive being second and civic third. Most participants indicated a desire for existing activities to remain within the Civic Center, with a smattering of additional program elements (jogging/walking path, restrooms, horticultural gardens, etc.) The results from the on-line open house closely resembled the in -person open house. Three days of stakeholder meetings were also held and the general sentiment reflected the feedback from both the in -person and on-line open houses. However, the stakeholder meetings focused on a much higher level of conversation than the on-line and in -person open houses. Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 199 7.3.m Mr. Jones advised that after the City Council briefing on August 9`', the consulting team and staff will develop alternative plans to present at the August 24"' in -person and on-line open houses. He anticipates that the next open house will include a review of the information received so far, as well as a presentation of the alternatives that reflect community sentiment. Additional discussion and information will be presented to the Planning Board on September 14th Chair Lovell noted that the survey results can be found on line and asked if the master plan process would be similar to the approach used for the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. Mr. Jones answered affirmatively and explained that the consultant, staff and PAC will work to prepare two or three alternatives for the public to respond to. As the process moves forward, favorable elements of each of the alternatives will be combined to create a preferred alternative. Board Member Robles noted that some elements of the park, such as parking, are necessary, but may not be desirable. He asked if civic activities ranked lower because they draw a larger crowd and parking issues result. He also asked the consultant to share his ideas about parking. Mr. Jones agreed that people shy away from the civic uses primarily because of potential impacts such as noise and parking. From experience, there is a perception that once the civic uses are developed to attract larger crowds, the park will no longer be desirable for the citizens to use. He acknowledged that parking is always a significant concern. Because there is such limited open space in the downtown, it is difficult for him to advocate for parking to take up a large portion of the park area. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that, currently, the community is in a very active discussion about the renovation and/or replacement of the South County Senior Center. Should an alternative site be required for the new facility, he asked if there is room on the Civic Center property to accommodate the Senior Center facility. Mr. Jones answered that a 20,000 square foot building would likely fit on the two acres of property that are not restricted by deed. However, there has been some discussion about the Boys and Girls Club remaining on the site and potentially expanding. Board Member Cloutier said that although the fieldhouse is a historic building, it is does not really fit the needs of the Boys and Girls Club. He suggested that some thought be given to creating a new facility that could serve as the Boys and Girls Club/Senior Center. He also asked if a restroom structure would be considered a minor structure or would it have to be placed within the two, unrestricted acres. Ms. Hite said the restrictions placed on the 2-acre portion of the property by the state are very open and allow for restrooms, parking lots, and other amenities that will serve the City's needs as a park. However, the County's restrictions on the remaining 6-acre portion are more limiting. The biggest factor is that it cannot be developed with more than 10% impervious surface, or about 26,000 feet, and trails would be exempt. The impervious surface can include parking lots, picnic shelters, restrooms, etc., but it cannot be more than 10%. Ms. Hite reminded the Planning Board that the City Council entered into a long-term land lease with the current non-profit Senior Center. That doesn't mean the community cannot have a conversation and reconsider the location of the Senior Center, but a robust group is already campaigning for funding with control of the land as it currently sits. Mr. Chave clarified that the Historic Preservation Commission voted to look into the historic quality of the fieldhouse and site, but they felt the grandstand did not meet the characteristics necessary for inclusion on the register. They have not actually finished their assessment of the site, in general, or the Boys and Girls Club, specifically. While they have agreed there is some historic character present, they have not determined that it is eligible for the Historic Register. Board Member Stewart asked if there have been one or two on-line surveys. Mr. Jones answered one. Board Member Stewart asked for an estimate on the number of people who responded to the on-line open houses. Mr. Jones clarified that there were 200 visitors and 135 responses. Not all the visitors responded. Board Member Stewart said it would be helpful to have a breakdown on the ages of the 135 respondents. Ms. Hite said information relative to age is not available, since only 31 of the respondents answered the demographic questions. Board Member Stewart noted that about 2/3 of the 31 people who provided demographic information were in the "over 45" category. She recalled that the PAC had a discussion about the difficulty of reaching out to the younger population, particularly in the summer. However, a young student has agreed to assist the City's effort via social media. Although the older residents have more time to attend meetings and become involved in the process, input from the younger citizens is also important to the process. She suggested they hold out for more response from the younger people during the next open house. Ms. Hite said that the past on-line open house was Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 200 7.3.m launched the day after the in -person open house, and the length of time was expanded to three weeks. The same timeline will likely be used for the next series of open houses. Board Member Stewart suggested that the on-line open house should be available for a longer period of time. Mr. Jones agreed that would be possible. He explained that the purpose behind the 3- week window is that they eventually start to see the same patterns arise over time. Responses drop off significantly if the City is not actively advertising the opportunity. Board Member Stewart said she appreciates that Petanque is a very popular activity right now, and she has walked by the courts to observe how the game is played. She emphasized that the master plan should be inclusive and provide ways to overlay activities on the same space so that one activity does not have a total monopoly. She asked if different types of surfaces could be used for Petanque and if something could be rolled out over the surface to accommodate another type of activity. Mr. Van Hollenbeke answered that the courts are framed by white, 4' x 12' pressure treated timbers that are partially sunk into the ground. The current court size of 15' x 15' (750 square feet) is slightly larger than regulation size to accommodate boundaries. He acknowledged that people in other countries play Petanque in pathways, but their parks are not typically as structured as those in the United States. Grass does not work, but they have used dirt soccer fields for tournaments. The Petanque Club's concept is a multi -purpose surface of about 150' x 150' for tournaments. This would be slightly larger than the infield of a baseball field, which is 110' x 110' and could be used for a number of activities. They are also asking for 8 courts with crushed rock that would occupy 6,600 square feet in a park that is 348,000 square feet in size. Board Member Stewart noted that Bocce is a similar sport. She asked Mr. Van Hollenbeke to share his experience with Bocce. She also asked how many of those who participate in Petanque are younger than 30 years old. Mr. Van Hollenbeke said he has played Bocce and it is very enjoyable. Petanque is another activity entirely. It is fun and simple to learn, and it intrigues a lot of people. He acknowledged that the sport appeals more to senior members of the community, but there are numerous stories about how the game (and club) has changed people's lives. They teach citizens of all ages how to play the game, including youth from the Boys and Girls Club. Board Member Stewart voiced concern that eight might be too many Petanque courts. She suggested that it could be reduced by half. Mr. Van Hollenbeke said the club started with a handful of members and worked with the City to establish one court. Within months, the sport became very popular, and the Petanque Club raised funding for the materials and the City performed the installation of two more courts. In order to more readily include the Boys and Girls Club, the club received a grant to construct a fourth court. Normally, four to six people can play on a court. The club has over 100 members, and hundreds of other people play, as well. He emphasized that the community is predominantly seniors, and the proposed eight courts would only occupy .5% of the total park square footage. Board Member Stewart said her background extends to 10 years working with the older adult population, and she was schooled at the University of Washington in Aging Exercise Studies. She appreciates the need for activities that are more suitable to an aging body, and Petanque works well in that regard. However, unlike Bocce, Petanque seems to appeal more to older -aged citizens. She would hate to see something exclusively set aside for just the older adult age group. She would hope there could be versatility on that same space. Board Member Stewart noted that the potential park elements do not include an open space grass area where Frisbee and other activities could take place. She appreciates that fitness trails were mentioned as an option since they can be designed to appeal to any age. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that the grandstands should be removed, but she suggested that a portion could be retained as a potential lookout, pavilion or place to see the gorgeous view. She also voiced support for Board Member Cloutier's earlier recommendation that the Civic Center would be a great location for a senior center, particularly in conjunction with the Petanque courts. A combination Boys and Girls Club/Community Center/Senior Center would make sense on that site to provide a variety of activities for everyone to enjoy. Ms. Hite said one element that was very popular in the public comments was a grass, multi -use lawn area for drop in soccer, ultimate Frisbee, etc. Board Member Cheung asked what other uses could occur on a Petanque surface. Mr. Jones said the challenge is that uses that go on top of the courts need to be moveable. He said the design team has done similar Petanque courts in parks, and Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 201 decomposed granite is a common material. They have had a lot of success putting the use within a bosque of trees and providing moveable tables and chairs under the trees can result in an elegant and nice environment. They have also designed Petanque and Bocce courts that do not have a barrier around them, and the club appears to be amenable to areas that are not completely enclosed. Whatever the secondary use, it must be moveable. Board Member Monroe asked if a play structure would be incorporated into the site, and Mr. Jones answered affirmatively. Board Member Monroe noted that a large number of people who live near the park are older. He voiced concern that this may skew the input that comes in. Mr. Jones acknowledged that, typically, downtown parks are surrounded by denser, mixed -use development. In those instances, noise is not such a concern. The Civic Center has unique adjacency with single- family and multi -family residential development surrounding it. He said he is not going to recommend changes to the City's park program unless directed by the City and community. The community has voiced their input relative to priorities, but the PAC has recognized that some of the input may be skewed. The design team will work with staff, the City Council and the Planning Board to vet the input carefully. Board Member Monroe asked if Mr. Jones believes that the community input thus far has been 100% representative of community sentiment. Mr. Jones said it is not 100%, but the PAC had a lengthy discussion about the results and felt they were generally representative of the community desires. Mr. Jones summarized that there are a lot of athletic fields, open space and playgrounds in Edmonds. The big question is whether the downtown park should be athletic fields or an active civic site. That is the question they tried to get answered via the survey. Ms. Hite commented that in the next iteration, as the design team puts the components on paper and analyzes the alternatives, the intent is to reach out to more people and make sure the results are equitable. They will also consider options for limiting the number of votes to prevent potential skewing and to gain a better understanding of the demographics of respondents. She commented that a youth member participates on the PAC and will help the City reach out to the younger citizens. Mr. Jones added that the number one goal for the success of the park should be to make the plan as flexible as possible. They can't assume what the community needs will be in the future, so whatever is developed needs to be flexible. Chair Lovell recalled that the athletic fields were originally developed to serve the adjacent high school use, which is no longer present. He expressed his belief that there are plenty of other athletic facilities in Edmonds, particularly of the nature that requires large areas. He suggested the design team be very careful about overusing the site for large-scale athletic activities. He also expressed his belief that the grandstands should be eliminated. They are very unsightly, unusable and unsafe, and they take up valuable land. Furthermore, the historic investigation left the grandstands off the list of candidates for the historic register. As to the fieldhouse, it is clear that the building is not appropriate for its current Boys and Girls Club use. The Boys and Girls Club activities are important to the City, and they have indicated a desire for a new structure of between 18,000 and 25,000 square feet. Given the deed restrictions on the site, it is difficult to consider a building of this size for any use. Chair Lovell referred to the process that was used for the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, which included a number of parameters that dictated some direction as to what the park facilities, accommodations and infrastructure should consist of. He supports Board Member Monroe's concern that the adjacent property owners may be skewing the public comments to date. Given the park's location, he suggested there is potential for a mix of elements that can serve both the neighborhood and the general citizenry. A number of people have indicated that Petanque courts are a high priority, and this should be reflected in the design. Trees and walking paths are also high priorities that should be integrated into multiple layouts. He likes the idea of being able to use the Petanque courts for something other than the activity, itself. He said he is very sensitive to parking issues, which have also been a concern relative to the railroad crossing and the waterfront community center. The City has a parking problem already, and sooner or later it will have to be addressed. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that there are restrictions relative to the use of the site. He suggested that a feasibility rationale or grading system should be applied to each potential element that emerges as part of the alternatives to determine the best use for the portion of property that has fewer restrictions. It is important to understand what can and cannot be done and what improvements would provide the most benefit for the valuable square footage. Ms. Hite advised that the City is currently conducting a structural analysis of the grandstands. While the City owns the land, there are deed restrictions that require the City to follow the state process, which includes a structural analysis before the Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 202 grandstands can be removed. She also advised that the Boys and Girls Club have been involved throughout the process as a stakeholder. A member of the club also participates on the PAC. They have reflected to the City that they are very interested in staying at the Civic Center, but they are also considering other alternatives in the downtown. They have acknowledged that the current building does not serve their needs well. While they have not said they would like to build an 18,000 to 25,000 square foot building at Civic Center, they have indicated that is the model that is successful for similar clubs. Chair Lovell commented that the master plan process is very exciting, and he is glad that there is a lot of community interest. The PAC is well engaged in the process, providing good input and raising thoughtful questions. The park is a valuable piece of property in the heart of the City, and this should be reflected in its use and programming. Chair Lovell reviewed that the consultant and staff will present additional information to the Board on at least two more occasions before they are asked to conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council relative to a preferred alternative for the Civic Center Master Plan. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell asked for an update on the City Council's direction to the Board relative to the Five Corners Subarea Plan. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council indicated a desire to start the process before the end of 2016, beginning with a presentation to bring the new Board members up-to-date on the work that was done previously by a consulting team from the University of Washington. Chair Lovell advised that the next briefing on the Civic Center Master Plan is scheduled for September 14tn PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe reported on his attendance at the Citizens Economic Development Commission meeting, where they established priorities for the year and divided into subcommittees. Actual products for the Council's consideration should start to emerge in the next three to four months. Board Member Stewart asked when the Stormwater Code Update would come before the Board for consideration. Mr. Chave answered that the Stormwater Code Update will go straight to the City Council and will not be reviewed by the Planning Board. He encouraged her to contact the Engineering Division for more information about the process. �IL111J 711u_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 203