2013-01-29 City Council - Public Agenda-1475AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
JANUARY 29, 2013
6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call
2. (45 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
7:00 P.M. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE
3.
4.
5.
(5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
(5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. AM-5423 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2013.
B. AM-5422 Approval of claim checks #200159 through #200253 dated January 24, 2013 for
$220,838.78.
C. AM-5405 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Janie Lee ($551.99).
D. AM-5406 Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license
with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, January 2012.
E. AM-5407 Confirmation of reappointment of Historic Preservation Commissioner Christine
Deiner-Karr.
(2 Hours) Continued Public Hearing and potential action on the Planning Board recommendation
AM-5426 to approve the Port of Edmonds request to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master
Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a
mixed -use transit -oriented development. The mixed -use nature of the Master Plan will
allow for retail, commercial, office and public uses, and residential housing. The Master
Plan could provide 340 to 358 residential units, 50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784 square
Packet Page 1 of 159
feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis
courts), 3.8 acres of public open space, and 1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The
Master Plan envisions buildings of varying heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet
conceptually, buildings up to 35 feet are proposed for the SR- 104/Dayton Street
intersection while buildings of 45 feet are proposed along Dayton Street (with step -back
provisions for portions above 35 feet). Five story buildings (up to 55 feet in height)
could be located toward the far southern edge of the site.
6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7. (10 Minutes) Consideration of adding support of gun control to the Edmonds City Council legislative
AM-5424 agenda.
8. (5 Minutes) Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 159
AM-5423
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 01/29/2013
Time:
Submitted By: Sandy Chase
Department: City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Type: Action
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2013.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
01-22-13 Draft City Council Minutes
Inbox
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Sandy Chase
Final Approval Date: 01/25/2013
Attachments
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Dave Earling 01/24/2013 04:45 PM
Sandy Chase 01/25/2013 08:42 AM
Started On:01/24/2013 10:53 AM
4. A.
Packet Page 3 of 159
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
January 22, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. He noted that executive sessions are not open to the public. In addition, he stated that it was
anticipated action may occur in open session as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public
Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive
session concluded at 6:47 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:48 p.m.
3. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
At 6:49 p.m., the City Council met with Arts Commission candidate Marni Muir. The meeting took place
in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Mayor Earling and all City
Councilmembers were present for the meeting with Ms. Muir.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the flag salute.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 1
Packet Page 4 of 159
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2013.
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #200000 THROUGH #200157 DATED JANUARY 17,
2013 FOR $737,713.83. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS
#52046 THROUGH #52060 FOR $502,603.28, BENEFIT CHECKS #52061 THROUGH
#52069 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $214,556.09 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2013
THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2013.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECK #200158 DATED JANUARY 18, 2013 FOR $10,480.23.
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
CONTRACTS FOR TOURISM PROMOTION FUNDING FOR LOCAL CULTURAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY VISITOR'S BUREAU $6,000 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION
AND SUPPORT OF VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE EDMONDS
CENTER FOR THE ARTS $12,500 TO ATTRACT VISITORS TO EDMONDS
THROUGH ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AND
ANNUAL CULTURAL EVENTS/FESTIVALS IN THEIR 2013/2014 SEASON
BROCHURE.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE EDMONDS
VISITOR'S CENTER $2,500 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND SUPPORT OF
VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS.
H. CONFIRMATION OF ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATE MARNI MUIR.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Donna Breske, Snohomish, relayed Edmonds Code 20.75.100 states preliminary plats will expire five
years after the date of preliminary plat approval. The Washington State Legislature recognized due to the
economic downturn, the 5 year timeframe was not attainable for many preliminary plat approvals;
therefore, RCW 58.17.140 was revised to give local jurisdictions the ability to offer some relief, offering
7 years to complete a preliminary plat if it received preliminary plat approval on or before December 31,
2014. She suggested Edmonds adopt the 7 year time frame for the following reasons: 1) gives investors
added time as a result of the recession to successfully complete their project, 2) facilitates construction of
additional dwelling units which adds property tax revenue, 3) additional dwelling units means more
people living in the City, patronizing City businesses, 4) is consistent with other jurisdictions including
Snohomish County who revised their codes to include the seven year timeframe and 5) adding additional
dwelling units is consistent with GMA mandates to promote development of additional dwelling units.
She is aware of a preliminary plat that expired on January 17, 2013. In a recent meeting with City staff
regarding her client's 3-lot preliminary plat that will expire on July 25, 2013, she asked why staff had not
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 2
Packet Page 5 of 159
recommended to the Council increasing the timeframe to 7 years. Jen Machuga informed her, 1) if the
plat expires, her client can simply reapply, and 2) she (Ms. Breske) could attend the next Council meeting
and inform them of the 7 year timeframe. She provided Mr. Taraday, Mayor Earling and Councilmembers
a copy of Snohomish County's revision to their code to allow a 7 year timeframe.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, recalled a proposal was submitted to Council that included development
agreements. As an Economic Development Commissioner, he supported the concept of development
agreements at that time because it was a way for the City to send a message to developers that the City
was interested in a certain type of business or use in a certain area. After further consideration and
comments made at the public hearing he changed his view until he got an answer to this question: If the
Council approves a development agreement on the basis of the use, does the use stay with the property
owner or the property? For example, if the Council approved a development agreement for a boutique
hotel and after it was built, the owner decided they wanted to change the use; is a public process and
Council approval required to change the use. Another example, if the development agreement is approved
for a boutique hotel and the property is sold, is a public process and Council approval required to change
the use.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to development agreements, pointing out the City needs a residential
plan. He stated that a shopping center in Mountlake Terrace is being replaced with a residential complex.
He referred to discussion that is occurring in Seattle regarding views.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING INCENTIVE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to a memo in the Council packet regarding development agreements
and incentive zoning. He was asked to draft a memo regarding how development agreements can be
utilized to encourage certain types of economic development, how incentive zoning might also be used to
do the same and how potentially they could be used together.
Incentive Zoning
Mr. Taraday explained incentive zoning is a type of flexible zoning whereby a city obtains public benefits
or amenities from private developers in exchange for certain modified zoning requirements. He explained
Seattle uses increased height as an incentive; they allow developers to build X feet more height if the
developer provides certain public benefits or amenities. Public benefits or amenities can include
affordable housing, historic landmark preservation, public open space, hill climb assists, etc. He explained
Seattle obtained most of the escalators in downtown skyscrapers that allow people to go from one street to
another via incentive zoning.
A developer can opt out of incentive zoning as it is not a requirement in the same way development
regulations are required. For example, every city has basic development regulations that address
mandatory items such as setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etc. Incentive zoning uses the mandatory
regulations as a fallback; if a developer does not take advantage of the incentive zoning, they can develop
under the base zoning. If the Council is interested in implementing an incentive zoning program, there
needs to be the right balance between the incentive and the public benefit. If the City's ask is too high and
the incentive to the developer is too low, developers will not use the incentive zoning program and will
develop under the existing base zoning. Conversely, if the City's ask is too low and the incentive to the
developer too high, citizens will not be happy with the Council. Thus the need for a balance between the
right amount of public benefit and the right amount of incentive that makes it pencil for the developer and
makes it acceptable to the public.
Mr. Taraday referred to a list of benefits or amenities the City could receive (page 179 of the Council
packet) through an incentive zoning program that includes parks, plazas and other open space; shopping
atriums; overhead weather protection; bicycle parking; outdoor performing arts venues, etc. He
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 3
Packet Page 6 of 159
summarized the benefit or amenity can be anything the Council wants to see in the City; things they want
for citizens but are difficult to provide in the budget or by the market. The benefits/amenities are only
limited by the Council's imagination.
He referred to a list of incentives the City could provide (page 180) that include increases in residential or
nonresidential unit density, increased lot coverage, changes in setback requirements, changes in height
requirements, increases in floor area ratio (FAR), etc. He reiterated the incentives need to be something
developers want; if they do not want it, they will not provide what the City wants. Mr. Taraday referred to
examples of things that have been implemented through incentive zoning (page 181).
Mr. Taraday referred to a process to implement incentive zoning (page 182), noting some are general
planning concepts and some may have already taken place in Edmonds in other contexts. To implement
incentive zoning, the City would need to determine which steps have already been sufficiently
accomplished, which need to be done again, and which have not been done at all. Steps include:
1. Assemble stakeholders
2. Determine what incentives the City should offer
3. Determine what public benefits and/or amenities participating developers will be required to
provide
4. Create the incentive zone and amend planning documents such as the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan. An incentive zone is necessary if the incentive zoning program does not
apply on a citywide basis. The City is not required to implement incentive zoning on a citywide
basis and it can be limited to specific areas.
5. Adopt the changes
6. Market the new incentives to make the public and development community aware
Development Agreements
Mr. Taraday explained a development agreement is a tool offered by State law under RCW 36.70B.170.
The development agreement is a contract between the city and the developer that specifies the standards
and conditions that will apply to a particular development on the property. The development agreement is
recorded against the title and is not personal to the developer. If the developer with whom the City
negotiates the development agreement sells the property, the development agreement goes with the
property. Development agreements can be long, extensive documents that take a long time to negotiate. In
some cases development agreements are used in conjunction with a city's regular development
regulations. Ultimately State law requires development agreements be consistent with the underlying
development regulations. Flexibility can be incorporated by including language in the zoning code or
development regulations that specifically state the standard can be modified in conjunction with a
development agreement or modified in conjunction with a development agreement up to a certain point.
Development agreements are a particularly useful tool and were originally used in Washington for
projects that take a very long time to complete such as Redmond Ridge and Snoqualmie Ridge, mammoth
subdivisions with thousands of homes. In those situations, a development agreement is important because
it provides assurance for a developer to undertake the required infrastructure. The primary reason for a
development agreement is it gives a developer vesting to a defined set of regulations for a long period of
time to allow extended build -out of a very large project. He explained there are other circumstances
where he would recommend the City use a development agreement even if it was not built over a long
period of time such as any time the City obtains or imposes any significant project -specific addition. For
example, if a project is required to put in a $200,000 traffic light, the City may want to consider using a
development agreement to ensure all parties understand the timing of the mitigation. Development
agreements are a good tool for high stakes developments.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to respond to Dr. Senderoff's question, whether a project
stayed with the property. Mr. Taraday answered it depends. Development agreements are recorded on the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 4
Packet Page 7 of 159
property; if the City enters into a development agreement with the expectation that only one use will
occur on the property, that language can be included in the development agreement. He was uncertain of
the wisdom of including that language because if a future owner's hands are tightly tied to what they can
do on the property, it may end up being a vacant space. For example, the development agreement states in
exchange for something, the only allowed use on the property will be a museum for the useful life of the
property. If the museum cannot survive financially and closes, it remains vacant because it cannot be used
for any other purpose. That could be resolved by the property owner requesting an amendment to the
development agreement. Development agreements can always be amended.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to #4 in the implementation steps for incentive zoning (create the
incentive zone and amend planning documents such as the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan),
asking whether the Comprehensive Plan set the parameters for an area and zoning sets requirements under
the parameters. Mr. Taraday answered yes, as a general rule. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the
proposed process, creating the incentive zoning first and then amending the zoning ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taraday answered not all the steps were necessary. It is intended to identify
what the process could look like, not that it is a required process for Edmonds. As a general rule, the
Comprehensive Plan is the City's visioning document and the zoning regulations implement the
Comprehensive Plan and are required to be consistent.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example: The Comprehensive Plan is amended to state 90 feet,
incentive zoning states to attain 60 feet, a developer must do an environmental thing with a cost of $1
million and the developers says no, can the developer then use the 90 feet in the Comprehensive Plan?
Mr. Taraday explained the City may have language in its Comprehensive Plan that would allow
implementation of incentive zoning without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To Councilmember
Buckshnis' question, incentive zoning is optional in the sense that there will always be base regulations
that apply to the property that specify the height, setback, use, etc. Via incentive zoning, the City may
allow a height bonus for providing a benefit/amenity. If the developer does not want to provide that
benefit/amenity, they can build to the base height.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained incentive zoning is part of the zoning code but is
not the default development regulation. The default is the base regulations. For example, if the default is
35 feet and the bonus height through incentive zoning is 65 feet, if the developer does not want to provide
what is required to attain 65 feet, he is stuck with the 35 feet. Or there could be incremental incentive
zoning; a developer could attain 35 feet with no benefit/amenity and for every 10 feet of bonus height he
is required to provide a significant benefit/amenity. Mr. Taraday provided a hypothesis: if there is no
language in the Comprehensive Plan that would allow incentive zoning, the City would first want to
propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment either concurrently or prior to zoning that would say
something like incentive zoning is an allowable, recognized and valuable zoning tool in Edmonds. Or the
language could be more detailed to address areas of the City where incentive zoning was welcomed. The
maximum incentive did not need to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a development agreement was similar to a contract rezone. Mr.
Taraday agreed it was very similar. Before the statutory authority was provided for development
agreements, most were called contract rezones. Contract rezones were never expressly authorized by the
legislature; courts have recognized the validity of contract rezones. The development agreement statute
states nothing herein invalidates any prior existing contract rezones. A development agreement goes
further than a contract rezone; typically a contract rezone is for the purpose of limiting the use for a
property. For example, a developer petitions the City to change the zoning to General Commercial and
General Commercial has 20 uses, 10 of which would be completely inappropriate for the particular
property. Via the contract rezone the property owner agrees to limit his use to the 10 appropriate uses. A
contract rezone is typically only a rezone, it does not get into development standards, mitigation, etc.,
whereas a development agreement would be more comprehensive and specify many of the development
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 5
Packet Page 8 of 159
regulations that apply to the property and would also vest the property to the regulations for a specific
period of time.
If a development agreement is approved for a property, Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether
surrounding properties in the same zone were unaffected. Mr. Taraday answered there needed to be a
rational basis for distinguishing one area from another. While the approval of a development agreement
may only apply to a specific property in the application, it is less clear what happens when a neighboring
property asks for a similar type of development. For that reason he discouraged the City from using
development agreements to simply negotiate the terms of development on an ad hoc basis. A set of
qualifying thresholds could be established for determining what projects could use a development
agreement such as related to a particular use or size. He stressed development agreements are not an
efficient tool; a substantial amount of time and energy goes into negotiating a development agreement and
the City would not want to do it for every single family home.
Councilmember Yamamoto observed incentive zoning is for a broader area and development agreements
are more site specific. He asked if the list of benefits/amenities could be changed at a developer's request?
Mr. Taraday answered it would depend on how the City's zoning code is written. He has not been asked
to draft an incentive zoning ordinance and did not know what benefits or amenities would be required or
what incentives would be offered. If the City wanted to develop an incentive zoning ordinance that
identified the benefits, amenities and incentives in advance, he recommended it be tested before adoption
by reaching out to the development community to determine whether it was workable. For example, ask
the development community how much an extra 20 feet of height was worth to them and similarly
determine how much it would cost to provide certain amenities to ensure there was a rough balance.
Without a balance, the program may never be utilized. The amount of flexibility in the implementation
stage depends on how much flexibility the Council wants. The ordinance can be drafted with some
flexibility or with very little flexibility.
For Councilmember Yamamoto, Mr. Taraday explained if incentive zoning is adopted and developers do
not use it in its current form, it can be refined by the Council. It may take a couple iterations to strike the
right balance.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked if a development agreement should be done in conjunction with
incentive zoning? Mr. Taraday answered it could; the development agreement must be consistent with the
underlying zoning regulations including incentive zoning regulations. Some may have viewed a
development agreement as a tool that allowed the City or developer to do whatever they wanted. It is not
designed to be used that way and State law states it must be consistent with underlying development
regulations. He summarized it was difficult to hypothesize without knowing what type of criteria the
Council might adopt to allow decision makers to determine whether a developer has earned the incentive.
That can be done in the future, once the Council has determined whether it wants to use these tools and if
so, what incentives are they most interested in allowing developers to use and what benefits/amenities are
they most interest in obtaining.
Council President Petso recalled Council referred review of the BC Edmonds Way zone and the RM
Edmonds Way zone to the Planning Board; those appear to be incentive zoning provisions such as 10 feet
of extra height for providing something. She recalled Mr. Taraday saying the City needed to amend its
Comprehensive Plan to allow incentive zoning, but it appears the Comprehensive Plan may already allow
it. Mr. Taraday replied he had not concluded that the City's Comprehensive Plan needed to be amended to
allow incentive zoning. The memo was a very high level outline of steps that the City may want to take.
Council President Petso asked how incentive zoning was enforced? For example, a developer gets 10 feet
extra height for providing 1000 square feet of public plaza space. The building is constructed and the
plaza is only 600 square feet. Mr. Taraday answered it was the same remedy for any other misapplication
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 6
Packet Page 9 of 159
of the zoning code. For example if a height was miscalculated and was 1 foot over the height limit or 1
foot within the setback. The courts have recently ruled if a City does not take steps to fix it within the
LUPA appeal period, it may be too late to fix it later.
Council President Petso referred to Mr. Taraday's statement that the development agreement must be
consistent with development regulations. For example, if the City's development regulations allow 25 + 5
feet, the development agreement may allow 35 feet which would seem to be inconsistent with the
development regulations. She asked if the development regulations would need to be amended first. Mr.
Taraday answered that may be necessary depending on what the development regulations and the
development agreement say. Using Council President Petso's example, the development regulations could
be amended to state 25 + 5 feet unless approved through a development agreement in which case the
maximum height shall be X.
Council President Petso asked how a contract rezone was allowed when it was not complying with the
underlying regulations but changing the underlying regulations? Mr. Taraday stated it was complying
with the underlying regulations but agreeing to use them in a limited way. The measurement is not against
the old zoning but against the new zoning. A separate question is if the rezone should be allowed and if it
meets the standards for allowing a rezone. Use of consistency in the land use context does not mean it
needs to be identical. Using the example of 20 uses allowed in a zone and 10 are inappropriate; if the
contract rezone or development agreement states the property shall only be utilized for the following 10
uses and those are permitted in the zone, it is not an inconsistency. If the contract rezone or development
agreement allowed a use that was not a permitted use in the zone, that would be an inconsistency.
Councilmember Johnson recalled 1-2 years ago the Planning Board forwarded a recommendation to the
City Council regarding development agreements. At that time the strongest argument for development
agreements was flexibility and site specificity. It was also felt at that time that there could be a pre-
determined set of objectives that were desired for a particular parcel of land and the development
agreement could be tailored to that parcel. She asked whether that concept was still current and what had
happened to the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Taraday answered criteria could be developed to
determine when a development agreement could be used. The development agreement portion of his
memo is a follow on to the Planning Board's process. The incentive zoning portion of the memo is a new
addition but intended to be considered as part of that same analysis because they are related.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding at the Planning Board that via a development
agreement, a change could be made to any of the development code requirements for a site. Mr. Taraday
answered if the City adopted language in its regulations that states except when utilizing a development
agreement in which case the standards shall not exceed X. That is how flexibility is built into the code to
allow for the ability to use the development agreement to craft something on a property -specific basis. It
was difficult to predict all the pitfalls without knowing the qualifying factors that would allow use of a
development agreement. He summarized everything Councilmember Johnson learned at the Planning
Board level is still applicable to today's analysis but he recommended the Council establish boundaries
regarding the amount of flexibility to ensure the Council understands what they will get when they
encourage use of a development agreement.
Mr. Taraday explained development agreements come to the Council for a quasi judicial land use hearing
as well as approval of the agreement. For Councilmembers who like quasi judicial land use hearings and
sitting as judges, development agreements may be their tool of choice. For Councilmembers who would
rather have a Hearing Examiner or someone similarly qualified be the decision maker, incentive zoning
may be a better route. With incentive zoning, the Council has the option of having the Hearing Examiner
be the decision maker; with development agreements, by State law the Council must make the decision.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 7
Packet Page 10 of 159
Councilmember Johnson explained the Harbor Square Master Plan was initially developed through a
contract rezone and their plans call for a development agreement. She asked whether there were any other
major developments in the City that used either a contract rezone or development agreement. Mr. Taraday
answered there is a contract rezone on the Harbor Square property that governs the existing development.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment the Council is considering regarding Harbor Square contemplates
replacing the contract rezone with new zoning. If the Council has no intention of changing the contract
rezone, there is no reason to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process for Harbor Square.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Port's proposal to make a change. Mr. Taraday answered the Port
would like to use the development agreement tool to implement and get approval of their ultimate
development. In that situation, a development agreement may make a lot of sense because, 1) it is a
redevelopment not a new development, and 2) because it is a redevelopment, it may take longer.
Hypothetically, he imagined a redevelopment scenario where part would redevelop in the first five years,
part in the second five years and part in the third five years. That long build -out would be a good
candidate for a development agreement. If upfront infrastructure were to be provided as part of the
development agreement, the City needs to provide long term certainty to the developer that they will have
the time necessary to go through the redevelopment process.
Councilmember Johnson relayed one of the questions she has been pondering is under what
circumstances would a development agreement process be preferred over the incentive zoning process,
recognizing that the answer depends.
Councilmember Johnson recalled the Council recently requested the Planning Board consider design
standards for the downtown area. There are design standards for BD1 and there were design guidelines
for BD2-4. She asked whether allowing the 25 foot height limit to be extended to 30 feet if certain
conditions were met was an example of incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday answered it was.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the timeline to move forward on development agreements or
incentive zoning, recognizing there appeared to be a large upfront process for incentive zoning. Mr.
Taraday answered it depends on policy guidance provided by the Council. He suggested the Council
deliberate on the types of incentives and benefits/amenities. He reiterated it was not necessarily
development agreements or incentive zoning and he did not want to scare the Council away from
incentive zoning because it was too much work. It would dramatically narrow the picture if the Council
could identify three benefits/amenities it wanted to target via an incentive zoning program. With that
guidance, staff could think more concretely about how a program could be crafted. Similarly, if the
Council provided some guidance regarding incentives it would find acceptable to offer. He cautioned
against simply developing a wish list without balancing it with market demands to help pay for it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the only thing she has heard that developers might want in
exchange is height. She asked whether developers were interested in other incentives. Mr. Taraday
acknowledged height is a big one, another is FAR. He explained in Seattle FAR is often the bonus for
providing certain amenities. For example a developer with a 100,000 square foot property with an FAR of
2.0 under base zoning equates to a 200,000 square foot building. As an incentive, Seattle might allow an
FAR of 2.5 for certain amenities which would allow the developer to build a 250,000 square foot
building. He summarized developers want to make money; they must be given something that will allow
them to make more money, either height, density, FAR, exemption from parking, etc. If the incentive
does not increase the developer's bottom line, the program will not work.
Councilmember Peterson asked if there was a fine line between a development agreement and incentive
zoning, and spot zoning. He assumed there could not be incentive zoning on a single lot. Mr. Taraday
answered there is no fine line. As a general rule if a rational basis can be articulated for distinguishing
between allowing a particular use or structure to be built on a parcel and not allow a similar structure/use
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 8
Packet Page 11 of 159
on another property, it would meet the test. There needed to be a rational basis for distinguishing between
two properties that otherwise might be considered similar. Staff would analyze that in any scenario the
Council asked to implement.
Councilmember Peterson provided the following example: if the desired use was a boutique hotel and an
incentive zone were created that overlaid a certain BD zone, could the number of boutique hotels be
limited. Mr. Taraday answered yes if there was a rational basis. Councilmember Peterson assumed the
market would also play a role.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council determined the measurement for the incentives? For
example, for a rain garden incentive, would it be applied citywide? Mr. Taraday answered the Council
would take public input either formally at a public hearing, informally via talking to constituents or
utilizing prior land use documents that included an extensive public process. With regard to how large a
rain garden would need to be to qualify as a benefit, the ordinance would include measurable criteria.
Identifying a short list of possible benefits and amenities would allow staff to begin drafting the
ordinance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the rain garden could be in downtown or on Highway 99; it
would depend on citizens' interest. Mr. Taraday answered there was no obligation to do incentive zoning
on a citywide basis. The Council could use it only in areas where they wanted to incentivize development
and not in other areas.
Councilmember Yamamoto inquired about limitations on the city's ability to place conditions on a
development agreement and the U.S. Supreme Court case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
where the Commission required the landowner to grant a public easement across private beach property in
exchange for a permit to convert a beach bungalow into a 2-story dwelling. The Supreme Court ruled this
condition an unconstitutional taking of property. He asked if that could have been accomplished via
incentive zoning and if that same issue could arise for a walkway over the tracks. Mr. Taraday answered
that was more worrisome in the development agreement context than the incentive zoning context. In
incentive zoning, a formula is applied on an area -wide basis for deviation for the underlying zone. With
incentive zoning, no one is forced to do anything, developers are allowed to use the base development
regulations or the incentive zoning bonus. In a development agreement, the City would need to ensure
there was reasonable connection between what the City asks for and the impact on the developer. He was
unsure any case had applied Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in this context. He referenced
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission to illustrate the City could not just do whatever it wanted
through the use of a development agreement.
Councilmember Bloom provided the following example: the Comprehensive Plan zoned several parcels
General Commercial in an area of the City, and a decision was made to change one lot to Mixed Use and
the City entered into a development agreement with that property owner. She recalled Mr. Taraday saying
he discouraged ad hoc negotiation of development standards. She asked if a nearby parcel also zoned
General Commercial could request the same development agreement. Mr. Taraday answered he did not
worry about an ad hoc challenge at the Comprehensive Plan stage; there was really no such thing as spot
comprehensive planning. The Comprehensive Plan is such a high level document the City has extremely
broad legislative discretion. A development agreement is a project level approval. He clarified not all ad
hoc negotiation was a bad thing; it needed to be guided by some standards; it could not be completely
unbridled legislative discretion. The higher the planning process, the more legislative discretion the
Council has, subject only to rational basis review. The further planning gets toward project level impacts,
the more decisions must be guided by standards.
Councilmember Bloom clarified her question: the Harbor Square Master Plan asks that the City change
the Comprehensive Plan to include mixed use; it is currently General Commercial. If the Comprehensive
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 9
Packet Page 12 of 159
Plan is changed to include mixed use for the Harbor Square Master Plan, citizens are concerned if the
City enters into a development agreement, surrounding properties could ask for the same thing. Mr.
Taraday responded the Port has gone through an extensive planning process; if the City Council were
inclined to adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan, and make a corresponding map amendment to designate
the Port property from other property in the vicinity, a distinction has been created in the Comprehensive
Plan between the Port property and surrounding property. There would not be any need to allow other
property in the vicinity to do the same thing because a distinction would be created in the Comprehensive
Plan by showing the Port property differently. It would no longer have the same treatment on the map as
surrounding properties, particularly if the Master Plan is adopted as a subarea plan.
If a development agreement were drafted to implement the Harbor Square Master Plan, Mr. Taraday
recommended an intermediate step after the Comprehensive Plan adoption and before development
agreement approval where the City Council would establish some standards to guide the negotiation of
the development agreement. As illustrated in Anderson v. Issaquah, one of the problems with ad hoc
decision making is the developer needs to be provided a roadmap to understand what the City wants so
the developer knows how to reach the finish line.
Councilmember Bloom questioned whether approving a development agreement for one property could
affect the City's entire development picture in terms of what other developers might ask for. Mr. Taraday
responded if the Council adopts the Harbor Square Master Plan as a subarea plan and the new
Comprehensive Plan land use map shows Harbor Square with a special new map designation, Harbor
Square now has a distinguishing characteristic that surrounding properties do not. If the Council later
adopted a development agreement for Harbor Square, it would not necessarily have to do the same for a
neighboring property because that property would not have the same Comprehensive Plan treatment.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Taraday's comment that development agreements are not an
efficient tool and it takes a long time to negotiate the agreement. She asked for an estimate of how long
negotiations would take. Mr. Taraday answered he could not estimate it because there were too many
factors. It depends on how helpful the other party is being; if the developer's attorney does a lot of the leg
work, the City Attorney can be in a reviewing and editing mode; or if he is doing all the legwork and the
other attorney does the reviewing and editing. Negotiations can be simple, straightforward and short or
complex, drawn out and reach impasse on certain issues.
Councilmember Bloom asked who does the negotiations. Mr. Taraday answered the Council ultimately
approves the development agreement. The City Attorney would be one of the lead negotiators in
conjunction with key staff. The Council may want to appoint Council representatives to assist with
negotiations as is done with labor negotiations. A draft development agreement would be provided to the
Council and a public hearing held on the draft. Depending on the public hearing, the Council could
approve or reject the development agreement or request revisions.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Taraday's comment that there could be three phases for Harbor
Square redevelopment. Mr. Taraday answered he was hypothesizing, recognizing that there is existing
development at Harbor Square and his hypothesis could be totally wrong and redevelopment of Harbor
Square would not be a phased development. The reason for his hypothesis was the useful life of existing
development at Harbor Square may vary. The Port may want to stagger redevelopment of the site so that
some facilities are redeveloped first and others redeveloped later. That could happen particularly well if a
development agreement were utilized to contemplate phasing, identify when infrastructure would be
done, and vest the development to regulations so that the Port has assurance regarding the rules that
govern redevelopment.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Taraday's comment that a development agreement is not an
efficient process and is very time consuming for City staff, the City Attorney, the Council and the public.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 10
Packet Page 13 of 159
Mr. Taraday answered it could be; an incentive zoning process done by the City Council could also be a
time consuming process. There are a lot of variables. As a general rule he would expect a development
agreement would be more time consuming to implement than incentive zoning. Councilmember Bloom
observed incentive zoning would allow the Council less input into what happens because the developer
could choose to develop under the base development regulations and not utilize the incentive zoning. Mr.
Taraday answered he would not recommend that there be areas of the City where the only way anything
could be built on the site was with a development agreement. The main reason development agreements
were authorized was to provide extended vesting to developers. Its primary utility is for projects that will
take a long time to construct. It is usually the developer who approaches the city asking for a development
agreement.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) and the 21 day period comes into
play with regard to a development agreement. Mr. Taraday answered the State created a statute for
judicial review of land use applications. If the City were to approve a development agreement and
someone wanted to appeal the development, the 21 days begins upon approval of the development
agreement. Anyone who wanted to challenge a development agreement must file a LUPA appeal in
Superior Court within the 21 day period; if they do not, the development agreement will be in effect for
whatever its term is.
Council President Petso relayed her understanding that no property owner could be required to enter into
a development agreement, including the Port. Mr. Taraday answered he would not recommend the City
adopt zoning for any property that did not allow development on the site without a development
agreement. He preferred to provide some base zoning because it protects the City from legal liability. If
the Council could not reach agreement on a development agreement, the developer could develop using
the base zoning.
Council President Petso inquired about nexus, such as if the Council wanted to require a larger buffer for
the Edmonds Marsh as part of a development agreement, could the Port say that is not connected to their
proposal because they are not developing the property near the Marsh for 20 years. Mr. Taraday answered
that was difficult to hypothesize. Nexus issues must consider the impacts of the development throughout
all phases. Council President Petso asked whether the Port could redevelop the site and not address the
Marsh buffer for 20 years under the nexus requirement in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. Mr.
Taraday anticipated the negotiations on a development agreement would include the timing of a number
of issues including an enhanced shoreline buffer.
Mayor Earling suggested sending this issue to the Planning Board and Economic Development
Commission to get their thoughts and recommendations.
Council President Petso suggested since an incentive zoning issue has been referred to the Planning
Board, it would be helpful to look at that example in connection with their discussion. Mayor Earling
commented that was a separate issue and he did not want to time freeze that issue in conjunction with this
discussion.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN A REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) is:
• Formed under RCW 52.26.
• A multi jurisdictional fire response and emergency medical services (EMS) provider.
• A separate, new legal entity.
• Formed by more than one jurisdiction. Can be cities and/or fire districts.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 11
Packet Page 14 of 159
• Provides the benefits of regionalization:
o Decrease duplicative services
o Increase efficiencies
o Enhance service delivery
Can provide a governance structure that includes appointed city/district elected official
representation or separately elected RFA Commissioners.
Formed by majority vote of all jurisdictions in the proposed RFA (all or nothing).
Key issues when deciding to form or join an RFA include:
• Boundary — Who is included or excluded? Includes cities/fire districts but they must be
contiguous to each other.
• Finances — RFAs have two basic options:
o A property tax levy of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, OR
o A property tax levy of $1.00 plus a Fire Benefit Charge (FBC).
o A RFA may also have an EMS levy of up to $0.50 per $1,000.
• Governance — Elected officials appointed to RFA Governing Board by the cities/districts, or RFA
Commissioners elected at -large or RFA election districts.
• Staffing — For stations (service levels) and administrative positions.
• Equipment and facilities (sell, lease or give to RFA).
Mr. Hunstock provided a map indicating the participants, explaining nine jurisdictions began meeting in
March 2011 to explore the concept of an RFA:
Brier*
Mukilteo
Edmonds
Woodway
Lynnwood (may withdraw)
Fire District 1
Mill Creek * (have withdrawn)
Fire District 7
Mountlake Terrace
* currently receiving service under contract with either FD1 or FD7
Mr. Hunstock reviewed the RFA planning process:
• Work is organized around four different groups:
o Planning Committee: responsible for overall planning process including subcommittee
assignments and timeline. (Earling, Peterson, Petso)
o Communications Subcommittee: responsible for developing an RFA communications plan,
public outreach, public information, etc. (Earling)
o Finance Subcommittee: responsible for analysis and recommendations regarding financial
issues (finance model, budget, funding options). (Petso)
o Level of Service Subcommittee: responsible for making recommendations regarding staffing
and level of service. (Peterson)
• The committees have met almost every month since the planning effort started in 2011.
• A draft planning document and the finance model were reviewed in October 2012 by Citygate
Associates. Some of the Findings in that review include:
o The finance model represents best practices for regional fire services.
o More work needs to be done on administrative and command staffing.
o The Plan document needs to address the issue of equipment and facilities (what and how both
go to the RFA).
o Governance not yet addressed (at that time).
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 12
Packet Page 15 of 159
• The Finance Subcommittee made recommendations to the Planning Committee on how the Fire
Benefit Charge (FBC) is to be calculated.
o It would allocate approximately 66% of total FBC to residential properties.
o The recommendation was prior to the removal of Mill Creek (and possibly Lynnwood), so
changes will more than likely occur.
• The Level of Service (staffing) will need to be updated as well as cities decide who is in and who
is out.
• A draft Governance Plan was developed by the Planning Committee with the following
recommendations:
o Each city (seven at the time) would have one elected official appointed by Council to
participate on the Governing Board.
o The two fire districts would share seven Board positions (four for FD1 and three for FD7).
o The recommendation attempts to allocate Board positions roughly by population.
• No State requirement (RCW) that representation on the Governing Board be allocated by
population.
• Auburn was the first to form an RFA, with Pacific and Algona. Auburn has one-third the vote
on the Governing Board with 88% of the combined population.
Mr. Hunstock provided a status report on RFA planning today:
• Waiting for changes to the finance model, level of staffing, and possibly other items that will
incorporate the following:
o Impact of removing Mill Creek, and possibly Lynnwood, from the planning process.
o Continued discussion about the components (factors) in the FBC calculation.
• No formal agreement yet on the governance structure for the RFA Board.
Mr. Hunstock reviewed next steps:
• Receive updated finance model from FD 1 staff with no Mill Creek, and possibly no Lynnwood.
• Update projections for costs/savings for the City, as well as Edmonds taxpayers.
• Provide Council with the estimates at the February 5th City Council meeting.
• Include Mayor recommendation to continue or not.
• Council discussion and adoption of resolution to continue or discontinue.
Mr. Hunstock explained if the City decided not to participate in the RFA, the City could join this or
another RFA in the future. The State statute was revised to allow cities or fire districts to join after
formation of an RFA. The City has a 20-year agreement with FD1 that expires in 2030. The Interlocal
Agreement states neither party can withdraw during the first five years and after five years, there is a two
year notice for either FD1 or the City to withdraw. The current agreement with FD1 is effective through
2016. Staff has verified with FD1 that if FD1 goes away by virtue of the formation of an RFA, the
agreement will be honored through the terms in the Interlocal Agreement.
Mayor Earling reported Lynnwood may withdraw at their Council meeting next Monday. With the
withdrawal of Mill Creek and now possibly Lynnwood, adjusted numbers need to be provided. Once
those numbers are available, Councilmember Peterson, Council President Petso and he will develop a
recommendation that will be presented to the Council on February 5.
Council President Petso referred to the resolutions in the packet, noting the resolution withdrawing from
participation in the Planning Committee states the City plans to continue attending Planning Committee
meetings and to continue to evaluate the City's future involvement.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mr. Hunstock, commenting his participation in this process in another
city and his knowledge of RFAs has been an incredible resource as well as his knowledge of the numbers.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 13
Packet Page 16 of 159
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that revised numbers will be provided with possibly
two cities withdrawing, a recommendation provided and the Council vote on the resolution on February 5.
Mayor Earling responded that is the plan. If Lynnwood decides to withdraw, the deadline may change.
The timeline now is to make a recommendation to the Council and vote on the resolution on February 5 to
allow them to report the City's decision to the RFA Planning Committee on February 6.
Councilmember Peterson explained the Planning Committee established the February 6 deadline because
there is a tight timeline to finalize the numbers and prepare information for the ballot.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has attended a few meetings; the numbers are always
changing and she was not comfortable with it. She explained if the City joined an RFA, it would be
similar to the SnoIsle taxing authority. The City currently contracts for service with FD1; if the City joins
the RFA, it would be a regional taxing authority that the citizens would have no control over.
Councilmember Yamamoto reported he attended a committee meeting in Council President Petso's
absence; there is a huge potential savings for Lynnwood by joining the RFA. He asked why they would
withdraw? Mayor Earling answered there were a lot of rumors and he did not want to speculate.
9. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Peterson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum meeting included a lively group of citizens
due to flooding that occurs at this time of year. There are four projects listed on the CIP but no funding
sources. Including the projects on the CIP allows staff to apply for grant funds. The committee also
briefly discussed sending a delegation to Washington DC. Congressman McDermott had staff members
available and Congressman Larsen attended a meeting last week in Mountlake Terrace. Councilmember
Peterson looked forward to securing funds to fix inflow and outflow issues in Lake Ballinger.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board plans to present a summary to the Council in February of
their work and their plans for 2013. At the retreat, she hoped to discuss the Tree Board's need for staff
support.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission meeting included discussion
regarding limiting uses in the BD zones.
Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom continues to work through issues with the new dispatch
system, New World. SnoCom is in dispute resolution with New World now due to withholding annual
maintenance payments because the product is not yet operational. As a member of the budget committee,
he will be traveling to Troy, Michigan, regarding the dispute resolution.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is comprised of 28 cities, 8 large environmental groups, US
Corp of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, Natural Resources, and King
Conservation District. The WRIA 8 meeting included discussion of plans for this year and the Puget
Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. Outgoing Governor Gregoire included $80 million in the
budget; it is hoped that will be included in Governor Inslee's budget. She is working on funding for the
Edmonds Marsh and daylighting Willow Creek. She reported a presentation was made to WRIA 8
regarding a culvert replacement funded in part by a citizen in Sammamish.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow meets tomorrow and will be
discussing plans for 2013 and 2035 growth targets. Edmonds is tracking well with its growth targets. The
meeting will also include an update on the Inter urisdictional Housing Committee.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 14
Packet Page 17 of 159
Councilmember Johnson reported the Historic Preservation Commission's focus this year will be on
registering historic properties. Calendars featuring historic Edmonds are available on the second floor of
City Hall and at many local businesses.
Councilmember Johnson reported the Highway 99 Task Force discussed development opportunity in the
corridor.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the South County Cities annual meeting included election of
officers. She provided their State Legislative Agenda and asked staff to copy it to Councilmembers.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Parking Committee plans to make a presentation to the
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee regarding parking tickets. Currently a driver can get half
off a parking ticket if it is paid within 48 hours; that creates problems because the parking enforcement
staff have 5 days to turn in tickets. Drivers are then making payments at the court before the ticket is filed.
Seattle and Everett use handheld electronic parking devices that allow the parking enforcement staff to
enter the license plate and the information is forwarded to an outside company. The Police Chief plans to
confer with other cities that use the devices.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling commented it was much warmer where he vacationed last week.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson announced the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission will
hold a joint meeting on Wednesday, January 23 to discuss the strategic plan.
Council President Petso advised a draft retreat agenda was distributed to Council. She asked to be
informed of any additional agenda items as soon as possible. As the retreat agenda is very ambitious, she
encouraged Councilmembers with items on the agenda to come prepared with a plan for discussing and
moving the issue forward.
Councilmember Peterson advised he plans to propose language regarding gun control at next week's
Council meeting to add to the City's Legislative Agenda.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. Action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and
City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 10:10 Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council
Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session
concluded at 10:17 p.m.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:18 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 15
Packet Page 18 of 159
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER FROM
BUCHALTER NEMER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 22, 2013
Page 16
Packet Page 19 of 159
AM-5422
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 01/29/2013
Time• Consent
Submitted For: Shawn Hunstock
Department: Finance
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Submitted By:
4. B.
Nori Jacobson
Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #200159 through #200253 dated January 24, 2013 for $220,838.78.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
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.
Fiscal Year: 2013
Revenue•
Expenditure: 220,838.78
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $220,838.78
Claim Checks 01-24-13
Proiect Numbers 01-24-13
Inbox
Reviewed By
Finance
Shawn Hunstock
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda
Sandy Chase
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Form Review
Date
01/24/2013 10:10 AM
O1/24/2013 10:51 AM
O1/24/2013 04:45 PM
O1/25/2013 08:42 AM
Packet Page 20 of 159
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson
Final Approval Date: 01/25/2013
Started On: 01/24/2013 10:00 AM
Packet Page 21 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200159
1/24/2013
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
315928
WWTP MONTHLY PEST CONTROL
WWTP MONTHLY PEST CONTROL
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
69.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
6.56
Total :
75.56
200160
1/24/2013
073862 ADAMS CONSULTING SERVICES LLC
2078/12
Tara Adams - Consulting services 9/&
Tara Adams - Consulting services 9/S
001.000.22.521.10.43.00
2,226.25
2078/13
Tara Adams - Consulting Services 20
Tara Adams - Consulting Services 20
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
422.50
Total :
2,648.75
200161
1/24/2013
065568 ALLWATER INC
011013032
WWTP JANUARY WATER COOLER
WWTP JANUARY WATER COOLER
423.000.76.535.80.31.11
24.85
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11
0.67
Total :
25.52
200162
1/24/2013
001528 AM TEST INC
73796
WWTP LAB SERVICES
WWTP LAB SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
75.00
Total :
75.00
200163
1/24/2013
069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
16232
FIR TREE PLATES FOR LARGE BO)
ENGRAVED PLATES FOR LARGE B
127.000.64.575.50.31.00
75.20
Freight
127.000.64.575.50.31.00
6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00
7.80
Page: 1
Packet Page 22 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200163
1/24/2013
069667
069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
(Continued)
Total :
89.90
200164
1/24/2013
064335
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
VW30
WWTP LAB SERVICES
WWTP LAB SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
165.00
Total :
165.00
200165
1/24/2013
064961
ANDY'S MOTEL
RM 23 1/20-22/13
HOUSING FOR DV VICTIM
HOUSING FOR DV VICTIM (ARRANT
001.000.41.521.10.49.00
140.00
Total :
140.00
200166
1/24/2013
069751
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
655-6607729
UNIFORM RENTAL CONTRACT
UNFOIRM RENTAL CONTRACT
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
34.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
3.30
Total :
38.01
200167
1/24/2013
071124
ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
0387057-in
WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES
WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
5,509.27
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
523.38
0389647-IN
WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES
WWTP DIESEL FUEL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
6,397.45
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
607.76
Total :
13,037.86
200168
1/24/2013
002100
BARNARD, EARL
4
LEOFF 1 Reimbursements
LEOFF 1 Reimbursements
617.000.51.522.20.23.00
1,198.80
Total :
1,198.80
200169
1/24/2013
072325
BATTERIES PLUS
261-103961-01
WWTP ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES / B)
Page: 2
Packet Page 23 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200169
1/24/2013
072325
BATTERIES PLUS
(Continued)
WWTP ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES / B�
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
23.95
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
2.20
Total :
26.15
200170
1/24/2013
066787
BLACKPOINT IT SERVICES
50453SEA
RENEWAL BARRACUDA 350 1 YR
Renewal Barracuda 350 1 yr EU
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
1,224.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
116.35
Total :
1,341.09
200171
1/24/2013
002500
BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
970488
INV#970488 - EDMONDS PD - MEHL
L/S UNIFORM SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
89.95
CLOTH NAMETAG "MEHL"
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
4.95
SEW ON NAMETAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
9.11
Total :
105.01
200172
1/24/2013
065341
BRIANS UPHOLSTERY
121412 Invoice
Unit 775 - Seat Restoration
Unit 775 - Seat Restoration
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
650.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
55.90
Total :
705.90
200173
1/24/2013
066914
BUSINESS TELECOM PRODUCTS INC
217328
SPARE BATTERY FOR DEBBIES HE
BATTERY FOR DEBBIE'S HEADSET
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
39.95
Freight
Page: 3
Packet Page 24 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 4
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200173
1/24/2013
066914 BUSINESS TELECOM PRODUCTS INC
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
6.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
4.37
Total :
50.32
200174
1/24/2013
073979 CAMCAL INC
23676
Fleet- Cast Iron Lid Cover
Fleet- Cast Iron Lid Cover
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
258.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
24.56
Total :
283.06
200175
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12461714
HFP02100 IRC10301F, PARKS AND
HFP02100 IRC10301F, PARKS AND
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
27.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
2.66
12463586
IRC10301F PARKS MAINT
IRC10301F PARKS MAINT
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
3.14
572105
IRC5051 PARKS AND REC RENTAL
IRC5051 PARKS AND REC RENTAL
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
23.75
Total :
340.55
200176
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12461708
INV#12461708 CUST#572105 - EDM
COPY CHARGES 11/30-12/31/12
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
216.61
COPIER RENTAL 02/01/13
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 4
Packet Page 25 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200176
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
75.85
Total :
874.06
200177
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12463582
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-05721
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
23.75
Total :
273.74
200178
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12461709
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE LEASE
Lease City Clerk's Copier
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
44.36
12461711
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEA
Recept. desk Copier Lease
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
1.91
Total :
533.35
200179
1/24/2013
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
12461712
Contract charge for Planning Dept.
Contract charge for Planning Dept.
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.14
Total :
36.16
200180
1/24/2013
074281 CARBURETOR CONNECTION INC
0012954
Propane Conversion for Future PD C�
Propane Conversion for Future PD C;
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
5,995.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
569.53
0012955
Propane Conversion for Unit 452
Page: 5
Packet Page 26 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200180
1/24/2013
074281 CARBURETOR CONNECTION INC
(Continued)
Propane Conversion for Unit 452
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
5,995.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
569.53
0012957
Unit 454 - Propane Conversion
Unit 454 - Propane Conversion
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
5,995.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
569.53
0012958
Unit 453 - Propane Conversion
Unit 453 - Propane Conversion
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
5,995.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
569.53
0012959
Unit 54 - Propane Conversion
Unit 54 - Propane Conversion
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
6,295.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
598.03
0012960
Propane System Diagnostic Cable/Sc
Propane System Diagnostic Cable/Sc
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
300.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
28.50
Total :
33,479.65
200181
1/24/2013
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY 189020
Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
4.27
Total :
49.27
200182
1/24/2013
003515 CH2M HILL INC
38113001588
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
Page: 6
Packet Page 27 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 7
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200182
1/24/2013
003515 CH2M HILL INC
(Continued)
423.100.76.594.39.65.00
1,856.03
Total :
1,856.03
200183
1/24/2013
064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E
CHAPUT 16658
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 16658
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 16658
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
60.00
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
52.60
Total :
112.60
200184
1/24/2013
069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
E9GA.BLD20120504
E9GA.BLD20120504.FENCE PERMI'
E9GA.BLD20120504.Fence Permit.0
423.000.75.594.35.41.30
75.00
E9GA.BLD20130061
E9GA.BLD20130061.FENCE PERMI'
E9GA.BLD20130061.Fence Permit.0
423.000.75.594.35.41.30
75.00
E9GA.BLD20130066
E9GA.BLD20130066.FENCE PERMI'
E9GA.BLD20130066.Fence Permit.0
423.000.75.594.35.41.30
75.00
Total :
225.00
200185
1/24/2013
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
9868
INV#9868 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS I
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 12/2012
104.000.41.521.21.42.00
95.42
Total :
95.42
200186
1/24/2013
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
9830
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SE
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SE
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
27,602.00
Total :
27,602.00
200187
1/24/2013
035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
1-218359-279832
WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205T1
WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205T1
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
17.98
Total :
17.98
Page: 7
Packet Page 28 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
200188 1/24/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
200189 1/24/2013 004377 COLE INDUSTRIAL INC
200190 1/24/2013 065891 CONLEY, LISA
200191 1/24/2013 062891 COOK PAGING WA
Invoice
W 2505502-1
W2510236
15107
CONLEY SUB
8923911
200192 1/24/2013 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 143366
PO # Description/Account
Fac maint - Supplies
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Fac maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Fac Maint - Blocks, Floor Pads, TT,
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Fac Maint - Blocks, Floor Pads, TT,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
FAC - Boiler Repairs
FAC - Boiler Repairs
016.000.66.519.00.48.00
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.519.00.48.00
Total
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
001.000.64.575.56.41.00
Total
WATER WATCH PAGERS
WATER WATCH PAGERS
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Total
FAC - Annual Fees 3/1/13-3/31/14
FAC - Annual Fees 3/1/13-3/31/14
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Library -Annual Fees
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Museum - Annual Fees
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Amount
6.48
68.25
47.58
500.88
623.19
450.00
42.75
492.75
160.00
160.00
4.25
4.25
125.30
114.10
114.10
Page: 8
Packet Page 29 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200192
1/24/2013
046150
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
(Continued)
143369
City Hall - Annual Fees
City Hall - Annual Fees
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
136.50
143370
PW - Annual Fees
PW - Annual Fees
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
114.10
Total :
604.10
200193
1/24/2013
047450
DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2012120375
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for December 2012
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
940.00
Total :
940.00
200194
1/24/2013
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
13-3335
MINUTE TAKING
1-8 & 1-15 Council Minutes
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
474.00
Total :
474.00
200195
1/24/2013
007675
EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
18610
UNDERCOAT FOR METAL TABLES
UNDERCOAT FOR METAL TABLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.85
Total :
32.82
200196
1/24/2013
007675
EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
18215
FS 16 - Parts
FS 16 - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
17.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.70
Total :
19.62
200197
1/24/2013
008705
EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
6-00025
470 ADMIRAL WAY
470 ADMIRAL WAY
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
127.85
6-00200
200 DAYTON WAY
Page: 9
Packet Page 30 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200197 1/24/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
200 DAYTON WAY
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
363.24
6-00410
100 RAILROAD AVE
100 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
247.88
6-00475
131 SUNSET AVE
131 SUNSET AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
565.44
6-01250
600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
152.42
6-01275
600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
899.59
6-02125
610 PINE STREET
610 PINE STREET
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
207.32
6-02727
310 6TH AVE N
310 6TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
182.44
6-02730
300 6TH AVE N
300 6TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
182.44
6-02900
716 MAIN STREET
716 MAIN STREET
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
556.47
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
348.41
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
119.66
6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
217.95
Page: 10
Packet Page 31 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 11
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200197
1/24/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
182.44
6-04425
8100 185TH PL SW
8100 185TH PL SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
370.79
6-04450
SIERRA PARK
SIERRA PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
265.30
6-07775
BALLINGER PARK
BALLINGER PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
233.45
6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
872.42
6-08525
YOST PARK POOL
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
447.74
Total :
6,543.25
200198
1/24/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
6-01127
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20Q
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20Q
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
119.66
6-01130
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94:
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94:
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
25.63
6-01140
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50'
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50'
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
839.55
6-02735
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,498.00
6-02736
CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250 5TH,
CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250 5TH,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.65
Page: 11
Packet Page 32 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200198 1/24/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
6-02737
CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250TH 51
CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250TH 51
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
340.36
6-02738
CIVIC CENTER IRRIGATION 250 5T
CIVIC CENTER IRRIGATION 250 5T
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
182.44
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY/SPRINKLER 65,
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY/SPRINKLER 65,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,186.79
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
25.63
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 701
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 701
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,351.34
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
608.71
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 SPRINK 8429 19
FIRE STATION #16 SPRINKLER 842
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.65
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.519.91.47.00
117.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
447.21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
447.21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
447.21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
447.21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
447.23
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
Page: 12
Packet Page 33 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 13
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200198
1/24/2013
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC'
001.000.65.519.91.47.00
1.83
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC'
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC'
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
6.94
Total :
8,597.74
200199
1/24/2013
067945 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
13-006062-RDU-J5
INV#13-006062-RDU-J5 -EDMONDS
REPORT-BALLESTEROS #12-4551
001.000.41.521.11.41.00
7.50
Total :
7.50
200200
1/24/2013
073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC
44333
WWTP OPERATING SUPPLIES / ME
WWTP OPERATING SUPPLIES / ME
423.000.76.535.80.31.11
3,575.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.11
509.35
Total :
4,084.35
200201
1/24/2013
073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA
23240
Water System - Membership Annual I
Water System - Membership Annual I
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
600.00
Total :
600.00
200202
1/24/2013
063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
13000
Sr Center - Rooftop Unit Service
Sr Center - Rooftop Unit Service
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
225.00
9.5% Sales Tax
Page: 13
Packet Page 34 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 14
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200202
1/24/2013
063953
EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
21.37
Total :
246.37
200203
1/24/2013
066378
FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU27558
Fleet - Supplies
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.83
Total :
9.55
200204
1/24/2013
066590
FELIX LLC, ROBERT W
FELIX 16703
WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS
WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
396.50
Total :
396.50
200205
1/24/2013
009815
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
0364877
Meter Inventory - M-METER-02-010
Meter Inventory - M-METER-02-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
4,197.27
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
398.74
Total :
4,596.01
200206
1/24/2013
070271
FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200
2013 PK LOT FEE
TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for 201
001.000.39.519.90.45.00
3,600.00
Total :
3,600.00
200207
1/24/2013
011900
FRONTIER
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR`
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR`
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
29.02
253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
001.000.65.519.91.42.00
5.48
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
20.81
Page: 14
Packet Page 35 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200207 1/24/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
20.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
20.78
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
151.72
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
281.76
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
18.53
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
34.42
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
43.86
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
81.46
425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
27.01
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
27.01
425-712-0423
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LII
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LII
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
59.61
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
001.000.65.519.91.42.00
14.17
Page: 15
Packet Page 36 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 16
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200207 1/24/2013 011900 FRONTIER
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
70.82
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
59.49
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
59.49
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
79.32
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
55.39
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI`
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
108.78
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUST(
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
50.88
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
53.85
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL.
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
111.44
425-778-3297
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.07
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
35.42
Total :
1,582.02
200208 1/24/2013 074264 GLACIER PEAK CONSTRUCTION LLC
E9FB.Ret Release GP
E9FB.RETAINAGE RELEASE.GLACI
E9FB.Retainage Release.Glacier Pei
422.000.223.400
16,482.45
Total :
16,482.45
Page: 16
Packet Page 37 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 17
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200209
1/24/2013
072515 GOOGLE INC
4590394
C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVER
Internet Anti -Virus & Spam Maint Fee
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
250.00
Total :
250.00
200210
1/24/2013
012199 GRAINGER
9032735236
PW - Blower Motor
PW - Blower Motor
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
97.60
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.98
9035119081
PW - Electric Heater and Thermostat
PW - Electric Heater and Thermostat
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
411.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
39.13
Total :
557.56
200211
1/24/2013
060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS
007EO234
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
64.90
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
6.83
Total :
71.73
200212
1/24/2013
074321 HOWARD, PERRI
HOWARD DESIGN
DESIGN OF FLOWER POLE PROJE
DESIGN OF FLOWER POLE PROJE
117.200.64.573.20.41.00
300.00
Total :
300.00
200213
1/24/2013
071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
10494490
C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
1,949.99
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
31.93
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
32.05
Page: 17
Packet Page 38 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 18
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200213
1/24/2013
071634
071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
(Continued)
Total :
2,013.97
200214
1/24/2013
014940
INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
1905701007995
City Hall - 12V 18AH SLA Nut and Bo
City Hall - 12V 18AH SLA Nut and Bo
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
49.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.73
Total :
54.53
200215
1/24/2013
015270
JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
570838
WWTP CHLORINE SUPPLIES
WWTP CHLORINE SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
2,897.16
Total :
2,897.16
200216
1/24/2013
015270
JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
567334
WWTP CHLORINE SUPPLIES
WWTP CHLORINE SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
3,684.45
Total :
3,684.45
200217
1/24/2013
074263
LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO
000484-00
STATION MODUL
STATION MODUL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
27.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.57
000485-00
SOLID PLUGS
SOLID PLUGS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
25.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.41
Total :
57.30
200218
1/24/2013
069362
MARSHALL, CITA
1030
INTERPRETER
INTERPRETER
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
88.32
1031
INTERPRETER
INTERPRETER
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
88.32
Page: 18
Packet Page 39 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 19
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200218 1/24/2013 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
(Continued)
Total :
176.64
200219 1/24/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
43315834
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
136.33
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
6.87
43439586
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
349.36
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
16.96
43526916
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
580.73
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
23.84
43570343
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
348.52
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
7.80
43692384
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
471.18
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
28.70
43784273
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
102.06
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21
7.60
44076115
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
WWTP SEWER & SLUDGE INCINEF
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
1,088.45
Freight
Page: 19
Packet Page 40 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 20
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200219
1/24/2013
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
(Continued)
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
27.24
Total :
3,195.64
200220
1/24/2013
020037 MCMURPHY, LINDA
Work Jeans 2013
Water - 5 Work Jeans - L McMurphy
Water - 5 Work Jeans - L McMurphy
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
190.00
Total :
190.00
200221
1/24/2013
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
161248
GLOVES
GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
48.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.56
Total :
52.56
200222
1/24/2013
073076 MY ALARM CENTER
RINVO1680287
Museum - Alarm Monitoring 1/1-6/30/
Museum - Alarm Monitoring 1/1-6/30/
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
201.00
Total :
201.00
200223
1/24/2013
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0489978-IN
Fleet - Filter Inventory
Fleet - Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
90.18
Unit 80 - Rock Drill Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
86.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
8.57
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.25
0489979-IN
Fleet - Supplies
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
119.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11.36
Total :
324.75
Page: 20
Packet Page 41 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 21
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200224
1/24/2013
073207 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS CORP
NW CONF BARD
4/21-4/23 NEW WORLD CONF - MIK
AEGIS 2013 CONFERENCE REG.
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
1,120.00
NW CONF COLLINS
NEW WORLD CONFERENCE - AMY
2013 AEGIS CONFERENCE REG.
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
1,120.00
Total :
2,240.00
200225
1/24/2013
064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES
12061
WWTP ANALYTICAL AND PRECISI(
WWTP ANALYTICAL AND PRECISI(
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
190.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.31
18.05
Total :
208.05
200226
1/24/2013
066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
37991
SODIUM BISULFITE 38%
SODIUM BISULFITE 38%
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
487.20
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
46.28
Total :
533.48
200227
1/24/2013
061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
1-598942
MARINIA BEACH RENTALS
RENTALS MARINA BEACH
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,007.20
1-600339
RENTALS PINE STREET PARK
RENTALS PINE STREET PARK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
112.35
1-600953
CIVIC PLAYFIELD RENTALS
CIVIC PLAYFIELD RENTALS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
112.35
1-601230
CREDIT FROM DAMAGE WAIVER
DAMAGE WAIVER REFUND
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-68.62
Total :
1,163.28
Page: 21
Packet Page 42 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 22
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
200228 1/24/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Invoice
022222
027892
200229 1/24/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER December, 2012
PO # Description/Account
INV#022222 ACCT#520437 250POL
HANGING FILE FOLDERS -LEGAL
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
HANGING FILE FOLDERS -LETTER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
FILE FOLDERS -LETTER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
CD-ROM ENVELOPES
001.000.41.521.21.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.31.00
INV#027892 ACCT#520437 250POL
INKJET CARTRIDGE -BLACK (LAB)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
INKJET CARTRIDGE -MAGENTA (LA
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
INKJET CARTRIDGE -YELLOW (LAB
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
INKJET CARTRIDGE -CYAN (LAB)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Total :
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSP
Emergency Medical Services & Traur
001.000.237.120
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330
Amount
21.17
7.83
6.96
21.39
3.42
2.03
35.70
22.38
22.38
22.74
9.81
175.81
1,061.23
22,791.53
63.00
43.95
Page: 22
Packet Page 43 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 23
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200229
1/24/2013
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
3,700.43
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200
72.30
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250
2,064.52
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260
385.13
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290
33.33
Multi -Model Transportation
001.000.237.300
33.33
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
69.76
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170
183.62
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340
249.67
Total :
30,751.80
200230
1/24/2013
068709 OFFICETEAM
37165508
Pamela Haldene - temp HR svcs wee
Pamela Haldene - temp HR svcs wee
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
350.24
Total :
350.24
200231
1/24/2013
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
144717
Storm - Green Dump Fees
Storm - Green Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
84.00
144718
Storm Green Dump Fees
Storm Green Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
84.00
Total :
168.00
200232
1/24/2013
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
95402034184
FAC - Paint
FAC - Paint
Page: 23
Packet Page 44 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 24
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200232
1/24/2013
027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
22.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.18
Total :
25.17
200233
1/24/2013
008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
PCASH01222013
PETTY CASH JANUARY 2013
WINTER CAMP SUPPLIES GYMNAE
001.000.64.575.55.31.00
22.94
CALENDAR FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.64.575.55.31.00
5.99
HOLE PUNCH FOR PRESCHOOL
001.000.64.575.56.31.00
5.99
LICENSCING FEE FOR ROBERT FR
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
85.00
REGISTRATION FOR BAILY GYMNP
001.000.64.575.55.49.00
40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.55.31.00
2.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.575.56.31.00
0.57
Total :
163.24
200234
1/24/2013
008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
1/1-1/23/13
UNIT 449 -PROPANE CONV REG
UNIT 449 -PROPANE CONV REG
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
85.31
UNIT 776 PROPANE CONV REG
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
85.31
UNIT 454 PROPANE CONV REG
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
85.31
UNIT 679 PROPANE CONV REG
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
85.31
Total :
341.24
200235
1/24/2013
064552 PITNEY BOWES
9607730JA13
Lease from 12/30-01/30
Lease from 12/30-01 /30
Page: 24
Packet Page 45 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 25
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200235
1/24/2013
064552 PITNEY BOWES
(Continued)
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
718.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
68.26
Total :
786.86
200236
1/24/2013
028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
3026100
WWTP ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
WWTP ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
844.23
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
116.93
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22
91.31
Total :
1,052.47
200237
1/24/2013
029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
03870
CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POF
CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,326.58
Total :
2,326.58
200238
1/24/2013
067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO
13-0019
Fleet- 6" Brass Lever Gate Valve
Fleet- 6" Brass Lever Gate Valve
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
429.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
40.76
Total :
469.76
200239
1/24/2013
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2007-1403-8
18500 82ND AVE W
18500 82ND AVE W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
113.22
2011-9708-4
8030 185TH ST SW
8030 185TH ST SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
318.08
2012-3682-5
100 DAYTON STREET
100 DAYTON STREET
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
734.88
Page: 25
Packet Page 46 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 26
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200239 1/24/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
2022-5062-7
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
33.24
Total :
1,199.42
200240 1/24/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2004-6859-3
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
725.34
2004-9683-4
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT F
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT F
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
168.43
2005-9295-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
32.72
2006-3860-9
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
1,147.85
2006-7801-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / M
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / M
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
59.70
2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
34.23
2014-3123-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
33.24
2015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3,130.14
2015-7289-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / M
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / M
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
235.54
2017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / P
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / P
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
60.40
Page: 26
Packet Page 47 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200240 1/24/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.519.91.47.00
98.59
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
374.64
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
374.64
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
374.64
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
374.64
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
374.62
2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,664.62
2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY /
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY /
111.000.68.542.68.47.00
16.70
2024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3,435.83
2044-2584-7
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
244.31
Total :
16,960.82
200241 1/24/2013 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
December 2012
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
678.08
Total :
678.08
200242 1/24/2013 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
52118
"Scanned" samp for JoAnne.
"Scanned" samp for JoAnne.
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
20.24
Page: 27
Packet Page 48 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 28
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200242
1/24/2013
038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
(Continued)
Total :
20.24
200243
1/24/2013
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
104757
WWTP ASH DISPOSAL/RECYCLING
WWTP ASH DISPOSAL/RECYCLING
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
5,101.10
Total :
5,101.10
200244
1/24/2013
070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC
440011582670
C/A 440001304654
Basic e-commerce hosting 01/02/13 -
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
34.95
440011582681
C/A 440001307733
01/2013 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
34.95
Total :
69.90
200245
1/24/2013
009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1807107
Continued Harbor Sq Hearing
Continued Harbor Sq Hearing
001.000.25.514.30.44.00
120.40
Total :
120.40
200246
1/24/2013
038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
US53323
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY H)
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY H/
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1,020.79
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
96.98
US54073
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOF
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOF
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
178.00
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
16.91
US54537
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING C
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING C
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
48.13
Total :
1,360.81
200247
1/24/2013
074318 TROGDON, JACK E
JAN 2013
RETURN EVIDENCE HELD FROM R
EVIDENCE FROM ROBBERY #00-31
Page: 28
Packet Page 49 of 159
vchlist Voucher List Page: 29
01/24/2013 9:26:22AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amount
200247
1/24/2013
074318 TROGDON, JACK E
(Continued)
001.000.257.410
194.00
Total :
194.00
200248
1/24/2013
070774 ULINE INC
48679560
INV#48679560 CUST#2634605 - EDI
COUNTERFEIT DETECTOR PENS
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
12.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
7.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
1.88
Total :
21.66
200249
1/24/2013
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
1154678627
C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service -Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
97.04
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00
172.92
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
71.11
Cell Service -Parks Discovery Progran
001.000.64.574.35.42.00
13.42
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
59.05
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
331.67
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.000.41.521.21.42.00
188.37
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
39.64
Cell Service-PW Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
28.57
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
40.27
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
40.27
Page: 29
Packet Page 50 of 159
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 30
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200249
1/24/2013
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
140.54
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
59.52
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
40.28
Total :
1,322.67
200250
1/24/2013
069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP
28619715
WWTP OFFICE CLERK TEMP SERA
WWTP OFFICE CLERK TEMP SERA
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
384.93
Total :
384.93
200251
1/24/2013
064800 WEHOP
463556
FLOWERS
FLOWERS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,179.76
Freight
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
182.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
129.37
463569
SUMMER GLOW
SUMMER GLOW
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
100.10
Freight
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.54
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.70
Total :
1,614.47
200252
1/24/2013
048100 WEINZ, JACK D
5
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.51.522.20.23.00
1,198.80
Total :
1,198.80
200253
1/24/2013
061047 WWCPA
2013 Renewals
Water- Annual Certification Renewals
Page: 30
Packet Page 51 of 159
vchlist
01/24/2013
9:26:22AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 31
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amount
200253
1/24/2013 061047 WWCPA
(Continued)
Water- Annual Certification Renewals
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
105.00
Sewer - Annual Certification Renewal
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
105.00
Total :
210.00
95
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
220,838.78
95
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
220,838.78
Page: 31
Packet Page 52 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
c327
EOLA
FAC
Senior Center Roof Repairs
c332
EOLB
General
SR99 Enhancement Program
c238
E6MA
General
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
c372
ElEA
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PM
Interurban Trail
c146
E2DB
PM
Marina Beach Additional Parking
c290
EBMB
PM
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
c321
E9MA
STM
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
c382
E2FE
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
NPDES
m013
E7FG
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
c339
E1 FD
STM
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
c341
E1 FF
STM
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
c349
E1 FH
STM
Stormwater GIS Support
c326
EOFC
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
c336
E1 FA
STM
Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
c307
E9FB
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
c381
E2FD
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STR
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
c329
EOAA
STR
2009 Street Overlay Program
c294
E9CA
STR
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
c343
E1AB
STR
226th Street Walkway Project
c312
E9DA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
c245
E6DA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
STR
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
c256
E6DB
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
STR
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
c265
E7AA
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 53 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
STR
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
c268
E7CB
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
SWR
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
c369
E2GA
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
c347
E1GA
SWR
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
BNSF Double Track Project
c300
EBGC
SWR
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
c301
EBGD
SWR
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
c298
EBGA
SWR
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
c142
E3GB
SWR
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
c304
E9GA
WTR
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
c370
E1GB
WTR
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
c363
EOJA
WTR
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
c333
E1JA
WTR
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
c388
E2CA
WTR
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
c340
E1JE
WTR
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
c397
E3JA
WTR
5th Avenue Overlay Project
c399
E2CC
WTR
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
c344
E1JB
WTR
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
c324
EOIA
WTR
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
c345
E1JC
WTR
Main Street Watermain
c375
E1JK
WTR
OVD Watermain Improvements
c141
E3JB
WTR
Pioneer Way Road Repair
c389
E2CB
WTR
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
c346
E1JD
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 54 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STIR
EOAA
c329
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM
EOFC
c326
Stormwater GIS Suppo
WTR
EOIA
c324
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
OJA
010 Waterline Replacement Program.,M
FAC
EOLA
c327
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STIR E1AA
STIR E1CA
General
E1 EA
STM
E1 FD
STM
E1 FH
STM E1 FIN
c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
unset Walkway 6pproveme^+�
c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
Storm Contribution to Transportation Protects
c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
SR10,A Storm Drainage Alternatives
c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
monds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
c340
2012 Waterline Replaceme
WTR E1JK c375
Main Street Watermain
ansportation Plan Update
STIR E2AB c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
T
012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB
c389
Pioneer Way Road Repair
5th Avenue Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvement
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration Svstem
c380 9dmonds Marsh Feasib
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinaer Associated Proiects 2012
2 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 55 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
Number
SWR E2GA
c369
SWR E2GB
c390
SWR E3GA c398
WTR E3JA c397
STIR E6DA c245
c256
General E6MA c238
STIR E7AC i005
c268
STM E7FG m013
c276
SWR E8GA c298
Protect Title
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
OVD Watermain Improvements
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
Gaspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
SR99 Enhancement Program
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
NPDES
Dayton Street Plaz
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
ack Project
SWR
E8GD
c301
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM
E8MB
c290
Marina Beach Additional Parking
norE9CA
c294
2009 Street Overlay Program
STIR
E9DA
c312
226th Street Walkway Project
albot Road/Perr k Drainage Improvements
SWR
E9GA
c304
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
MA
c321
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 56 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
WTR
c141
E3JB
OVD Watermain Improvements
SWR
c142
E3GB
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM
c146
E2DB
Interurban Trail
General
c238
E6MA
SR99 Enhancement Program
STIR
c245
E6DA
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STIR
c256
E6DB
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STIR
c265
E7AA
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STIR
c268
E7CB
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM
c276
E7MA
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
c282
EBMA
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM
c290
EBMB
Marina Beach Additional Parking
STIR
c294
E9CA
2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR
c298
EBGA
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR
c300
EBGC
BNSF Double Track Project
SWR
c301
EBGD
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR
c304
E9GA
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM
c307
E9FB
Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
STIR
c312
E9DA
226th Street Walkway Project
PM
c321
E9MA
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR
c324
EOIA
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM
c326
EOFC
Stormwater GIS Support
FAC
c327
EOLA
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STIR
c329
EOAA
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC
c332
EOLB
Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR
c333
E1JA
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM
c336
E1 FA
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM
c339
E1 FD
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR
c340
E1JE
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM
c341
E1 FF
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR
c342
E1AA
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
c343
E1AB
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR
c344
E1JB
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR
c345
E1JC
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 57 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
WTR
c346
E1JD
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR
c347
E1GA
Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM
c349
E1 FH
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STR
c354
E1 DA
Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR
c363
EOJA
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR
c368
E1CA
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR
c369
E2GA
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR
c370
E1GB
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General
c372
ElEA
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM
c374
E1 FM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR
c375
E1JK
Main Street Watermain
STM
c376
E1 FN
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM
c378
E2FA
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
c379
E2FB
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM
c380
E2FC
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM
c381
E2FD
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM
c382
E2FE
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WWTP
c383
WWTP
WWTP ReRoof Project
WTR
c388
E2CA
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR
c389
E2CB
Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR
c390
E2GB
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR
c391
E2AA
Transportation Plan Update
STR
c392
E2AB
9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR
c397
E3JA
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR
c398
E3GA
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
c399
E2CC
5th Avenue Overlay Project
STR
i005
E7AC
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM
m013
E7FG
NPDES
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 58 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
c329
EOAA
STR
2009 Street Overlay Program
c294
E9CA
WTR
2010 Waterline Replacement Program
c363
EOJA
STR
2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
c343
E1AB
WTR
2011 Waterline Replacement Program
c333
E1JA
STM
2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
c382
E2FE
SWR
2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
c369
E2GA
WTR
2012 Waterline Overlay Program
c388
E2CA
WTR
2012 Waterline Replacement Program
c340
E1JE
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
WTR
2013 Waterline Replacement Program
c397
E3JA
STR
226th Street Walkway Project
c312
E9DA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
WTR
5th Ave Overlay Project
c399
E2CC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1 CA
WTR
76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
c344
E1JB
STR
76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
c245
E6DA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
SWR
Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement
c347
E1GA
WTR
AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
c324
E01A
SWR
BNSF Double Track Project
c300
EBGC
STR
Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
c256
E6DB
SWR
City -Wide Sewer Improvements
c301
EBGD
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
WTR
Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
c345
E1JC
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
FAC
Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
c327
EOLA
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PM
Interurban Trail
c146
E2DB
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
c381
E2FD
SWR
Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
c298
EBGA
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 59 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STR
Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
c265
E7AA
WTR
Main Street Watermain
c375
E1JK
PM
Marina Beach Additional Parking
c290
EBMB
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
NPDES
m013
E7FG
SWR
OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
c142
E3GB
WTR
OVD Watermain Improvements
c141
E3JB
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1FN
WTR
Pioneer Way Road Repair
c389
E2CB
WTR
PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
c346
E1JD
STM
Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
c339
E1 FD
PM
Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
c321
E9MA
FAC
Senior Center Roof Repairs
c332
EOLB
SWR
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
c304
E9GA
WTR
Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
c370
E1GB
STR
Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
c268
E7CB
General
SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
c372
ElEA
General
SR99 Enhancement Program
c238
E6MA
STM
Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
c341
E1 FF
STM
Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
c349
E1 FH
STM
Stormwater GIS Support
c326
EOFC
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
c336
E1 FA
STM
Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
c307
E9FB
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
Revised 1/24/2013
Packet Page 60 of 159
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division
Phase
Title
ct
Construction
ds
Design
pl
Preliminary
sa
Site Acquisition & Prep
st
Study
ro
Right -of -Way
Task
Title
196
Traffic Engineering & Studies
197
MAIT
198
CTR
199
Engineering Plans & Services
950
Engineering Staff Time
970
Construction Management
981
Contract
990
Miscellaneous
991
Retainage
stm
Engineering Staff Time -Storm
str
Engineering Staff Time -Street
swr
Engineering Staff Time -Sewer
wtr
Engineering Staff Time -Water
prk
Engineering Staff Time -Park
Packet Page 61 of 159
AM-5405
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
01/29/2013
Time:
Consent
Submitted By:
Linda Hynd
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Information
Committee Action:
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Janie Lee ($551.99).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following:
Janie Lee
8815 233rd Place S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
($551.99)
Lee Claim for Damages
Inbox
Mayor
Finalize for Agenda
Form Started By: Linda Hynd
Final Approval Date: 01/25/2013
A*f nhmors+c
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Dave Earling 01/24/2013 04:45 PM
Sandy Chase 01/25/2013 08:42 AM
Started On: 01/22/2013 02:45 PM
4. C.
Packet Page 62 of 159
CITY OF EDMONDS R CI
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM JAN 2
Date Claim Form
L YONMITYVEERK
Please take note that '-Janie U0 who currently resides at 2
&'& uimr),A 'NA %02( mailing address k Z " 6 L- �Am I
home phone # 2:3i0 -9[ l , work phone # 41b-toll- and who resided at
_ at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against in the sum of $ qC1I __ arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 'JCV(AaK!A i3 2. B TIME: :7
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: N1 CJ 233f3 t L- &W Edi'r7P YtS. \i A '-W 2tI]
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
td UdGll dll CXUd SIIF7Gl IVI dUUIIIVIIdI IIIIU1111CLIVII, a 11000t; J
2. Provide a list of witne�sses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
.. i/ A,.,.r'i i ne. ( ■rem. \ 2hi. iy n -1 2
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes _ No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY
License Plate # Driver License #
Type Auto:
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Form Revised 07/16/09 Page t of 2
Packet Page 63 of 159
* * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
i, , corn e �ke— being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true.
x f '
x
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washingto ,
County of
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Yt1 _�_ is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:
E. r ,
Signatur 1'i'ht �
_-c_O,�IvTA�
Title yC1
My appointment expires: l y w .p
Please present the completed claim form to
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Form Revised 07/16/09
Packet Page 64 of 159
Page 2 of 2
AM-5406
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
01/29/2013
Time:
Consent
Submitted For:
Dave Earling
Department:
Mayor's Office
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Information
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
4. D.
Carolyn LaFave
Subject Title
Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington
State Liquor Control Board, January 2012.
Recommendation
Please approve the list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their WSLCB licenses.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached list
and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the liquor licenses for
the listed businesses.
WSLCB Jan 2013
Inbox
Finalize for Agenda
Mayor
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave
Final Approval Date: 01/24/2013
A t+-mnhmnnte
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Sandy Chase 01/24/2013 10:52 AM
Dave Earling 01/24/2013 04:47 PM
Started On: 01/23/2013 11:43 AM
Packet Page 65 of 159
cn
Washington State
Liquor Control Board
PO Rox 43098, 300.0 Pacific Ave. SE, 01ympia WA 98504.3090, (360) 664.1000
RECEIVED
JAN 10 2013
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
MAYOR OF EDMONDS'
121 5TH AVE NORTH
EDMONDS, .WA 98020
v
C
CD
(D Washington State
03 - Liquor Control Board
4 PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600
21 www.liq.wa.gov Fax N: (360) 753-2710
January 06, 2013
Dear Local Authority:
RE: Liquor License Renewal Applications in Your Jurisdiction - Your Objection Opportunity
Enclosed please find a list of liquor -licensed premises in your jurisdiction whose liquor licenses will expire in about 90 days.
This is your opportunity to object to these license renewal requests as authorized by RCW 66.24.010 (8).
1) Objection to License Renewal
To object to a liquor license renewal: fax or mail a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) Licensing
Division. This letter must:
o Detail the reason(s) for your objection, including a statement of all the facts upon which your objection or objections are
based. You may include attachments and supporting documents which contain or confirm the facts upon which your objections are
based.
o Please note that whether a hearing will be granted or not is within the Board's discretion per RCW 66.24.010 (8)(d).
Your letter or fax of objection most be received by the Board's L1Gensing Division at least 30 days rior to the license
expiration date. If You need additional time you must request that in writing. Please be aware, however, that it is within
the Board's discretion to grant or deny any requests for extension of time to submit objections. Your request for extension
will be granted or denied in writing. If objections are not timely received, they will not be considered as part of the
renewal process.
A copy of your objection and any attachments and supporting materials will be made available to the licensee, therefore, it is the
Local Authority's responsibility to redact any confidential or non-disclosable information (see RCW 42.56) prior to submission to
the WSLCB.
2) Status of License While Objection Pending
During the time an objection to a renewal is pending, the permanent liquor license is placed on hold. However, temporary
licenses are regularly issued to the licensee until a final decision is made by the Board.
3) Procedure Following Licensing Division Receipt of Objection
After we receive your objection, our licensing staff will prepare a report for review by the Licensing Director. The report
will include your letter of objection, as well as any attachments and supporting documents you send. The Licensing Director
will then decide to renew the liquor license, or to proceed with non -renewal.
4) Procedure if Board Does Not Renew License
If the Board decides not to renew a license, we will notify the licensee in writing, stating the reason for this decision. The
licensee also has the right to request a hearing to contest non -renewal of their liquor license. RCW 66.24.010 (6)(d). If the
licensee makes a timely request for a hearing, we will notify you.
The Board's Licensing Division will be required to present evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to
support the non -renewal recommendation. You may present evidence in support of your objection or objections. The administrative
law judge will consider all of the evidence and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final
authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision.
m 5} Procedure if Board Renews License Over Your Eli eotion
rn
00 If the Board decides to renew the license over your objection, you will be notified in writing. At that time, you may be
given an opportunity to request a hearing. An opportunity for a hearing is offered at the Board's discretion. If a hearing
IS held, you will be responsible for presenting evidence before an Administrative Law Judge in support of your objection to
m license renewal. The Board's Licensing Division will present evidence in support of license renewal. The Licensee may
also participate and present evidence if the licensee desires. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence,
and Issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and
will enter a final order announcing their decision.
For questions about this process, contact the *SLOB Licensing Division at (360) 884-1600 or email us at wslcbPliq.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
A&A E. Rathbun
Alan E. Rathbun, Director,
Licensing and Regulation Division
LI❑ 864 0711D
v
C
CD
C091080-2
WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD
DATE: 01/06/2013
m
rn
LICEN_SED
ESTABLISHMENTS IN INCORPORATED AREAS
CITY OF
EDMONDS
o
(BY ZIP CODE) FOR EXPIRATION DATE OF
20130430
LICENSE
u'
co
LICENSEE
BUSINESS NAME AND ADDRESS
NUMBER
PRIVILEGES
i .
RORY'S OF EDMONDS, LLC
RORY'S OF EDMONDS
358942
SPIRITSIOWWN REST LOUNGE +
105 MAIN ST
EDNOND5 WA 99020 3131
2 .
BERR BOYS LLC
A VERY TA&I TIRI BAR & GRILL
089056
SPIRITS/BRIWH REST LOONG£ +
518 MAIN 5T
90MONDS WA 96020 3148
3.
AMERICAN BREWING COMPANY. INC.
AMERICAN BREITIHG COMPANY
406726
NON-RETAILIRETAIL PRIVILEGES
I80 W DAYTON ST WAREHOUSE 102
EDMONDS WA 98020 7211
TAVERN - BEERIWINE
4 .
DREAM CT INC
HOS0ONYI RESTAURANT
D77246
SPIRITSIBRIWN REST SERVICE BAR
23830 HWY 99 STE 114
EDMONDS WA 9802E 0000
5 .
ONES BALLINGER, I11C
BALLINGER 76
085931
GROCERY STORE - B£ERIWINS
7601 LAKE BALLINGER WAY
EDMONDS WA 98026 9162
AM-5407
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
01/29/2013
Time:
Consent
Submitted For:
Dave Earling
Department:
Mayor's Office
Review Committee:
Type:
Action
Information
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
4. E.
Carolyn LaFave
Subject Title
Confirmation of reappointment of Historic Preservation Commissioner Christine Deiner-Karr.
Recommendation
Please confirm the reappointment of Christine Deiner-Karr to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Historic Preservation Commission, City liaison, and staff are requesting the reappointment of
Commissioner Christine Deiner-Karr. Christine was originally appointed to Position #4-Citizen in 2005
and has currently served two terms. Terms are for three years, with no term limits. The Mayor has
reappointed Commissioner Deiner-Karr and requests Council confirmation.
Inbox
Finalize for Agenda
Mayor
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave
Final Approval Date: 01/24/2013
Form Review
Reviewed By Date
Sandy Chase 01/24/2013 10:52 AM
Dave Earling 01/24/2013 04:45 PM
Started On: 01/23/2013 01:11 PM
Packet Page 70 of 159
AM-5426
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 01/29/2013
Time: 2 Hours
Submitted By: Kemen Lien
5.
Department: Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued Public Hearing and potential action on the Planning Board recommendation to approve the Port of Edmonds request to incorporate the Port's Harbor
Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed -use transit -oriented development. The mixed -use nature i
the Master Plan will allow for retail, commercial, office and public uses, and residential housing. The Master Plan could provide 340 to 358 residential units, 50,400
square feet of retail, 9,784 square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis courts), 3.8 acres of public open space, and
1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet conceptually, buildings up to 35 feet are
proposed for the SR-104/Dayton Street intersection while buildings of 45 feet are proposed along Dayton Street (with step -back provisions for portions above 35 feel
Five story buildings (up to 55 feet in height) could be located toward the far southern edge of the site.
Recommendation
Adopt Planning Board recommendation as contained in draft ordinance provided in Exhibit 1.
Previous Council Action
The City Council heard an introduction to the Harbor Square Master Plan at the November 20, 2012 City Council meeting where public hearings for the Harbor
Square Master Plan were schedule for and held on December 4 and December 18, 2012. The public hearing was continued to January 29, 2013 at the December 18tt
Council Meeting.
Narrative
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan (Exhibit 2) into the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed -use transit -oriented development. The mixed -use nature of the Master Plan will allow for retail, commercial,
office and public uses, and residential housing. The SEPA checklist indicates a redeveloped Harbor Square consistent with the Master Plan could provide 340 to 358
residential units, 50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784 square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis courts), 3.8 acres of
public open space, and 1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet. Conceptually, the
Master Plan proposal calls for locating the taller building towards the southern and western property boundaries of the site and outside of recognized public view
corridors while shorter buildings would be located along Dayton Street.
While the Harbor Square Master Plan contains some language on the types of uses to be allowed and discusses potential building heights, the request is not a
project -level proposal. However, incorporating the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezon
and/or development agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed -use transit -oriented development. Any future rezone and/or development agreemer
would be subject to further public participation and Council approval as well as project level environmental review under SEPA at that time.
The Planning Board conducted an extensive review of the Harbor Square Master Plan over the course of six meetings (July 25, August 22, September 12, September
26, October 10, and October 24). The Planning Board has recommended that the City Council incorporate the Port of Edmonds' Harbor Square Master Plan into the
City's Comprehensive Plan and has also offered fourteen (14) additional recommendations with regard to incorporating the Master Plan within the City's
Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 4 is a staff memorandum addressing three separate questions that have been raised during review of the Harbor Square Master; 1) Timing of the reviews of th
Harbor Square Master Plan and the Shoreline Master Program, 2) Redevelopment within Wetland Buffers, and 3) Liquefaction Hazard.
Exhibit 5 are comments the City Council has received since the December 18, 2012 meeting, and Exhibit 6 is an email string Council member Bloom requested be
included with the agenda memorandum.
Staff has developed a website for the Harbor Square Master Plan to help citizens follow the process. The application materials, links to Planning Board and City
Council agenda items, minutes and review process information is located on this website. The website can be accessed from the Planning Division page on the City'E
website, or directly via this link
http-LLwww. edmondswa. ¢ov/eovemment/denartments/development-services-home/vlannine-division-home/plans-lone-ranee-nlannine/harbor-square-master-nlan.htr
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance for Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Exhibit 2 - Harbor Sauare Master Plan dated August 27, 2012
Exhibit 3 - Planning Board recommendation to City Council
Exhibit 4 - Staff Memorandum Addressing: 11 Shoreline Master Program/Harbor Sauare Master Program Timema. 21 Redevelopment within Wetland Buffers. and 3
Liquefaction Hazard
Exhibit 5 - Additional Correspondence Received After the 12-18-12 Public Hearin
Exhibit 6 - Council Member Bloom Email regarding Liauefaction Hazard
Packet Page 71 of 159
nl
L
Packet Page 72 of 159
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase O1/24/2013 03:11 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 01 /24/2013 04:44 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase O1/25/2013 08:42 AM
Form Started By: Kemen Lien Started On: 01/24/2013 12:01 PM
Final Approval Date: O1/25/2013
Packet Page 73 of 159
Packet Page 74 of 159
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HARBOR SQUARE
MASTER PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, in 2009 and 2010, the City of Edmonds Planning Department
received timely requests for docketing of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan affecting the
Port's Harbor Square property; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the Port of Edmonds requested that the
Harbor Square Master Plan be docketed for consideration as part of the 2012 Comprehensive
Plan amendment cycle; and
WHEREAS, previous to its application to the City, the Port of Edmonds
completed its own master planning process with the adoption by the Port Commission of the
Harbor Square Master Plan through Resolution 12-05 on June 25, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Port of Edmonds submitted a complete application to incorporate
its proposed Harbor Square Master Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for
consideration in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Letter of Complete Application on August 9, 2012
with respect to the Port of Edmonds' application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and
-1-
Packet Page 75 of 159
WHEREAS, in the public hearing process, a comment was made about whether
the December 6, 2011 letter from the Port of Edmonds was sufficient to docket the Harbor
Square Master Plan for consideration in 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 20.00.010, the council may, for good cause
shown, accept applications after the prescribed deadline; and
WHEREAS, independently of the facts related to the Port's application timeline,
the City Council finds good cause to accept such application for processing in 2012, due to the
following factors:
1. the Harbor Square Master Plan has been under development for a
long period of time;
2. the Port has engaged the public at various stages throughout the
development of the Master Plan;
3. the City's consideration of the Master Plan in 2012 did not
interfere with its consideration of other Comprehensive Plan amendments that had been
docketed through 2012; and
4. the letter provided by the Port is consistent with the manner in
which the City regularly handles requests by public entities for Comprehensive Plan
Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has advised that the Harbor Square Master Plan
may be considered a subarea plan as it clarifies and supplements existing Comprehensive Plan
policies, and, accordingly, may be initially adopted independently of the regular Comprehensive
Plan amendment cycle; and
-2-
Packet Page 76 of 159
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on September 26, 2012
regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City, acting as lead agency for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance ("MDNS") on October 4,
2012, from which no appeal was taken. The MDNS identified three mitigation measures:
1. Preparation of a transportation impact analysis report that documents
existing conditions, estimates project related changes to local traffic, and describes
related impacts and mitigation measures;
2. The average building height of all buildings on the harbor square site
taken as a whole shall be less than 45 feet;
3. Specific building and site design shall consider potential impacts of
climate change such as sea level rise and increased potential for flooding. A range of
techniques should be considered in meeting this goal, such as low impact development
(LID) techniques; enhanced buffers and appropriate building setbacks to protect and
enhance Edmonds Marsh; and/or employing other alternative systems and techniques to
reduce maintenance and facilities costs; and
WHEREAS, additional appropriate environmental review shall be performed at
each future stage in the development of Harbor Square; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing, the City of Edmonds Planning Board
made certain findings and recommended incorporation of the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square
Master Plan dated August 27, 2012 as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the
City Council approve the same with the Planning Board's following recommendations:
-3-
Packet Page 77 of 159
1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be
given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public
amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum;
2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the
south and west boundaries of the property;
3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height;
4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down
Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced;
5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic
and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available
off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all
customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times;"
6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the
exception to the 55-foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower,
sculpture, etc. should be deleted;
7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking
West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street
should be revised to "building step back";
8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage"
section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be
given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic
along Dayton Street;"
Q
Packet Page 78 of 159
9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage",
"If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence;
10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with
the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views;
11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square Master Plan
that residential uses must be multifamily and not single-family residential;
12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the City
Council, it should be physically incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan rather than
incorporated by reference;
13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide
protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an area of open space not less than 25
feet landward from the edge of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development
preserves or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway;
14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain
consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update to be determined following
submittal by the City and approved by the State in accordance with process deadlines
existent between the State and the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on the Harbor Square Master
Plan on December 4, 2012, December 18, 2012, and January 29, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that the Harbor Square Master Plan
(as amended herein) should be adopted as a new subarea plan, consistent with the requirements
-5-
Packet Page 79 of 159
of RCW 36.70A.130, and that its cumulative effect is consistent with the purpose and intent of
both the Growth Management Act and the remainder of the City's Comprehensive Plan, NOW
THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Planning Board's findings related
to ECDC 20.00.050 subsections A (the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of
the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest), B (the proposed amendment
would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city), and C (the
proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city). The
City Council hereby makes its own finding related to ECDC 20.00.050.D that the Harbor Square
property is physically suitable for the requested land use overlay designation (an overlay on the
map indicating the applicability of the Harbor Square Master Plan) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with
adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints.
Section 2. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate
the Harbor Square Master Plan as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and that the plan is hereby
adopted along with the recommendations and amendments proposed by the Planning Board and
the supplementary language set forth in the sections below.
Section 3. By adopting the Harbor Square Master Plan as a subarea of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City is not definitively planning for height limits to exceed 35 feet in
any particular zone or on a particular property or properties, including the Harbor Square
Packet Page 80 of 159
property. Rather, the plan identifies factors appropriate for City consideration should zoning be
proposed to allow height limits above 35 feet, and identifies significant mitigation which should
be incorporated, if height limits are later approved which exceed 35 feet.
Section 4. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the
Comprehensive Plan Map, which designates land uses is hereby amended to add an overlay
designation to the Harbor Square portion of the "Downtown Master Plan" designation to reflect
the applicability of the Harbor Square Master Plan to the Harbor Square property. The
Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B.
Section 5. By adopting the Harbor Square Master Plan as a subarea of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City is not definitively planning for specific shoreline setbacks and/or
buffers. The drawings in the Harbor Square Master Plan are merely conceptual artist renderings
and should be not interpreted to allow any particular setback or buffer. Future shoreline setbacks
and buffers for the Harbor Square property shall be determined by the City's soon -to -be -updated
Shoreline Master Program and possibly by the terms of a future development agreement. Critical
area setbacks and buffers for the Harbor Square property shall be determined through application
of the City's critical areas ordinance and possibly by the terms of a future development
agreement.
Section 6. This ordinance does not approve the construction of any structures on
the Harbor Square property. The City shall not approve any construction on the Harbor Square
property until the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the City's critical areas ordinance,
which will, at the time of development application, likely require the submission of a
geotechnical analysis that demonstrates, among other things, how the future structures on the
property will comply with all applicable seismic building code requirements.
-7-
Packet Page 81 of 159
Section 7. The Development Services Director is authorized to prepare a final
version of the Harbor Square Master Plan that incorporates the recommendations specified by
the planning board, as adopted herein, and the language from Sections 3 through 6 of this
Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall
take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary
thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 82 of 159
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HARBOR SQUARE
MASTER PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2013.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4827-7313-5630,v. 1
-9-
Packet Page 83 of 159
New or Expanded Elements
of the Port of Edmonds
Master Plan
Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
APRIL 18, 2012 Revised for Planning Board Review
August 29. 2012
INTRODUCTION
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the Port's Master
Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of
the 11-acre site into an economically feasible, environmentally responsible, and well -designed
mixed -use transit -oriented development in the City's Downtown Waterfront District.
Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when
redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development
programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community.
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan provides important site planning and design principles to
be used for future development plans.
The preparation and adoption of the Plan is in the midst of a multi -phased planning process.
Completed, ongoing, and future phases include:
Phase 1 (complete)
Prepared a generalized fiscal impact analysis of site redevelopment scenarios.
Phase 2 (complete)
An extensive outreach program to define the community's preferred use, connections, and design
principles for the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan.
Phase 3 (ongoing)
Port Commissioners will adopt the Redevelopment Plan into the Port Master Plan. Following Planning
Board public hearings and action by the Edmonds City Council the Redevelopment Plan, if
approved, will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 84 of 159 Exhibit A
Phase 4 (Future)
Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Edmonds City Council, The Port
will market the project to solicit responsible development interests. With the selection of a
developer by the Port, negotiations between the Port and City will occur to address project issues
including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site
development issues. Resolution of project issues will likely occur through the preparation and
approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and the selected
developer. Upon approval of the development agreement by the Edmonds City Council
construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Implementation of the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan is intended to occur over several years,
depending on the economic climate, existing lease arrangements and site planning considerations.
REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT
The Port has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of residential,
office, and retail uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high
quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access
opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to
Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity,
enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian
environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased
waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places.
Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
This Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and pursues a number
of the Plan's goals and policies. Most of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to
Harbor Square are located in the Waterfront Activity Center element. Below are some of the goals
and policies from that element that guide this master plan. Additionally, the Physical Design
Principles included in this Master Plan implement the design -specific Comprehensive Plan policies
which are listed in that section. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are identified in "italics."
Comprehensive Plan Goals
• Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
• Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian
links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity.
Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement
downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at residential uses in the area
surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these
supporting areas.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 85 of 159
2
• Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g.
convenience shopping, community activities).
• Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically
encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
• E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues - and builds on - its function as a key
identity element for the Edmonds community.
• E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use
development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements
found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown
Area.
• E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local
businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects.
• E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings,
natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the
shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline.
The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master
Program requirements placed on private development.
• E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown
commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
• E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies individual districts within Edmonds Waterfront. Harbor Square is
located in the "Downtown Master Plan District" and the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent for
this district as quoted below:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square,
the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail
parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between
the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's
situation at the bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings
outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street
fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets.
Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area
that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront.
Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any
redevelopment project.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 86 of 159
3
Planning Principles
The concept diagram on the next page illustrates the planning principles developed during Phase 2
of the planning process. The principles serve as design objectives and form the basis for the Plan
Elements.
The design intent as it relates to the uses, building character, circulation and parking, public
spaces, and sustainability is defined below.
♦_W�
LEGEND
114 Vehicle access and parking Pedestrian oriented storefronts and Village plaza
actimlies
Residentia[ Village -- - -- - - Pdrnary pedestrian route ❑ Mixed -use
Gateway architectural element ■ ■ ■ W ■ Atlraciive streetscape edge
Principles
1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Highway 104 / Dayton Street intersection which is the key link to
downtown Edmonds.
2. Create an attractive street front along Highway 104.
3. Feature pedestrian -friendly facades and uses along Dayton Street W.
4. Establish a pedestrian -friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza (1) and the marsh.
5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh.
6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street W.
7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104.
8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment.
9. Locate residential development in the southeast portion of the site.
10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the railroad, within a parking structure designed to serve the entire
redevelopment
11. Architectural character should emphasize a "Northwest Style" compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality
traditional materials and a variety of colors, forms, and textures.
12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh.
13. Provide for a well -landscaped, Northwest -oriented, small town design theme.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 87 of 159
n
PLAN ELEMENTS
The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through
design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s).
Uses and Site Planning
• Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces.
• Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and
visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection.
• Locate most of the residential development in the southeast corner and southern part of the
site in a village setting or well landscaped complex.
• Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and
other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix
geared toward a range of incomes.
Circulation, Traffic and Parking
• Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the
railroad.
• Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad.
Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site.
• Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians.
• Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on
internal streets.
Public Amenities
• Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual
gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry
point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such
as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for
public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market.
• Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building
facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across
Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh..
• Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street W
sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development
and the streetscape.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan rj
Packet Page 88 of 159
• Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and
pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to
downtown and the waterfront.
• Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104.
• Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public
benefit.
• Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g.: storage racks) in circulation and open space
planning.
consistent with a village scale
Flexible (retaillresidential)
space on the ground floor
Visual connection from �-���' = `
Dayton/SIR corner through
the site to the marsh----,�
Internal site connection to the marsh
trail as well as the city wide trail system
Pedestrian oriented central esplanade with Low Impact
Development (LID) elements such as pervious
pavement, rain gardens, etc.
Public spaces for onsite residents and Edmonds as a whole
Pedestrian friendly esplanade extending from public plaza at corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to
Edmonds Marsh
Sustainability
Edmond's Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and poli-
cies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibilityto adapt to changing
conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues
and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. Among the
most relevant of this section's policies are: (See pages 19 through 26 in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan)
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 89 of 159
e
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and
recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and
mutually -supporting whole.
B.1 Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system
of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support
mobility and access.
8.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land
use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system.
D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis,
designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs.
E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of
local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally
F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City's
infrastructure and planning process
G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while
providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices.
G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to
choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time.
The Harbor Square Master Plan responds to these policies in several ways. The multi -functional
uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront called for in Master
Plan's Planning Principles reflect the objectives of policies A.3 and EA Proximity and connections to
bus, rail and ferry service respond to the transportation policies, especially B.1 and B.4. The Master
Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infrastructure solu-
tions as called for in Policy D.3 and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting
principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address Policy F.2's
call for integrated recreational opportunities. Finally, the Master Plan encourages a residential type
and setting unique in Edmonds. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objec-
tives.
• Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and
low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint.
Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to
maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs
Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance
Edmonds Marsh.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 90 of 159
• Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain
gardens to reduce undesirable run-off.
• Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value.
Dayton Street sidewalk character
Physical Design Criteria
In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner to create a unified and
attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will establish design standards or guidelines that direct the
design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with
other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The
criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the following goals and policies in
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element:
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 91 of 159
E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds'
attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive
reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and its
economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an
important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and
design guidelines.
• E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown
waterfront area, including such things as:
o Weather protection,
o Street trees and flower baskets,
o Street furniture,
o Public art and art integrated into private developments,
o Pocket parks,
o Signage and other way -finding devices,
o Restrooms.
E 18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible.
E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging
signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging
obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities.
E21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security,
and aesthetic beauty.
• E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with
pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and
courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown
area.
The criteria described below present the general objectives and parameters that the standards or
guidelines will implement.
The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific
lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time.
As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable
standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic,
and Public amenities sections.
Height and Bulk
Buildings should be no higher than 55' above grade except for 1) roof -top equipment and other
appurtenances that are not visible from ground level and do not block significant views, and 2)
special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 92 of 159
9
All structures above 35' in height should not diminish the "human scale" experience of pedestrians
on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35' should be
set back at least 1' horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1' in height above 35' above
grade. (This results in in significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a
pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships.
Buildings modulated and enhanced with
landscaping to provide pleasant
pedestrian promenade from 104th/Dayton
to the Marsh trail
Buildings along
All portions of buildings
Dayton Avenue no
(above 35' tall) set back
taller than 4
from Dayton St.
stories -
sidewalk at least one
foot horizontally for
every one foot in height
above 35'
r: Ir.;n Vegetated setback & marsh Pedestrian oriented
enhancements and boardwalk commercial activities on
per Edmonds SMP ground floor along Dayton St.
SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST
Illustrating basic building height and setback requirements
Dayton
St.
Furthermore, the "average building height" of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a
whole shall not exceed 45'. The means of calculating "average building height" shall be as stated
in the notes at the end of this Master Plan.
Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh
All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading
parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the
ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase
ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on -site storm water improvements per the
City's Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings
(buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk.
Small Scale Buildings
All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to
maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on
architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually
break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or
projecting forward of portions of a building facade as a means of breaking up the building's
apparent bulk.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 93 of 159
10
In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal
module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to
respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture.
Buildings over 35' in height should be horizontally articulated with upper story setbacks, different
materials or window patterns on different stories, balconies, canopies or other means.
Street Orientation
Dayton Street Frontage
The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented
facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with
transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather
protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a
prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture,
etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such
as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented
offices, etc.
Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by
a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The
sidewalk should be at least 15' wide.
SR 104 Frontage
The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive
landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There
should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage. If WSDOT is amenable, the Port
should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of
the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into
downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a
shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail.
Architectural Character
Provide for a well landscaped, Northwest oriented, small-town development character.
Site Design and Landscaping
Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses.
Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways.
Notes:
Average Building Height" shall be calculated by.•
1. First, multiplying the foot print of each building on the Harbor Square site (as defined in the
Harbor Square Master Plan) times the height (as defined in Edmonds Zoning Code) of the
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 94 of 159
11
respective building. (See conditions below for buildings with multiple heights) This calcu-
lation will yield the volume for each building.
2. Then, adding together the products calculated in step 1 (building volumes) and dividing that
sum by the sum of all building footprints on the Harbor Square site.
Provided that:
Existing and proposed buildings will be included in the calculations
• Where the height of a building varies from portion to another (e.g.: one wing of a building is 3
stories in height and another wing is 5 stories high.) then the building volume (height x foot-
print) of each building portion shall be calculated separately. The height of buildings with
pitched roofs shall be calculated as the average of the height of the ridge and the lower
ea ve.
• For phased development where a portion of the site is developed, the maximum average
building height for an early phase may exceed 45' if the average height of all buildings on
site is less than 45' for all subsequent phases.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 95 of 159
12
EDMONDS
N 47° 48.83'
W 122° 23.02' y'
'. ocay a0
'a
Vo T
S '
� R
oqJ
O
N f aGJ ��P A5
L dell
.N "NAP
'e's�
i 1
_ f �
I li IL
r � f t � f
k}f k } k{
EDWORDS
IL
N
i BLDQ
\ /LAG a�5� 10
' 145 'gDcl'eI/ 1 1
'nC
Exhibit B
Harbor Square Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map Subarea Overlay
Legend
189� �—••—E
Harbor Square Subarea
J Packet Page 96 TSJ —"
??8 1?0 0
?16 ??1 0 p4A ^r
? ?1l'S 77
41, NOS
7 �'A° sT
3s 2,70
TAM 1?8 ???
4iryST 1j7 1?? ?18
�. 10 11B
1 2 ?10
os
s 110 11 P y��y 7g1 301
s 1j�71 ry�0 ¢moo¢
0 0 11?1 � 1340 sT
O O
B
1.70 ti=rye ?� giNsT 4
1?0
IZI
9n�es s ??7 c
J=W 200 T tiS
F4 122
C'1A RONTIE p LESLII r�
. GS N 146 128 1271;
m M o N 145 140 L
N N 155
ry
> >
DAYTON
203
209
0
n
ST
400
209
a a
z K
>
228
MAPLC ST
306
303
-LDER sT
T
313
314
320
ALDER
m
402
a BECK
x
420424
¢
F
BANK
437
504
t
WFFI
505
Edmo ds
GREG V N
Park Apts
HO
o �
518
HowELL wnY
308
537
444444444
.ha wae, µye` off.
5
515
511
N N 5
521
520
510
527
530 >
> 609
1D
533
534 x
x
527
mom, m �60Q".
544
~
fyfT fyf
521 5
541
554
558
0
545
654
ERB
N
Scale
1 inch = 500 feet
New or Expanded Elements
of the Port of Edmonds
Master Plan
Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan
APRIL 18, 2012 Revised for Planning Board Review
August 29. 2012
INTRODUCTION
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the Port's Master
Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of
the 11-acre site into an economically feasible, environmentally responsible, and well -designed
mixed -use transit -oriented development in the City's Downtown Waterfront District.
Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when
redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development
programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community.
The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan provides important site planning and design principles to
be used for future development plans.
The preparation and adoption of the Plan is in the midst of a multi -phased planning process.
Completed, ongoing, and future phases include:
Phase 1 (complete)
Prepared a generalized fiscal impact analysis of site redevelopment scenarios.
Phase 2 (complete)
An extensive outreach program to define the community's preferred use, connections, and design
principles for the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan.
Phase 3 (ongoing)
Port Commissioners will adopt the Redevelopment Plan into the Port Master Plan. Following Planning
Board public hearings and action by the Edmonds City Council the Redevelopment Plan, if
approved, will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 97 of 159 Exhibit A
Phase 4 (Future)
Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Edmonds City Council, The Port
will market the project to solicit responsible development interests. With the selection of a
developer by the Port, negotiations between the Port and City will occur to address project issues
including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site
development issues. Resolution of project issues will likely occur through the preparation and
approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and the selected
developer. Upon approval of the development agreement by the Edmonds City Council
construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Implementation of the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan is intended to occur over several years,
depending on the economic climate, existing lease arrangements and site planning considerations.
REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT
The Port has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of residential,
office, and retail uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high
quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access
opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to
Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity,
enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian
environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased
waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places.
Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
This Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and pursues a number
of the Plan's goals and policies. Most of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to
Harbor Square are located in the Waterfront Activity Center element. Below are some of the goals
and policies from that element that guide this master plan. Additionally, the Physical Design
Principles included in this Master Plan implement the design -specific Comprehensive Plan policies
which are listed in that section. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are identified in "italics."
Comprehensive Plan Goals
• Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
• Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian
links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity.
Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement
downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at residential uses in the area
surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these
supporting areas.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 98 of 159
2
• Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g.
convenience shopping, community activities).
• Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically
encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
• E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues - and builds on - its function as a key
identity element for the Edmonds community.
• E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use
development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements
found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown
Area.
• E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local
businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects.
• E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings,
natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the
shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline.
The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master
Program requirements placed on private development.
• E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown
commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
• E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies individual districts within Edmonds Waterfront. Harbor Square is
located in the "Downtown Master Plan District" and the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent for
this district as quoted below:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square,
the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail
parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between
the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's
situation at the bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings
outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street
fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets.
Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area
that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront.
Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any
redevelopment project.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 99 of 159
3
Planning Principles
The concept diagram on the next page illustrates the planning principles developed during Phase 2
of the planning process. The principles serve as design objectives and form the basis for the Plan
Elements.
The design intent as it relates to the uses, building character, circulation and parking, public
spaces, and sustainability is defined below.
♦_W�
LEGEND
114 Vehicle access and parking Pedestrian oriented storefronts and Village plaza
actimlies
Residentia[ Village -- - -- - - Pdrnary pedestrian route ❑ Mixed -use
Gateway architectural element ■ ■ ■ W ■ Atlraciive streetscape edge
Principles
1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Highway 104 / Dayton Street intersection which is the key link to
downtown Edmonds.
2. Create an attractive street front along Highway 104.
3. Feature pedestrian -friendly facades and uses along Dayton Street W.
4. Establish a pedestrian -friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza (1) and the marsh.
5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh.
6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street W.
7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104.
8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment.
9. Locate residential development in the southeast portion of the site.
10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the railroad, within a parking structure designed to serve the entire
redevelopment
11. Architectural character should emphasize a "Northwest Style" compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality
traditional materials and a variety of colors, forms, and textures.
12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh.
13. Provide for a well -landscaped, Northwest -oriented, small town design theme.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 100 of 159
n
PLAN ELEMENTS
The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through
design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s).
Uses and Site Planning
• Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces.
• Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and
visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection.
• Locate most of the residential development in the southeast corner and southern part of the
site in a village setting or well landscaped complex.
• Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and
other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix
geared toward a range of incomes.
Circulation, Traffic and Parking
• Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the
railroad.
• Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad.
Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site.
• Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians.
• Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on
internal streets.
Public Amenities
• Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual
gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry
point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such
as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for
public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market.
• Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building
facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across
Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh..
• Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street W
sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development
and the streetscape.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan rj
Packet Page 101 of 159
• Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and
pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to
downtown and the waterfront.
• Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104.
• Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public
benefit.
• Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g.: storage racks) in circulation and open space
planning.
consistent with a village scale
Flexible (retaillresidential)
space on the ground floor
Visual connection from �-���' = `
Dayton/SIR corner through
the site to the marsh----,�
Internal site connection to the marsh
trail as well as the city wide trail system
Pedestrian oriented central esplanade with Low Impact
Development (LID) elements such as pervious
pavement, rain gardens, etc.
Public spaces for onsite residents and Edmonds as a whole
Pedestrian friendly esplanade extending from public plaza at corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to
Edmonds Marsh
Sustainability
Edmond's Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and poli-
cies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibilityto adapt to changing
conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues
and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. Among the
most relevant of this section's policies are: (See pages 19 through 26 in the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan)
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 102 of 159
e
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and
recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and
mutually -supporting whole.
B.1 Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system
of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support
mobility and access.
8.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land
use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system.
D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis,
designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs.
E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of
local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally
F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City's
infrastructure and planning process
G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while
providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices.
G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to
choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time.
The Harbor Square Master Plan responds to these policies in several ways. The multi -functional
uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront called for in Master
Plan's Planning Principles reflect the objectives of policies A.3 and EA Proximity and connections to
bus, rail and ferry service respond to the transportation policies, especially B.1 and B.4. The Master
Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infrastructure solu-
tions as called for in Policy D.3 and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting
principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address Policy F.2's
call for integrated recreational opportunities. Finally, the Master Plan encourages a residential type
and setting unique in Edmonds. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objec-
tives.
• Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and
low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint.
Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to
maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs
Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance
Edmonds Marsh.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 103 of 159
• Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain
gardens to reduce undesirable run-off.
• Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value.
Dayton Street sidewalk character
Physical Design Criteria
In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner to create a unified and
attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will establish design standards or guidelines that direct the
design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with
other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The
criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the following goals and policies in
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element:
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 104 of 159
E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds'
attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive
reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and its
economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an
important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and
design guidelines.
• E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown
waterfront area, including such things as:
o Weather protection,
o Street trees and flower baskets,
o Street furniture,
o Public art and art integrated into private developments,
o Pocket parks,
o Signage and other way -finding devices,
o Restrooms.
E 18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible.
E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging
signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging
obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities.
E21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security,
and aesthetic beauty.
• E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with
pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and
courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown
area.
The criteria described below present the general objectives and parameters that the standards or
guidelines will implement.
The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific
lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time.
As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable
standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic,
and Public amenities sections.
Height and Bulk
Buildings should be no higher than 55' above grade except for 1) roof -top equipment and other
appurtenances that are not visible from ground level and do not block significant views, and 2)
special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 105 of 159
9
All structures above 35' in height should not diminish the "human scale" experience of pedestrians
on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35' should be
set back at least 1' horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1' in height above 35' above
grade. (This results in in significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a
pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships.
Buildings modulated and enhanced with
landscaping to provide pleasant
pedestrian promenade from 104th/Dayton
to the Marsh trail
Buildings along
All portions of buildings
Dayton Avenue no
(above 35' tall) set back
taller than 4
from Dayton St.
stories -
sidewalk at least one
foot horizontally for
every one foot in height
above 35'
r: Ir.;n Vegetated setback & marsh Pedestrian oriented
enhancements and boardwalk commercial activities on
per Edmonds SMP ground floor along Dayton St.
SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST
Illustrating basic building height and setback requirements
Dayton
St.
Furthermore, the "average building height" of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a
whole shall not exceed 45'. The means of calculating "average building height" shall be as stated
in the notes at the end of this Master Plan.
Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh
All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading
parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the
ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase
ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on -site storm water improvements per the
City's Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings
(buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk.
Small Scale Buildings
All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to
maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on
architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually
break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or
projecting forward of portions of a building facade as a means of breaking up the building's
apparent bulk.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 106 of 159
10
In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal
module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to
respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture.
Buildings over 35' in height should be horizontally articulated with upper story setbacks, different
materials or window patterns on different stories, balconies, canopies or other means.
Street Orientation
Dayton Street Frontage
The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented
facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with
transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather
protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a
prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture,
etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such
as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented
offices, etc.
Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by
a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The
sidewalk should be at least 15' wide.
SR 104 Frontage
The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive
landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There
should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage. If WSDOT is amenable, the Port
should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of
the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into
downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a
shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail.
Architectural Character
Provide for a well landscaped, Northwest oriented, small-town development character.
Site Design and Landscaping
Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses.
Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways.
Notes:
Average Building Height" shall be calculated by.•
1. First, multiplying the foot print of each building on the Harbor Square site (as defined in the
Harbor Square Master Plan) times the height (as defined in Edmonds Zoning Code) of the
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 107 of 159
11
respective building. (See conditions below for buildings with multiple heights) This calcu-
lation will yield the volume for each building.
2. Then, adding together the products calculated in step 1 (building volumes) and dividing that
sum by the sum of all building footprints on the Harbor Square site.
Provided that:
Existing and proposed buildings will be included in the calculations
• Where the height of a building varies from portion to another (e.g.: one wing of a building is 3
stories in height and another wing is 5 stories high.) then the building volume (height x foot-
print) of each building portion shall be calculated separately. The height of buildings with
pitched roofs shall be calculated as the average of the height of the ridge and the lower
ea ve.
• For phased development where a portion of the site is developed, the maximum average
building height for an early phase may exceed 45' if the average height of all buildings on
site is less than 45' for all subsequent phases.
New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan
Packet Page 108 of 159
12
,tic. 1891J
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposal: Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File plumber: A�MjD-20110009
From: l/ a� 24 r�
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Date: October 24, 2012
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square
Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed -use
transit -oriented development. The mixed -use nature of the Master Plan will allow for retail, commercial,
office and public uses, and residential housing. The SEPA checklist indicates a redeveloped Harbor Square
consistent with the Master Plan could provide 340 to 358 residential units, 50,400 square feet of retail, 9,784
square feet of office, 123,410 square feet of recreational health club uses (including tennis courts), 3.8 acres of
public open space, and 1,091 spaces of off-street parking. The Master Plan envisions buildings of varying
heights, up to a maximum of 55 feet. Conceptually, buildings of 35 feet are proposed near the SR-104/Dayton
Street intersection while buildings of 45 feet are proposed along Dayton Street (with step back provisions for
portions above 35 feet). Buildings.up to five stories high (up to 55 feet in height) could be located at the far
southern edge of the site. Overall, the average height for all the buildings on the Harbor Square site would not
exceed 45 feet.
While the Harbor Square Master Plan contains some language on the types of uses to be allowed and
discusses potential building heights, the request is not a project -level proposal. However, incorporating
the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a
future rezone and/or developmerit agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed -use
transit -oriented development. Any future rezone and/or development agreement would be subject to
further public participation and Council approval as well as project level environmental review under
SEPA at that time.
APPLICATION:
Applicant/Owners: Port of Edmonds
Bob McChesney, Executive Director
Location: The comprehensive plan amendment is specific to the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square
property. It is located in the southwest quadrant of the State Route 104 and Dayton Street intersection
and bounded on the west by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and the Edmonds Marsh to the south.
Current Zoning: The Harbor Square site is currently zoned General Commercial (CG) through a contract
rezone under file number R-1979-4.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 1 of 8
Packet Page 109 of 159
Request: The Port of Edmonds has requested that the City of Edmonds incorporate the Harbor Square
Master Plan into the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan.
Review Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, Comprehensive Plan amendments are Type V actions.
Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the City Council after review of a recommendation from
the Planning Board.
Criteria for Review: Compliance with Chapter 20.00 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC), Changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
SETTING:
The Harbor Square site is an 11 acre property located in the southwest corner of the Dayton Street — State
Route 104 intersection. The site is bounded on the west by the BNSF railroad tracks and on the south by
the Edmonds Marsh. The existing development at Harbor Square was established pursuant to a contract
rezone under file number R-1979-4 which rezoned the site to General Commercial (CG) and allowed for
buildings to be constructed up to 35 feet in height. The contract rezone also limited the types of uses that
are allowed at Harbor Square generally to commercial type uses.
Harbor Square is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and is designated as Downtown Master Plan. The Downtown Master Plan district
includes the properties between State Route 104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds
Shopping Center (Antique Mall/Old Safeway/Salish Crossing), and extending past the commuter rail
parking area up to Main Street. The proposed Harbor Square Master Plan only applies to the Harbor
Square site. The Comprehensive Plan describes the Downtown Master Plan district as:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square,
the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking
area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which
provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and
downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the
bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide
pedestrian friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design
should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a 'first
impression " of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work,
landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project.
(pg. S5)
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 26, 2012 for the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Notice for public hearings is required to be mailed to property owners within 300 feet, posted on the
subject property and published in the Everett Herald. Given Harbor Square's location, the property
owners within 300 feet are rather limited. As such, the City employed the optional public notice allowed
in ECDC 20.03.006 and greatly expanded the mailing list. Property owners from the waterfront up James
Street and Dayton Street to 5th Avenue South and down to State Route 104 were provided mailed notice
of the public hearing and were also provided the preliminary SEPA notice. This resulted in 1150
addresses receiving the notice for the public hearing. The notice of public hearing and preliminary SEPA
notice was also posted at Harbor Square, published in the Everett Herald, posted at City Hall, the Library
and the Public Safety buildings, as well as being published on the City's website.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 2 of 8
Packet Page 110 of 159
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW:
The Port of Edmonds, acting as lead agency for the Port Commission's adoption of the Master Plan,
issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the Master Plan. The mitigation
required in the Port's MDNS is:
Preparation of a transportation impact analysis report that documents existing conditions, estimates
project related changes to local traffic, and describes related impacts and mitigation measures.
The City of Edmonds is required to conduct its own SEPA review for inclusion of the Harbor Square
Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Edmonds solicited comments prior to
issuing the threshold determination for the Harbor Square Master Plan. In the Public Notice for the
Planning Board's public hearing, the City indicated it intended to issue a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignficance for the Harbor Square Master Plan's incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Five written comments were received in response to the preliminary SEPA notice, which are included in
the comment letters in provided to the City Council
The City, acting as lead agency for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignficance on October 4, 2012 with three mitigation measures:
1. Preparation of a transportation impact analysis report that documents existing conditions,
estimates project related changes to local traffic, and describes related impacts and mitigation
measures.
2. The average building height of all buildings on the harbor square site taken as a whole shall be
less than 45 feet.
3. Specific building and site design shall consider potential impacts of climate change such as sea
level rise and increased potential for flooding. A range of techniques should be considered in
meeting this goal, such as low impact development (LID) techniques; enhanced buffers and
appropriate building setbacks to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh; and/or employing other
alternative systems and techniques to reduce maintenance and facilities costs.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, an amendment to the comprehensive plan may be adopted only if the
following findings are made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
and is in the public interest;
Comprehensive Plan Consistency:
The most relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in respect to the Harbor Square
property are located within the Community Sustainable and Downtown Waterfront Activity
Center Elements.
Some relevant goals and policies from the sustainability element include:
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing,
cultural, recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and
mutually -supporting whole. (pg. 19)
AI Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning the promotes an
integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation
designed to effectively support mobility and access. (pg. 20)
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council _
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 3 of 8
Packet Page 111 of 159
• D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost
analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and
facilities costs. (pg. 21)
• E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the
ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally. (pg. 21)
• F.2 Recreational opportunite4s and programming should be integrated holistically in to
the City's infrastructure and planning process. (pg 21)
• G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing
needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. (pg. 22)
The Harbor Square Master Plan provisions include an emphasis on green building and green
infrastructure solutions and an integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting principles
as well as the Edmonds Marsh boardwalk provide for integrated recreational opportunities. The
mix of uses for the site and connections to downtown and- the waterfront support the integration
of transportation, housing; cultural, recreational and economic opportunities.
Some relevant goals and policies from the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center include:
• The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multifamily
development with new mixed -use development types... (pg. 44)
• Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses support by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region. (pg. 44)
• Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at
downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and
residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for
links between the retail core and these supporting areas. (pg. 45)
• E.1 Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on —its function as
a key identity element for the Edmonds community. (pg. 51)
• E.5 Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -
use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements,
particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on
historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an
architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. (pg. 52)
• E.11 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses support by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community,
downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. (pg. 52)
The Harbor Square Master Plan provides for the eventual development of a mixed -use urban
neighborhood that will serve as the southwestern anchor of the downtown area. When developed,
it could be home to hundreds of residents who would access the downtown via pedestrian -
oriented streets. Dayton Street would become a primary pedestrian connection linking the
waterfront and downtown and include accessible storefronts, landscape streetscape and
opportunities for an expanded art corridor along wide sidewalks. An implemented Harbor Square
Master Plan would enable a mixed -use urban neighborhood and activities that would add to a
more active and vibrant waterfront and street scene while contributing to the overall draw of the
Downtown Edmonds as a destination for visitors throughout Edmonds and the region.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 4 of 8
Packet Page 112 of 159
The Harbor Square site is located within the Downtown Master Plan district which provides:
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor
Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the
Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven
master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its
strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller
buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable
a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any
redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -
friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design
should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a
'first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art
work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any
redevelopment project. (pg. 55)
The Harbor Square property is located on the southwestern edge of the downtown waterfront.
The Harbor Square Master Plan provides for a mix of residential, office, public and commercial
uses that are within a comfortable walking distance to downtown businesses and other waterfront
activities.
The Harbor Square Master Plan proposal calls for locating the taller buildings towards the
southern and western boundaries of the site and outside of recognized public view corridors while
shorter buildings would be located along Dayton Street. The master plan provides for vertical
and horizontal building modulations with the top stories stepped back. The facades of the Dayton
Street building would provide pedestrian oriented streetscapes with storefronts that open onto 15
foot wide sidewalks including street trees, artistic lighting and street furniture. The Dayton Street
streetscape will also provide an opportunity for extending the art corridor to the waterfront
promenade.
Public Interest:
Implementation of the Harbor Square Master Plan would result in a legacy project in the
Downtown Waterfront District with new buildings, employees, residents and visitors that would
contribute to the City's tax base in terms of retail sales and property taxes. Increased pedestrian
activity along an improved Dayton Street front together with an extension of the art corridor
would create new vibrant gather places and contribute to the public's sense of community.
The environmental benefits of improving the ecological functions and values of the Edmonds
Marsh and cleaning up any previous environmental hazards can be realized by redeveloping the
Harbor Square site. Given the existing physical conditions of some of the buildings, high
vacancy rate and limitation on various uses, incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the
City's Comprehensive Plan would allow a new vibrant neighborhood to be created and contribute
to the economic, social and environmental atmosphere in Edmonds.
With the recommendations provided below, the Planning Board finds that the Harbor
Square Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in
the public interest.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 5 of 8
Packet Page 113 of 159
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the City;
Incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan will enable the
redevelopment of the site into a well designed mixed -use transit -oriented neighborhood that
anchors the western edge of the Edmonds Downtown. The new neighborhood would provide
housing, employment, cultural activities, retail commerce, recreational activities and
opportunities for social interaction among its residents and visitors. The plan integrates
alternative transportation, open space and trails, green building practices and healthy living with
art and design. The new neighborhood would contribute to the City's economic vitality and
provide much needed revenues to the City.
Any environmental health hazards that exist due to its historical use for industrial activities would
be determined when the Master Plan is implemented with a project level proposal. Geotechnical
excavations and soil logs will indicate if there are any toxic materials and if any hazards are
uncovered, City, state and federal regulations governing cleanup and/or handling of toxic
materials would be followed.
With the recommendations provided below, the Planning Board finds that the Harbor
Square Master Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the City.
C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City;
Edmonds is predominately a residential community with approximately 60% of its total land base
occupied with residential uses with community, retail and commercial uses, community facilities
and open space uses accounting for approximately another 15% of the land base. The Buildable
Lands Report for Snohomish County showed Edmonds had a population capacity of 45,337 and
an employment capacity of 12,041. These capacity figures indicate Edmonds can accommodate
an additional 5,877 people and 1,887 jobs.
The Harbor Square Master Plan amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan strives to meet the
goals of the Growth Management Act by including residential use near transportation nodes. The
Growth Management Act requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and
employment forecasts for the next 20 years within the Urban Growth Area. The Comprehensive
Plan states the City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals
and zoning incentives or other measures to ensure the land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is
utilized to maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure (pg. 39). A key feature of the
Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan is its emphasis on mixed -use development, which includes both
commercial and residential uses.
The Harbor Square Master Plan amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan strives to meet the
goals of the Growth Management Act by including residential use near transportation nodes. The
Harbor Square Master Plan provides for the phased conversion of the existing uses to a
combination of personal and professional offices, retail services, public open spaces, private
recreation, hotel accommodation and residential uses. Many of the uses currently provided at
Harbor Square will be maintained. The addition of residential uses to the current mix of uses will
enhance human activity levels by providing the opportunity for people to live in the waterfront
district and interact with numerous waterfront activities. This interaction with such facilities as
waterfront parks, pedestrian pathways, the commuter rail station and bus facilities, and new and
expended retail and service uses will strengthen the economic and cultural vitality of the
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 6 of 8
Packet Page 114 of 159
waterfront area while working towards meeting the GMA goals for increasing transit oriented
development and ensuring an appropriate balance of land uses.
With the recommendations provided below, the Planning Board finds that implementation
of the Harbor Square Master Plan would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses
within the City.
D. In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with
adjoining land uses and absence ofphysical constraints.
The Port of Edmonds request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan does not include a specific change to the Comprehensive Plan
Map.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Edmonds Planning Board recommends incorporation of the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square
Master Plan dated August 27, 2012 for as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the City
Council approve the same with the Planning Board's following recommendations:
1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if
the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification
such as LEED Platinum.
2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of
the property.
3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height.
4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and
enhanced.
5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional
sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate
parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during
peak use times."
6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit
for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted.
7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation
as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back".
8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the
Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to
support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street."
9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", "If WSDOT is amendable"
should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence.
10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated
September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan addressing
height limits, precedent, and views.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 7 of 8
Packet Page 115 of 159
11. Clarifying language should be, added to the Harbor Square Master Plan that residential uses must be
multifamily and not single-family residential.
12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the City Council, it should be physically
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference.
13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh
by establishing an area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge of the Edmonds
Marsh and ensure any development preserves or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway.
14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain consistency with the Shoreline
Master Program update to be determined following submittal by the City and approved by the State in
accordance with process deadlines existent between the State and the City.
Planning Board Recommendation to City Council
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Harbor Square Master Plan Incorporation
Page 8 of 8
Packet Page 116 of 159
Edmonds City Council
Agenda Memo
`nc. 1 99'
Meeting Date: January 29, 2013
Agenda Subject: Harbor Square Master Plan — Public Hearing
Staff Lead / Kernen Lien
Author: Senior Planner
Initiated By: ❑ City Council ❑ Planning Board ❑ City Staff
❑Citizen Request Q Other: Port of Edmonds
Shoreline Master Program — Harbor Square Master Program Timing
The Planning Board Recommended that the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) and the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) be reviewed concurrently and that the HSMP be amended as
necessary to maintain consistency with the SMP. Some Council members have questioned
whether the SMP should be reviewed and approved before the HSMP.
Staff provided an introduction to the SMP at the December 4, 2012 City Council meeting
outlining how the SMP would apply to the Harbor Square property. During the SMP update
process it was determined that the salt water influenced portions of the Edmonds Marsh is a
shoreline of the state, which means that shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward of the
edge of the marsh into the Harbor Square property. With the determination that the Edmonds
Marsh is a shoreline of the state, the City created a new shoreline environment for the Harbor
Square property as well as the property on the south side of Edmonds Marsh; Urban Mixed Use
III. One of the key linkages between the SMP and HSMP is what type of uses should be allowed
at the Harbor Square site.
The Port of Edmonds' proposed Harbor Square Master Plan envisions a mixed -use transit
oriented development with retail, commercial, office, residential housing, and public uses. The
new Urban Mixed Use III shoreline environment was developed with this mix of uses taken under
consideration. If the Council decides that residential development is not an appropriate use for
the Harbor Square site, the Council will also have to take a close look at the uses allowed in the
Urban Mixed Use III shoreline environment.
The Shoreline Master Program also contains draft regulations that would apply to the Harbor
Square site including buffers and setbacks from the edge of the Edmonds Marsh. Since the
Harbor Square Master is a planning level document, it does not address setbacks or buffers.
However, any future development agreement or project at Harbor Square within shoreline
jurisdiction will have to comply with the development regulations established within the SMP.
The ordinance under consideration by the Council includes a section (Section 5) that notes the
City of Edmonds cat City Council
Packet Page 117 of 159
HSMP is not definitively planning for specific shoreline setbacks and/or buffers and that the
future shoreline setbacks for the Harbor Square property shall be determined by the updated
SMP.
The Council review of the SMP is in the very early stages and the Council review will include
discussion of the appropriate setbacks and buffers for the Harbor Square site. Staff feels that it is
appropriate for City Council to act on the Harbor Square Master Plan prior to acting on the
Shoreline Master Program.
Redevelopment within Wetland Buffer
Wetland buffers contained within the draft Shoreline Master Program and the City's critical area
regulations extend well into the Harbor Square site. Attachment 1 to this memorandum depicts
the extent of shoreline jurisdiction, SMP wetland buffers, CAO wetland buffers, and SMP
setbacks on the Harbor Square site. Staff had previously indicated that Harbor Square could
redevelop within the buffers as long as the developed foot print is not expanded. While there is
support for this within the Shoreline Management Act and the Best Available Science reports
prepared during the City's critical area ordinance update, the language within the City's
regulations does not go that far.
Shoreline Management Act
One of the key aspects of the Shoreline Management Act is that development within shoreline
jurisdiction provides "no net loss" of ecological functions. Within the Shoreline Management
Act, a note within RCW 90.58.620 provides:
Note (3) Updated shoreline master programs must include provisions to ensure that
expansion, redevelopment, and replacement of existing structures will result in no net
loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. Classifying existing structures as legally
conforming will not create a risk of degrading shoreline natural resources." [2011 c 323 § 1.]
(From SSB 5451)
Additionally the state guidelines developed to implement the Shoreline Management Act and
guide development of Shoreline Master Programs (WAC 173-26) provides:
WAC 173-26-186 Governing principles of the guidelines
(8)(b) Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no
net loss of those ecological functions.
(8)(d) Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably
foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline
functions fostered by the policy goals of the act. To ensure no net loss of ecological functions
and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain
policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly
allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities.
(Cumulative impact analysis on draft regulations have received preliminary buy off from
Ecology)
The "no net loss" provision within the Shoreline Management Act is "no net loss" over existing
conditions. In Edmonds, and many other places throughout the state, the shorelines are intensely
developed. The Shoreline Management Act recognizes that shoreline areas have been developed
and does not expect shoreline areas to be restored to predeveloped conditions. The Shoreline
Master Program Handbook developed by the Department of Ecology notes:
Page 2 of 5
Packet Page 118 of 159
Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only
setbacks from the OHWM [Ordinary High Water Mark]. Vegetation conservation is
required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with
native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development.
These measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological
functions, as do buffers.
During the drafting of the Shoreline Master Program regulations, staff had in depth discussion
with Department Ecology on this matter and Ecology acknowledged the developed conditions of
Edmonds' shoreline. As a result of these discussions, the following language was included in the
draft SMP regulations.
24.40.020.F.2.g Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers.
i. Areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a wetland and
do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts due to preexisting public roads,
structures, or similar circumstances, shall be excluded from the buffers otherwise
required by this subsection.
ii. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine
whether the buffer is functionally isolated.
City of Edmond Critical Areas Ordinance
The Best Available Science (BAS) reports that were developed during the City's update of the
critical area regulations also recognized that historical development exists within the critical area
buffers and envisioned redevelopment within critical area buffers. The BAS report noted:
The City of Edmonds is largely built -out with approximately 96% of the land previously
developed. GMA density goals will be met through redevelopment. Instituting large buffers
that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no
additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function
over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands
an existing structure footprint into a buffer. The CAO provides flexibility for City staff to
work with landowners in developing a scientifically -based enhancement plan for such
redevelopment. (pg. 31)
A memorandum from the CAO update elaborates on this:
The goal of the CAO is to protect public safety and the City's natural resources while
providing for increases in urban density under the GMA guidelines. The CAO update reflects
the City's particular needs regarding future growth and critical areas. The vast majority of
the City (96%) is already developed, thus future growth will be concentrated in
redevelopment of existing parcels. In addition, older residential neighborhoods are
integrated with streams that have little or no native vegetation buffers. The challenge for the
CAO is to provide opportunities to improve conditions along these streams in the long
term while allowing reasonable redevelopment.
One of the challenges of updating the CAO was to balance projected growth to meet
GMA goals and protection of natural resources using BAS in a city that is essentially
built -out. Streams are a particular challenge in the city. Some streams flow through steep
ravines with good native vegetation cover while many sections of streams flow through
residential neighborhoods that have little or no native plant buffers. Streams often flow
through areas dominated by lawn and suburban -type landscaping, within several feet of
houses, under driveways, and through manipulated channels. Extending 200-foot-wide
Page 3 of 5
Packet Page 119 of 159
buffers throughout these areas was not practical and would offer no protection for most
of the City, which is already developed. In addition to increase in buffers over the current
code, the new CAO establishes a new requirement to provide buffer enhancement for
new footprints from redevelopment, even if no native plant buffer currently exists.
Given the vast majority of density increases will come from redevelopment this
approach ensures incremental increases in wetland and stream habitat quality.
While the Best Available Science reports addressed "development" and "redevelopment" within
existing buffers, that terminology did not get transferred to the code.
ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 — Allow Activities (General)
3. Permitted Alteration to Structures Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers.
Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer
that does not increase the footprint of development or increase the impact to the critical area
or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed
modification or replacement (additions to legally constructed structures existing within a
critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be
subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the
associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall be
interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code
relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal
nonconforming building within its footprint;
ECDC 23.50.020.E — Allowed Activities (Wetlands)
E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or
wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or
increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
"Development" within the Best Available Science reports got transferred to "structure" within the
language of the critical areas regulations. While "development" generally includes impervious
surface with the "footprint of development", "structure" is more related to something that is
"constructed and erected" on the ground and does not include impervious surface. So while the
Shoreline Management Act and Best Available Science report envision redevelopment within an
existing developed footprint as an opportunity for enhancement over current conditions, the
current critical area regulations do not clearly reflect this concept.
While we are currently discussing Harbor Square, as noted in the BAS report, this is an issue of
concern that impacts large areas within the City. In many instances critical area buffers engulf
entire properties and may even extend across properties entirely separated from a stream or
wetland. Attachment 2 to this memorandum depicts the 100-foot stream buffer on Shell Creek.
This buffer is largely developed out. If any of these properties were proposed for redevelopment,
that might not be allowed to occur even within the previously developed footprint without a
critical area variance — if that could be obtained. The Council may want to review the allowed
activity sections of the City's critical area regulations.
The City is nearly 96% percent developed and a return to a predevelopment condition is
unrealistic. Redevelopment of properties provides an opportunity for enhancement of critical
area buffers and improving current conditions.
Page 4 of 5
Packet Page 120 of 159
Liquefaction Hazard
Concerns have also been raised that the Harbor Square site is located within a liquefaction hazard
zone and it's been questioned whether Harbor Square could be redeveloped as envisioned by the
Port of Edmonds. It has also been noted that ECDC 23.80.040 describes specific construction
activities that may occur without a critical area report. Redevelopment of Harbor Square would
require a critical area report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 addressing the
geological conditions of the Harbor Square site. This is noted in Section 6 of the ordinance under
consideration by the City Council.
The liquefaction hazard zone comes from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
seismic hazard maps for Western Washington. Attachment 3 displays the liquefaction hazard
area within the City of Edmonds. Liquefaction hazard areas exist throughout western
Washington and have been extensively developed. As an example, Attachment 4 contains an
image displaying the SODO area of Seattle which has the same liquefaction hazard classification
as the Harbor Square site. The SODO liquefaction hazard area contains the football stadium,
baseball stadium, the Port of Seattle, condominiums, many warehouses, and potentially a new
basketball arena.
Development within a liquefaction hazard area has occurred and can occur; it is mainly a question
of engineering. Attachment 5 is a letter from Landau Associates addressing the buildability of
type of development envisioned by the Port of Edmonds in the HSMP. Dennis Stettler, P.E.
notes:
...with the use of deep foundations such as pile or use of ground improvement techniques, 5-
story structures could readily be supported on the site. These foundation support techniques
are commonly used in the Puget Sound region and with proper engineering design and
construction would provide suitable support for structures of the type envisioned in your [Port
of Edmonds] redevelopment master plan.
Page 5 of 5
Packet Page 121 of 159
dp
!,--�;-.
{ Y
q,
ON
C :4L p
0
6�
-A
M—-w
y
. ar.
Setback, Buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction
�q0V EDAto� 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction N
fp 150 foot SMP Wetland Buffer
® 50 foot Shore Setback 1 inch = 150 feet
200 foot CAO Wetland Buffer
Attachment 1
Packet Page 122 of 159
r
�� wr
r ���P,+ti I
* d1B
A r ��g i7 ll .
1:-
AA
Sri �>�►;ei�<v,Tk
4 � ` {E:?, •+k'�!� ►4�; �' .� fir+ +�,
W, EMT
WN
WMA
aw
VA
y .-* .ate �.. ,- r• ' r� -
�' � �f-+ _ �' ��+w i� r�� + ♦r i w as
e - - t - sty a��`WN
R',,, .rt � . - _ day ;•fit• ,�,ON
�
i t a �� !i r ��^�'=1V�♦w�� �a ;
IRIS !.
ice'# •� ,.7 °+. °�� �, -
- 44
i r
r -
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
March 22, 2012
Port of Edmonds
336 Admiral Way
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Robert McChesney
Executive Director
RE: HARBOR SQUARE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY
Dear Bob:
We understand that the Port of Edmonds' draft redevelopment master plan for Harbor Square
includes buildings of up to 5 stories. It is our opinion that such development is feasible from a
geotechnical perspective.
We have signifcant knowledge of the soil conditions in the Harbor Square area based on our
previous work on the property, and our engineering work on other nearby properties for the Port of
Edmonds, City of Edmonds, and other development entities. The Harbor Square property is underlain by
till of variable quality that would not provide good support for foundations bearing directly on that soil.
However, with the use of deep foundations such as piles or use of ground improvement techniques; 5-
story structures could readily be supported on the site. These foundation support techniques are
commonly used in the Puget Sound region and with proper engineering design and construction would
provide suitable support for structures of the type envisioned in your redevelopment master plan.
We wish you success in your redevelopment master plan and look forward to seeing an effective
redevelopment of the property that would benefit the Edmonds community. Please let us know if you
have any questions regarding this letter or if we can be of assistance to you as your plans proceed.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Principal
DRS/
€NVIRON €NTAL II (G' T€CmHNICAL j tNAT�AL RESOURCES
Packet Page 126 of 1 rd Avenue 5ouin - Ed:ronu R 4r�520' 25*? �96i •Tex 14251778-6409 • wwwJondn,:,n� rnm
Date:
MEMORANDUM
January 25, 2013
To: Mayor Earling
Council President Petso
City Council
From: Sandy Chase, City Clerk f/
Subject: January 29, 2013 City Council Meeting — Agenda Item 5
Continued Public Hearing and potential action on the Planning Board
recommendation to approve the Port of Edmonds request to incorporate the
Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the Ci 's Comprehensive Plan.
Attached are copies of additional correspondence (listed below) forwarded to the City Clerk's
Office* related to the above -referenced matter after the second public hearing held on December
18, 2012.
1. Email dated 12-11-12 @ 12.54 p.m. from Audree Bentzen, address not provided
(1 page).
2. Email dated 12-14-12 @ 9:23 a.m. from Mike Murdock, Edmonds (1 page).
3. Email dated 12-18-12 @ 11:59 a.m. from Carolyn Carman, Edmonds (2 pages).
4. Email dated 12-18-12 @ 4:43 p.m. from Sunny Strong, Edmonds (lpage).
5. Email dated 12-18-12 @ 5:40 p.m. from Lena Maul, Edmonds (1 page).
6. Email dated 12-18-12 @ 6:02 p.m. from Abraham Mathew, Edmonds (1 page).
7. Email dated 12-19-12 @ 7:06 a.m. from Jamie@reecehomes.com, address not
provided (1 page).
8. Email dated 12-20-12 @ 2:19 p.m. from Mike McCarthy, address not provided
(1 page).
9. Email dated 12-21-12 @ 9:26 a.m. from Cliff Ruthrauff, Edmonds (1 page).
10. Email dated 12-23-12 @ 4:50 p.m. plus attached letter from Jon Houghton, Ph.D.,
Edmonds (8 pages).
11. Email dated 12-28-12 @ 1:48 p.m. from Diane Talmadge, Edmonds (1 page)
Packet Page 127 of 159
Correspondence
January 29, 2013 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 5 — Harbor Square Master Plan
12. Email dated 12-29-12 @ 3:10 p.m. from Natalie Shippen, Edmonds (1 page).
13. Letter dated 01-12-13 from Christopher W. Keuss, Edmonds (3 pages).
*Please note that the attached correspondence includes only the correspondence that was forwarded to the City Clerk's Office.
City of Edmonds C9 City Clerk's Office
Packet Page 128 of 159
Page 2 of 2
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 5:06 PM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: Council the waterfront
From: Audree Bentzen[mailto:albentzen@frontier.com_]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Council the waterfront
55 foot tall buildings is too much.
WE are absolutely against the 55 foot tall buildings!!
The yacht club couldn,t put a light house,(8ft) on top of their new building, why then
should the port be able to have their 55 ft tall buildings???
Audree Bentzen
Packet Page 129 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: Harbor Square
From: murdock.michael@comcast.net [mailto:murdock.michael@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:23 AM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Harbor Square
Good Morning,
As an area resident for life, playing in Edmonds and the waterfront as a kid, now 61, this project
naturally stirs serious thoughts due to the magnitude it will change Edmonds forever. Edmonds used
to be a city where neighbors would first think about neighbors before building something that blocked
views, now sadly it happens frequently. It may be indicative of a far worse societal "me first" issue
that seems to be out of control these days, witnessed on a regular basis.
I realize Edmonds needs to grow revenue and move forward but I am unclear if this project is the best
answer to all the citizens of Edmonds. To have more expensive tall condos to sell is not a long term
benefit for all. Real estate taxes and business taxes enter into the equation but is it worth it for this
project and benefit all citizens or just a small group? What businesses will occupy the area and who
will buy the expensive condo's?
I have seen other similar developments, found them unimpressive and not sure this project is the
greatest for Edmonds to accomplish the objectives for all of us.
However, I am willing to listen and open to all viewpoints if someone can step up and really explain
with facts how the project in present form benefits all the citizens of Edmonds. One must ask this
question.
So far, Councilmember Bloom has stepped up and taken the initiative to outline her views in detail
whether one agrees or disagrees with her viewpoint. She is to be commended for publicly stating her
views and obvious concern for the future welfare of Edmonds and all residents.
Thank you,
Mike Murdock
Mike Murdock
Packet Page 130 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: juicetycoon@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Peterson, Strom; Kristiana Johnson; Dave.Earling@edmondswa.go; Chase, Sandy; Petso,
Lora; Joan.Bloom @edmonds.wa.us; Buckshnis, Diane; Monillas, Adrienne
Subject: In Favor of the Harbor Square Plans to go throught to create more Good /opportunities
for Edmonds
Kristiana, Strom, Adrienne, Diane, Joan, Frank, Lora, Sandy, and Mayor Earling,
I am in favor of the Harbor Square Master Plan proposal to go through. It allows us an opportunity for
grow and to protect our valued community.
I'm unable to join you tonight but urge you to move forward on this.
Happy Holidays..thanks for all you do!
Carolyn Carman
Business owner and 20+ year resident of Edmonds
425 327-1189
I support individuals and families to be their best nutritionally(any New Year's health goals?), whether it be
more energy, better sleep, reducing junk food cravings or increased fitness levels.. just a few of the benefits of
proper nutrition from the Source/plant foods/live food where essential nutrients come from fruits, veggies and
berries. www.carolynearman.com to watch a short video. I'm available to met and hear what you're looking for
around improving your health. Give me a call if I can be of support, no obligation. Food is the BEST
medicine..heals, detoxs and offers nutrients not found anywhere else.
Creating a Healthier World and Living Life to the Plus+
Carolyn Carman
425 327-1189
Packet Page 131 of 159
www.carolynean-nan.com
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors—
ConsumerLifestyleMag.com
Packet Page 132 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Earling, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:48 PM
To: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: The Port Development Plan
And another.
-----Original Message -----
From: Sunny Strong [mailto:sstrong20@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:43 PM
To: Earling, Dave
Subject: The Port Development Plan
Dear Mayor,
As a 27 year resident and world traveler, I know we have something special to preserve.
With the proposed development we will be Kirkland, and many, many other new developments. We will have lost our
funky edge!
Please do not proceed. We can be more original than the drawings to date depict. It's cookie -cutter design.
Sunny Strong
18624 94th Ave W
Edmonds WA
Packet Page 133 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Lena Maul <lenamaul@windermere.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:40 PM
To: Chase, Sandy
Subject: Harbor Square Master Plan
Dear Chase --
As a Edmonds resident, 601 2"d Ave N, and local business owner, I would like you to know that I support the Harbor
Square Master Plan. I believe this would bring added vitality, increase tax base and will continue to put Edmonds on the
map as a fabulous destination city. I believe there is a demand for this within Edmonds and from our surrounding
communities to support such growth and that it would only add positively to Edmonds' current commercial
offerings. Please support this passing.
Thanks—
L&K4.1 Maw1,
Designated Broker/Owner
Windermere/North, Inc.
206-595-1539 Cell
425-776-1119 Office
425-776-5680 Fax
www.windermerenorth.com
Packet Page 134 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Neena Mathew <ninamathew@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:02 PM
To: Chase, Sandy
Subject: Please vote No on the Harbor Square Master Plan
Dear Sandy Chase,
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen to urge you to vote against incorporating the Port's Harbor Square
Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. My family and I have lived in Edmonds for almost 10 years
and absolutely love the city. I work at Microsoft and make a 22 mile trek to the Eastside every day because
Edmonds offers a community and experience that is unique in this area. I am all for business growth but doing
it in a manner that spoils the beauty of our city and makes us just another crowded city as the Port proposes is
the wrong way to go about it. I am active in the community and love this city and would like to keep living
here. Please vote no on the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Thanks for listening,
Abraham Mathew
425-744-6790
1
Packet Page 135 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From:
Spellman, Jana
Sent:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:10 AM
To:
Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc:
Chase, Sandy
Subject:
FW: Feedback On Harbor Square Hearing
From: jamie@reecehomes.com [mailto:jamie(areecehomes.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:06 AM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Feedback On Harbor Square Hearing
Edmonds City Council:
I attended last night's public hearing on the Harbor Square Master Plan and was disappointed albeit understanding of
the lack of action on the Harbor Square Master Plan. The variety of speakers over the evening brought to mind a
number of thoughts that I wanted to share from my perspective:
Views: contrary to many speakers' assertions, the proposed concepts may change views but it does not appear
they would not create new obstructions for most, if not all, residents. Presently many tall trees, some taller than
the tallest proposed building heights, line SR104 and Dayton and block views of those living West of 5th Ave.
Packet Page 136 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: harbor square redevelopment
From: micheal [mailto:michealjmccarthy@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Fw: harbor square redevelopment
----- Original Message -----
From: micheal
To: counciladmin(a�,ci.edmonds.wa.us
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:38 AM
Subject: harbor square redevelopment
To evervybody on the council, turn that harbor square thing down. Its not just no its hell no. Take a look at Seattle and
Ballard there hi rise condos going up everywhere there ugly they block views they have ruined ballard now they want to
come to Edmonds the port wants this deal they stand to make a lot of money, If you guys vote this thing in he will be
breaking ground within 2 years just watch. I also don't think its right for everybody that has had to live and build to the 35
foot rule now somebody comes in that has some money and the rules change thats not fair for the little guy . The
principal should be reason enough but what about all the people that get there view blocked whats your answer to them.
The developer won't do this thing if he can't go 55 feet that cuts into about 40 percent of his profit , 20 feet is probably 2
plus floors. People are starting to build again property is starting to sell the city had plenty of money before this recession
and they will have money again. Just vote no, this project won't create any jobs outsiders will come and build it and it will
be done within 18 months.From the time they break ground. Just go drive down through ballard on 15th nw and continue
on elloitt in seattle do you really want that in Edmonds I don't think so. thank you mike mccarthy
Packet Page 137 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:18 AM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: Harbor Point project
From: Cliff Ruthrauff [mailto:cliffusn@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:26 AM
To: Edmonds Beacon
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Earling, Dave
Subject: Harbor Point project
I've been following the debate over the Harbor Point master plan. The focus of the debate seems to be the 55ft.
height limit.
I agree that this deserves serious consideration, but I've haven't noticed concern about population density.
I'm sure the local businesses support more residents in town to support them. (As they should).
More residents produce more taxes, which makes life easier for the politicians.
I have no problem with any of this, but my concern is; who is looking out for the "quality of life" in Edmonds?
The plan calls for about 350 new residential units, (About 700 new autos living in the bowl). The plan calls for
new parking for the new residents
and businesses, but I don't see any of this as a benefit to the existing residents.
Am I the only one tired of the traffic jams and parking problems on any sunny summer weekend in our little
town?
I support prosperity and growth, but I greatly fear Edmonds is headed towards becoming a "carnival town".
Is this progress?
Cliff Ruthrauff
550 Dayton
Edmonds
Packet Page 138 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:15 AM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: Harbor Square Master Program Update
Attachments: Harbor Sq. Ltr to Council.doc
From: Jon Houghton[mailto:ion. houghton(�)hartcrowser.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:50 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Cc: Bob McChesney
Subject: Harbor Square Master Program Update
To the Edmonds City Councel:
Please accept the attached comment regarding the proposed revisions to the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Happy Holidays!
Jon Houghton, Ph.D.
9636 Blake Place Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Page 139 of 159
December 19, 2012
City Council
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Review
Dear Members of the City Council:
As I was unable to attend the 12/18 Council meeting in person, I am writing this letter to
provide my comments on the subject Master Plan and the associated rezone application.
I write as one who has been involved in matters affecting the Edmonds waterfront in
several capacities over the last 30+ years. I've been a citizen of Edmonds since 1981,
residing at 9636 Blake Place. 1 co-founded my marine biological consulting business in
Harbor Square in 1989, and remained there for about 4 years before moving to our
present location at 120 Third Avenue South.
Over those years, I have worked as a biological consultant to both the City and the Port of
Edmonds on a number of projects related to the waterfront, sewer and stormwater
outfalls, the Underwater Park, the Edmonds Marsh, and to small streams in the City. I
also volunteered for the last few years as a member of the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh
(FOEM), a small group of citizens working to enhance the health of the Marsh. I worked
with FOEM members (and received some compensation from the Port for my efforts) to
develop a memo outlining the FOEM position regarding the proposed rezone of Harbor
Square to UMU 3 and how we (FOEM) believed it might or might not affect the marsh.
The statements in that memo are based on our collective and substantial scientific
background and to a degree, are reiterated below. (That memo has been previously
forwarded to the City Planning department and is attached hereto for your convenience.)
As you are aware, the Port and the Harbor Square Steering Committee have been
working on a revised Harbor Square Master Plan for about 3 years and have attended a
public workshop describing the Port's plans for Harbor Square. As I have observed it,
the process of developing the Master Plan has been open and transparent to public input
throughout. As a former tenant of Harbor Square, I can attest to the need for a complete
upgrade of the property; as a citizen (who has lost the Puget Sound view from both my
office and my home to new construction!), I am opposed to buildings that block existing
views. As a result, I appreciate the Port's sophisticated and detailed viewshed study that
was incorporated into the Plan, and that the study shows that no public views would be
negatively impacted by the proposed buildings.
More significant to my area of expertise, is the potential effect of the Master Plan
implementation on the health of the Edmonds Marsh and on efforts to daylight the marsh
to Puget Sound. This action (daylighting the Willow Creek outlet to the Sound) will
Packet Page 140 of 159
restore tidal circulation and a variety of ecological functions that are impaired by the
present limited hydraulic connectivity between the Marsh and the Sound. Building
height, of course, has no effect on the Marsh or its inhabitants, negative or positive.
However, implementation of the Port's Plan will have a number of positive ramifications
for the Marsh, its fauna, and its users (walkers, birders, biologists). These include, in
approximate descending order of ecological significance:
• Buy -in by the Port on plans to daylight the Marsh to Puget Sound.
• Improvements to stormwater management at Harbor Square, that will directly
improve water quality (and ecological functions) in the Marsh and the Sound.
• Improved flood control for the lower Edmonds Bowl (to be achieved by coupling
Harbor Square redevelopment, with Marsh daylighting (facilitating marsh
response to dropping tides), and other actions being evaluated by the City.
• Improved public access to the marsh, including improved parking, better viewing,
and walking, and increased enjoyment of "a wild place" in the heart of Edmonds.
As you know, the marsh is already a mecca for local and regional birders and
wildlife photographers; it would become even more attractive with Harbor Square
redevelopment as a result of the improved access, improved water quality, and the
restoration of natural tidal action.
I believe that the Port has been working diligently and openly toward developing this
Plan. I believe that the Plan provides a vision and a way to move beyond simply
preserving the status quo without regard for economic realities and future generations.
The Plan appears to me to be a reasonable compromise that gives the Marsh and the
community what they need: a win -win that includes enhancement of the ecological,
economic, and social functions and values of the planning area, without detracting from
community values and views.
As I understand the process, the City's Council's approval of the Comp Plan Amendment
at this stage is simply a reaffirmation of the 3-year process, and a milestone that will
allow the process to continue toward a cooperative project specific Development
Agreement.
Based on the above, and on additional factors discussed in the attached FOEM memo, I
strongly urge the City Council to approve the application and to allow the redevelopment
of Harbor Square to move forward.
Sincerely,
Jon Houghton, Ph.D.
(425) 778-4682
Cc: Mr. R. McChesney, Port of Edmonds
Packet Page 141 of 159
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 12, 2011
TO: Rob Chave, Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Edmonds Planning Commission, Phillip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier, Bill Ellis, Kristiana Johnson, Valerie Stewart,
Neil Tibbott, Kevin Clarke
FROM: Friends of the Edmonds Marsh (FOEM)
RE: Comments re. Harbor Square Redevelopment and Urban Mixed Use
3 Designation
CC: Bob McChesney, Port of Edmonds
Friends of Edmonds Marsh (FOEM) is an organization of citizens of Edmonds that have
gathered together to promote the long-term health and ecological function of Edmonds
Marsh. Our mission statement is attached. FOEM has reviewed the conceptual
redevelopment master plan at Harbor Square Business Park (HS) as proposed by the
Port of Edmonds. FOEM believes that HS redevelopment offers the opportunity to
correct conditions resulting from past development in the Edmonds Bowl that have
degraded the ecological functions of the marsh. FOEM supports the "Urban Mixed Use
3" (UMU 3) land use category for HS under the City of Edmond's revised Shoreline
Master Program with the expectation that the Port's redevelopment will proceed with the
provisions outlined below.
We believe that incorporation of specific environmental design elements into the HS
redevelopment can benefit the marsh; these design elements are expected to include
enhanced buffers within setback areas, increased open space, and perhaps most
importantly from the perspective of marsh health, improved stormwater management.
Our mutual goals with the Port include day lighting the Willow Creek connection to Puget
Sound which is expected to improve natural habitat functions, restore intertidal salt
marsh characteristics, and maximize ecological functions and values with the marsh.
FOEM believes redevelopment at Harbor Square can be a net benefit to the Edmonds
Marsh, if redevelopment incorporates specific elements that we describe below.
Packet Page 142 of 159
Background and Existing Conditions
The Edmonds Marsh is currently connected to Puget Sound through a tide gate
that is placed in operation by the City each fall to limit water elevations within the
marsh. This tide gate, the approximately 1,300-foot culvert through which the
marsh drains, and the BNSF RR tracks, severely limit the ecological functions of
the marsh. For example, winter operation of the tide gate essentially prevents
saltwater from entering the marsh, altering the salinity regime and significantly
affecting plants, birds, and invertebrate life in the marsh.
2. A high proportion of the surface area within HS is currently impervious and
existing parking, trail, and tennis court setbacks from the ordinary high water
(OHW) line are minimal.
3. HS is situated immediately adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. However, existing
buffers along the Harbor Square shoreline with the Edmonds Marsh are narrow
and include substantial quantities of non-native invasive species; they therefore
provide only low levels of ecological function.
4. Existing stormwater management systems and infrastructure at HS discharge
directly into the Marsh without significant treatment.
5. Buffer enhancement or expansion of buffers behind (landward of) the levee)
would improve riparian habitat functions for passerine birds and small mammals
and would improve aesthetic values and the overall ecosystem integrity;
however, buffer expansion behind the levee would not materially improve
estuarine marsh functions per se.
6. The proposed land uses that would be allowable behind the levee under UMU 3
(commercial, residential; parking) would not inherently differ from those uses
allowed under UMU 2 (commercial; parking) in their potential to affect habitat or
species important in the marsh ecosystem. However, a small incremental benefit
might be derived from having less automobile traffic associated with residential
use compared with the other potential uses.
7. Building heights in excess of currently allowed limits would not adversely impact
marsh function given the buffer provisions specified below.
8. Redevelopment behind the levee that results in improved stormwater treatment
will improve water quality and ecological functions in the marsh.
Packet Page 143 of 159
Harbor Square Redevelopment Under UMU 3
In this section, we outline our expectations for HS development: we assume that in
redeveloping HS under the proposed UMU 3, the Port will do the following:
1. Preserve existing buffers.
2. Enhance existing buffers by removing invasive species and replanting with
appropriate native species; FOEM will commit to work with the Port to coordinate
use of volunteer work parties to assist in long-term maintenance of the enhanced
buffers.
3. Where compatible with redevelopment, expand existing buffers to enhance
habitat for small mammals and migratory birds and to increase the capacity of
buffers to filter stormwater.
4. Design the redevelopment to increase shoreline setbacks where possible, to
allow for expanded buffers
5. Utilize setback areas between the OHW line and buildings or parking for buffers
that support wildlife habitat and promote infiltration of stormwater; these areas
should be planted with native plantings. A pervious pedestrian walkway and
marsh viewing areas to enhance passive public enjoyment of the marsh are
desirable and could be located in the buffer. Lawn and other open areas should
be located elsewhere in the site.
6. Capture and treat all stormwater on -site using low impact development (LID)
techniques compatible with the latest Ecology Stormwater Manual and municipal
stormwater NPDES provisions.
7. Support efforts to daylight Willow Creek through the newly constructed BNSF
railroad bridge.
8. It is assumed that there would be no industrial discharges or release of potential
contaminants from any use.
Packet Page 144 of 159
Benefits of Harbor Square Redevelopment for the Edmonds Marsh
In this section, we describe the benefits we anticipate to result from realization of the
expectations listed in the previous section.
1. With redevelopment, the limited existing vegetated buffer area between the
marsh (OHW) and existing upland modifications (paving, impervious surfaces)
would be maintained and enhanced in the following ways:
a. By removing non-native invasive vegetation and plantings of native
species.
b. By reducing the total area of impervious surfaces within the shoreline
area.
2. Designated setbacks under UMU 3 would be enhanced contiguous with existing
buffers or landscaped in native plants, but may include pervious public access
trails and educational signs.
3. We believe and expect that the Port will continue to work actively with community
groups including FOEM to enhance the character of the vegetation in buffer
areas; FOEM will remain fully supportive of these efforts and plans for future
marsh restoration; e.g., by controlling invasive species and planting/encouraging
native species in the buffer. Thus, we believe that HS redevelopment would
bring a net improvement in marsh buffer function, thereby enhancing marsh
water quality and ecological functions.
4. Redevelopment would not affect existing drainage patterns from the levee crest
into the marsh, except where buffers are enhanced; buffer enhancement on
either side of the levee crest would improve water quality entering the marsh.
5. We expect that redevelopment behind (landward of) the levee would not result in
increased impervious area; allowance for taller buildings would allow increased
open space and reduced impervious area. Resulting additional green space
would aesthetically complement the marsh, reduce untreated stormwater by
increasing infiltration, and may allow incorporation of other sustainable design
features.
6. Redevelopment at HS will modernize on -site stormwater control and increase
pretreatment capabilities to enhance future water quality and improve ecological
functions in the marsh.
Packet Page 145 of 159
7. The quality of stormwater released from HS is important to the marsh and is
critical to this FOEM endorsement: we expect the Port's HS redevelopment will
improve water quality through the inclusion of several LID features such as rain
gardens, detention vaults, and oil/water separators. We assume that all
stormwater would be managed in accordance with the latest Ecology Stormwater
Manual and NPDES requirements. We assume that no copper will be used on
large surfaces exposed to weathering.
8. It can be assumed that residences with views into the marsh would provide
watchful eyes and concerned stewards of the marsh that would reduce the
potential for intentional vandalism, or ignorant acts that could degrade the marsh
amenities or ecology (loose dogs, for example).
Summary
Based on the points above, FOEM believes that assigning a shoreline classification of
UMU 3 to the newly designated Edmonds Marsh shoreline, and subsequent
redevelopment of HS would have a number of significant and positive outcomes for the
marsh:
1. Improved management of stormwater and improved quality of water entering the
marsh.
2. Improved buffers and buffer function.
3. Increased Port and resident stewardship of the marsh.
4. Port support for daylighting the marsh to Puget Sound.
We therefore encourage the City to adopt this new shoreline designation for the Harbor
Square shoreline of the Edmonds Marsh.
Packet Page 146 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From:
Spellman, Jana
Sent:
Monday, December 31, 2012 10:48 AM
To:
Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc:
Chase, Sandy
Subject:
FW: Proposal For Harbor Square Redevelopment
FYI - Jana
-----Original Message -----
From: D Talmadge [mailto:lustme56@me.com]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 1:48 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Proposal For Harbor Square Redevelopment
All Members of the City Council,
It seems to me that the Harbor Square redevelopment plans, and incorporation of them into the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, has become a noisy argument about building heights and views (not unimportant issues by any
means and about which reasonable folks will have honest disagreements.)
I recently asked about the Daylighting of the Marsh in a local blog. Councilperson Buckshnis was very informative of
the issues and the history of the Marsh. It seems to me that there is a very real issue with the buffer zone requirements
for the marsh and some very real questions about whether the buffer that currently exists would be allowed with a
redevelopment plan. If, as some have stated, the Shoreline Management Act will require a 200-300 foot buffer, then
any discussion of redevelopment are moot, since there would be very little area to redevelop. If, indeed, the Marsh's
current buffer or a buffer of up to 50 feet would be allowed, then let the discussions begin.
Has the question of the likely required buffer zone been worked through? If it hasn't, and a reasonable and likely
answer found, then that very issue will in all probability wind up in the land use courts. That is an expensive prospect,
and one which is avoidable with some forward thinking. If the buffer zones are based on actual facts and legal
assurances, so much so that you all are confident and comfortable that a 25 to 50 foot buffer will be allowed, then the
cost of the potential litigation when that is challenged (and it will be, we all know that) will be an entirely justifiable
expense. If you are not comfortable that the 25-50 foot buffers are allowable for the redevelopment of the Harbor
Square properties, then you risk putting the City through considerable expense when the matter comes to court.
It seems to me that this is the first step in the discussion, and I may have missed where it has been addressed. My
impression is that it is still an open question.
Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration and time.
Diane Talmadge
Packet Page 147 of 159
Chase, Sandy
From: Spellman, Jana
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 8:22 AM
To: Bloom, Joan; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Monillas, Adrienne; Peterson, Strom;
Petso, Lora; Spellman, Jana; Yamamoto, Frank
Cc: Chase, Sandy
Subject: FW: Waterfront future
From: natalieshippen@comcast.net[mailto:natal ieshippenCabcomcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:10 PM
To: Spellman, Jana
Subject: Waterfront future
WATERFRONT SCENARIO (Assumption: that long-time, big-time South County developer, Mike
Echelbarger, doesn't address the Edmonds Council
about the Harbor Square Plan because he suddenly acquired an
academic interest in municipal affairs.)
CAST/GOALS
WSF-wants to control/own the land north of Dayton in order to execute the terminal/mixed use
development described in "Analysis of Joint Development Opportunities at WSF Terminals" Final
Report, Jan. 12, 2009.
ECHELBARGERS- want to acquire view land south of Dayton to build condos.
Mayor -Eager to abet development anywhere; directs requested code adjustments to facilitate the
above actions
Council -irrelevant
Residents -uninformed
ACT 1. Echelbargers acquire 5-acre old Safeway property.
ACT 2. Echelbargers acquire 5 acres of Harbor Square when Port markets it.
ACT3. WSF swaps 5 acres (at least) of UNOCAL property for Echelbarger's Safeway property;
WSF swaps an additional acre (at least) for the Skipper property (WSF now has all it wants
north of Dayton)
ACT 4. Echelbargers continue to buy/lease UOCAL property from an WSF anxious that it will be $3
Billion shy of the Capital Improvement amount needed in 2030.
CURTAIN
Packet Page 148 of 159
RECEIVED
Christopher W. Keuss
1041 O' Ave. South JAN 17 2013
Edmonds, Washington 98020
425 778-0042 EDMONDS CITY CLERK
January 12, 2013
Dear Councilmember Fraley-Monillas,
I am responding to public comments made to the City Council and letters in the news
media regarding the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan. Several speakers and letter
writers, in opposition to the proposal, gave incorrect or misleading information. Much of
this I am sure you are aware. I encourage the Council to keep an open mind to an
opportunity that may not be available again in our lifetime.
The issues appear to be centered on the following: environmental concerns, Edmonds
Marsh impacts, construction feasibility, view corridors, downtown linkage, and building
heights. As a member of the preliminary task group (oversight committee), I can assure
the Council that the aforementioned concerns were reviewed, discussed and debated. The
task group was also concerned about the issues noted above and their impacts on
residences, the business district, the waterfront and the community at large. Edmonds is
a special place and we do not want to negatively impact this unique community.
IMPACTS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW:
The Edmonds Marsh — This area is a very sensitive and important environmental
ecosystem that must be maintained and hopefully improved upon with any nearby
development. The Port has committed to working with the City and the Edmonds Marsh
Committee to not only maintain but to enhance this important area. Enhanced walking
trails, ecosystem info plaques, and site overviews have been discussed. Something to
think about .... how about a information/conference/education center on the site with
support from the City, State, School District, Community College, UW and the Port!
Environmental Issues — This includes the soil and sub terrain conditions, storm water, air
quality, building materials, waterfront impacts, and a number of other programs that will
be addressed as part of the ongoing review and site planning. Geotec and environmental
engineers have been monitoring the soil conditions of the site for over twenty years. The
Port is aware of the conditions and knows that clean up and foundation work will be key
to any successful building program on the site. Many of the issues are already known
and they will be more fully examined and explored in future phases. Details that some
are asking for now are not appropriate at this phase of the process.
Linkage to the Downtown Business Core - This is an important element in the Plan, to
link the downtown area to the waterfront which would be advantageous to both Harbor
Packet Page 149 of 159
Square and the downtown area. Businesses thrive with other businesses. The linkage can
be accomplished with signage, plantings, directional streetscapes, roadway design, and
pedestrian enhanced walkways. Current businesses that have put off upgrades to store
fronts will want to upgrade to become part of a new thriving community that such a
development will bring.
Transit Oriented Development - This is a tie in to the linkage element above. A TOD
type of development will meet the needs of a younger generation that is environmentally
aware and willing to take alternative transportation modes to their destination. More and
more of these types of developments are also desirable to mix generations which is great
for a small town community. What better way than to live a few blocks from the train
station and commute to Everett or Seattle. Advantages here include more interest in the
waterfront, more traffic to downtown businesses and restaurants, and the use of public
amenities that may be featured on the site.
View Corridors/Height - view corridor protection was a priority principle put forth by
the steering committee. As much as possible, building siting on the property was to be
placed in areas of the property that protected views. The Port has reconfigured the
building footprint to ensure the best possible view corridor. Height configuration on the
site will incorporate building modulation. Per the current plan, taller buildings are
situated on the least impacted view segment of the property.
Financial Impact— This project will bring more people to Edmonds. This will include
new residences, new businesses and new services. All of these population groups will
enhance the quality of life in Edmonds by bringing much needed tax revenue to the City,
and bring new and different businesses/services. A development that includes housing
helps to fulfill the mandate by the Growth Management Act... increase in housing
density. This means more people residing in the core of Edmonds which will mean more
business for the shops, stores, restaurants, theatre, art galleries and coffee houses.
Other Tangible Benefits
• additional employment opportunities
• a more vital and alive waterfront
• a place where current residents and visitors will want to visit and walk the marsh
trails and new pedestrian walks in the development.
• Will help make the community at large more safe and secure
• Will make the community even more of a destination which will help new and
existing businesses; will help home and apartment sales; will enhance the
Edmonds community as a "livable community".
In Conclusion - I urge the City council to not let this opportunity pass by. You may not
all agree on certain elements of the plan, but you can work with the Port officials in
developing reasonable solutions to any concerns you may have. Surely you can advance
Packet Page 150 of 159
the process in order to receive more input and more details on what the Port envisions for
the site. My hope is that this Council is visionary and sees the possible benefits that can
be derived from such a plan. You have a once in a lifetime opportunity to help formulate
something special as your legacy to the community for future generations to enjoy and
appreciate. I urge you to approve this master plan as part of the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and allow the process to continue to the next stage.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher W. euss
Cc: Mayor Dave Earling
Bob McChesney, Port of Edmonds
Packet Page 151 of 159
Lien, Kernen
From: Taraday, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:07 PM
To: Bloom, Joan; Taraday, Jeff; Earling, Dave
Cc: Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen
Subject: Re: ECDC 23.80.040 Geologically Hazardous Areas
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Councilmember Bloom,
The short answer to your question is that adopting the Harbor Square
Master Plan does not authorize the construction of anything, for the
reason that you mention below: it is not a project -level approval. The
comprehensive plan (including any master plan that might become part of
the comprehensive plan) is a big picture visioning tool. As a council
member, the most relevant questions to be asking at this stage are
questions relating to whether the Harbor Square Master Plan is consistent
your vision for the future of that part of Edmonds and whether it is
consistent with the rest of the comprehensive plan.
My understanding is that the city typically requires the detailed critical
areas studies at a stage in the process where the city can more fully
evaluate what exactly is proposed to be constructed. We don't know that
right now because there is no construction proposal before the city for
consideration. Assuming that the proposed amendment becomes part of the
comp plan, the city will have a full opportunity to apply its critical
areas ordinance at a future stage in the re -development of Harbor Square.
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Jeff
On 1/17/13 9:52 AM, "Bloom, Joan" <Joan.Bloom(@edmondswa.gov> wrote:
>Jeff,
>I have copied a portion of our code (See B. Seismic Hazard Areas, below)
>which states allowed activities in seismic hazard areas without
>submission of a critical area report. Kernen Lien has stated in response
>to my questions during public hearing on the Harbor Square Master Plan
>that Harbor Square is located on an earthquake liquefaction zone, a
>seismic hazard area.
>The Port has stated repeatedly that this is not a project proposal and
>that the required studies will occur after approval of their master plan,
>and integration of their plan into our Comprehensive Plan. A mitigated
>determination of non -significance was submitted by the Port as the lead
i
Packet Page 152 of 159
>agency, and the only study that was done was on traffic.
>Please review the text of the full code and address the legal
>ramifications if Council votes to change the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
>to allow construction of over 300 residences at Harbor Square in advance
>of submission of the required critical area report. Our code states that
>(without the required study) new buildings can have no more that 2500 sq
>feet of additional square footage in a seismic hazard area, and this can
>not include residential structures.
>Excerpted from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC):
>Part II. Allowed Activities - Geologically Hazardous Areas
>23.80.040 Allowed activities - Geologically hazardous areas.
>The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as
>consistent with ECDC 23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC,
>Building Permits - Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, and
>Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require submission
>of a critical area report:
>A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except as otherwise provided for
An this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent
>with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title
>shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas.
>B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within
>seismic hazard areas:
>1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of
>floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not
>residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;
>2. Additions to existing single -story residences that are 250 square feet
>or less; and
>3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
>The above referenced code was discovered by a citizen in reviewing the
>ESC Associates application for a contract rezone. I wrote about this
>discovery on EdmondsForum.com, published on June 27, 2011. A link to my
>article follows:
>http://edmondsforum.com/2011/06/27/the-waterfront-urban-village-is-a-fanta
>sy-solution/
>Your response to my email is time sensitive as I would like the question
>and your answer to be posted on the City website, and included in the
>Council packet for the January 29 th public hearing on the Harbor Square
>Master Plan.
>Thank you for your prompt attention to this.
>Regards,
>Joan
N
Packet Page 153 of 159
>--------
>Joan Bloom
>Edmonds City Council
>425 775-4899
Packet Page 154 of 159
AM-5424
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date: 01/29/2013
Time: 10 Minutes
Submitted For: Councilmember Peterson
Department: City Council
Review Committee:
Type: Action
Tnfnrmntinn
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
7.
Jana
Spellman
Subject Title
Consideration of adding support of gun control to the Edmonds City Council legislative agenda.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Previous Council Action Edmonds City Council passed a legislative agenda (Exhibit A) on December 4,
2012.
Narrative
In the wake of the Newtown, CT and other shootings across the United States, consideration of
reasonable gun control measures have been introduced in many states and are being considered on a
Federal level. Council Member Peterson would like the Edmonds City Council to consider adding the
following language to its 2013 legislative agenda.
The Edmonds City Council supports legislation in favor of gun safety laws and regulations that reduce
violence and result in safe, responsible gun ownership, including: a ban on all assault weapons; a ban on
large capacity (greater than 10) ammunition magazines; universal background checks, including at gun
shows; trigger locks and safe storage requirements; and micro -stamping technology in all firearms sold,
purchased or delivered in the State to improve the capability of police to trace fired bullets.
Attachments
Exhibit A: 2013 Legislative Agenda - Approved
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 01/25/2013
Form Review
Date
O1/24/2013 11:08 AM
O1/24/2013 04:46 PM
O1/25/2013 08:42 AM
Started On: 01/24/2013 10:54 AM
Packet Page 155 of 159
Exhibit A
'1�A o Era �°�a Dave Earlin
City of Edmonds Mayor
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 9425-771-0251
COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Edmonds
2013 State Legislative Agenda
November 28, 2012
TOP PRIORITIES
Transportation Revenue Package
• Statewide Package - Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue
package, with a substantial local government component, to address maintenance and
infrastructure projects in Edmonds.
• Transportation Benefit District - Support legislation to create local funding options
for street maintenance through formation of local street utilities or by expansion of
the existing Transportation Benefit District to raise the local option with Council
approval from $20 to $40.
Healthy & Sustainable Communities — Pursue funding to support and enhance
"Healthy & Sustainable Communities" efforts — including Complete Streets, Safe
Routes to Schools, Bicycle & Pedestrian Grants, and the Recreational Trails Program
(Transportation Budget). The City of Edmonds supports this effort in seeking to
establish funding for the "Complete Streets" program (which is in statute but not
funded), along with efforts to preserve and enhance funding for the Safe Routes to
Schools program, bicycle and pedestrian grants, and the Recreational Trails Program
(RTP). All of these programs are integral to supporting the Healthy and Sustainable
Communities" initiative championed by WRPA and many local communities across
the state.
Coal Trains
• Monitor any legislation relating to the movement of coal along the BNSF rail lines
passing through the City of Edmonds.
2013 DRAFT Leg Agenda
Page 1
Packet Page 156 of 159
Public Records Requests
• Support legislation that provides some financial relief for cities and other
governmental agencies related to, and addresses ways of managing, public records
requests.
Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit
• Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042
State -Shared Liquor Revenues
• Remove the $10 million annual diversion of liquor taxes to state general fund. This
funding was formerly distributed to cities.
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
Advocate for increased WWRP funding in 2013-15 Capital Budget (Capital Budget)
The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) which oversees the state's
Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) — after receiving recommendations from
the Coalition and the WRPA -- have recommended a funding level of $90 million.
The WWRP program is a priority of the City of Edmonds given the critical role it
plays in assisting local parks agencies with funding for local parks, trails, water -
access projects, etc.
SUPPORT
Phase II Storm Water Funding
• Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase
II storm water permit requirements
Refinements to Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) and Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) Tools
• Support a new round of funding for the LRF
• Support the passage of TIF in Washington
Youth Athletic Facilities
Pursue legislation to re-establish funding for the Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF)
Account (Capital Budget/Policy Bill) The YAF account remains in state statute, but
has not been funded for several years. The City of Edmonds supports the
reestablishment of the YAF funding, through retention of 50 percent of the expected
sales tax proceeds that would come from the application of sales tax on competitive
leagues run by public agencies and private organizations, and Metropolitan Park
2013 DRAFT Leg Agenda
Page 2
Packet Page 157 of 159
Districts. Under state law, the YAF funding can be used for both capital needs as well
as "minor works" efforts to keep facilities maintained. The WRPA and RCFB also
has recommended re-establishing YAF funding.
Monitor and Support the easing property tax `suppression' pressures on
Metropolitan Parks Districts (MPDs):
• (Policy bill) The City of Edmonds supports the 2013 legislative initiative by MPDs to
ease property tax `suppression' pressures that are impacting these Districts. MPDs
leading these efforts are looking at four possible options for a bill in 2013.
Support Legislation that Removes or Extends the Sunset Provision Relating to
Lodging Tax Uses Allowing Funds to be Used for Operations and/or Support
of the Operations and Capital Expenditures of Tourism -Related Facilities
Owned by Non-profit Organizations
• Newer uses/services that could be funded using lodging taxes were added to the
statutes in 2007 and are due to sunset on June 30, 2013, unless the 2013 legislature
chooses to extend or remove the sunset date. Uses at risk are: 1) operation (as
opposed to "marketing") of special events and/or festivals designed to attract tourists;
and 2) support of the operations and capital expenditures of tourism -related facilities
owned by non-profit organizations. If the 2007 legislation sunsets, no lodging tax
funds can be spent on these uses in 2014 and beyond.
Support $80 Million for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR)
Funding which Supports Implementation of the Highest Priority Projects
Throughout Puget Sound
• The request includes two components: 1) #30 million divided among Puget
Sound watersheds for a habitat projects grant round, and 2) $50 million dedicated
to fund a prioritized list of specific large, high -priority capital projects submitted
by Puget Sound watersheds. Funds are derived from State general obligation bonds (RCW 77.85).
o WRIA 8 received $737,019 in PSAR funding for 2011-2012, which
helped fund the following priority projects:
o Acquisition of 18.6 acres on the Cedar River for future floodplain
restoration
o Acquisition to protect 3.8 acres of Cedar River floodplain
o Restoration at Confluence Parks on Issaquah Creek
o Feasibility study for Edmonds Marsh Restoration
o Feasibility study for Sammamish River restoration.
• A portion of PSAR funding also supports watershed technical capacity to
develop projects and advance programmatic priorities, such as Green Shorelines
and new WRIA 8 focus on riparian area protection and restoration.
2013 DRAFT Leg Agenda
Page 3
Packet Page 158 of 159
Support $40 Million Request in Recreation and Conservation Office Capital
Budget Request, to Serve as State Match to Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund
• These funds, in addition to federal PCSRF funding, will enable a $30 million
state-wide salmon recovery grant round.
Support Funding for Salmon Recovery Lead Entities in the
Recreation and Conservation Office's General Fund Budget
Request
• These funds support staff capacity for the WRIA 8 team to implement state grant
programs and to .continue coordinating salmon recovery efforts with watersheds
throughout the state.
Support a Study Bill of the Draft Watershed Investment District Legislation
• Recognizing the need for increased, dedicated, flexible funding mechanisms to
invest in local watershed priorities including salmon recovery, WRIAs in the
South Central Puget Sound drafted legislation• that would allow creation of
special purpose districts based on watershed boundaries to seek funds for
identified watershed priorities.
2013 DRAFT Leg Agenda
Page 4
Packet Page 159 of 159