Loading...
2013-06-25 City Council - Public Agenda-1501'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JUNE 25, 2013 6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (20 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding areal estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 4. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5888 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013. B. AM-5889 Approval of claim checks #202722 through #202855 dated June 20, 2013 for $738,490.73. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60245 through #60266 for $454,303.81, benefit checks #60267 through #60274 and wire payments of $199,913.22 for the period June 1, 2013 through June 15, 2013. C. AM-5893 Approval of claim check #202856 dated June 21, 2013 for $58,176.97. Approval of payroll check #60275 dated June 21, 2013 for $28,050.00. D. AM-5887 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell a surplus city vehicle. 5. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6. (5 Minutes) Proclamation in recognition of Parks & Recreation Month AM-5883 Packet Page 1 of 277 7. (20 Minutes) Park Impact Fee Study Public Hearing and Possible Adoption AM-5884 8. (15 Minutes) Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3921 - Adopting Amendments to Zoning AM-5878 Regulations to Allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones. 9. (15 Minutes) Planning Board Quarterly Report AM-5891 10. (15 Minutes) Sno-Isle Regional Library Presentation. AM-5879 11. (30 Minutes) Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory AM-5876 Board's Proposed Work Program/Budget for Year 2013 and Bylaws. 12. (10 Minutes) Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060 - 100 Relating to the AM-5875 Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board. 13. (20 Minutes) Revenue bond financing presentation. AM-5853 14. (45 Minutes) Presentation on Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) - Using Rain Gardens for AM-5881 Stormwater Management. 15. (10 Minutes) Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions. AM-5809 16. (15 Minutes) Report on outside Board and Committee meetings. 17. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 18. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 19. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 20. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 277 AM-5888 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: Consent 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 June 18, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 06-18-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/20/2013 10:35 AM Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 10:48 AM Started On: 06/20/2013 10:06 AM 4. A. Packet Page 3 of 277 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 18, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Rob English, City Engineer Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. 1 Leif Bjorback, Building Official Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney has advised that Agenda Items 12 and 13 are not necessary and may be removed from the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Peterson requested Item E be removed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF 2013 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 277 D. APRIL 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT. F. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES. G. CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE FAC ACCESSIBILITY UPGRADES PROJECT. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #2 WITH PERTEET, INC. FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #7 WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT. J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS FROM THE CAVALRY CHAPEL PROPERTY FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT. K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT FUNDING. L. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH SUMMIT LAW GROUP TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO A UNION GRIEVANCE. M. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH CAROL MORRIS TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE POINT EDWARDS BUILDING 10 CLOSED RECORD APPEAL. N. RESOLUTION NO. 1292 THANKING WALKER KASINADHUNI FOR HIS SERVICE AS A STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE. O. ORDINANCE NO. 3926 — ADOPTING 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202585 THROUGH #202721 DATED JUNE 13, 2013 FOR $1,006,525.45. Councilmember Bloom inquired about Voucher #202678 to Pt. Edwards for $26,427.15 for traffic mitigation. Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained it is a reimbursement of a traffic mitigation payment paid to the City in 2004. Mitigation payments can only be held by the City for a limited amount of time. The funds were programmed for a project that has since been canceled and once the time limit passes, the City is required to return the funds to the party that paid it. He assured the due diligence was followed with regard to refunding the mitigation payment. Councilmember Bloom asked the time period the funds must be used. Mr. Neumaier answered it is a six year timeframe from receipt. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained it is six years for traffic impact fees but this refund is a SEPA mitigation fee which is a five year period. Councilmember Bloom observed it expired some time ago. Mr. Neumaier agreed. Councilmember Bloom noted this is a significant amount of money for traffic mitigation and asked whether the reimbursement could have been prevented. Public Works Director Phil Williams assured he had searched for a way to avoid returning the funds. This payment was a contribution to a signalized intersection at Pine Street. At the time the Pt. Edwards condominiums were being developed, the Edmonds Crossing project was also developed; both would have contributed to an increase in traffic movements at Pine & SR 104 and together those traffic movements would have justified the signal. With Edmonds Crossing being delayed to the point it is not on any near term planning horizon, the Pt. Edwards Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 277 condominiums were not sufficient to trigger that improvement. The signalized intersection is not on the City's CEP in the near term because it is not necessary for the condominium project. Pt. Edwards contributed their share of the improvement, $22,000 at the time. The SEPA paperwork was very clear that the funds were for the signal at Pine and not just generalized traffic mitigation. Councilmember Bloom questioned whether there was a way to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Williams believed there was, explaining this pre -dates himself and current staff. With any future SEPA payments, staff will pay close attention to the five year timeframe. He explained it was difficult to predict that a project the size of Edmonds Crossing, $250 million plus, would be completed in five years. If funds are contributed under that premise and the project is not completed in five years, the funds must be returned along with interest. There is approximately $4,000 in interest, dating back to 2004. He agreed it was not an ideal circumstance; staff tried to justify retaining the funds but was unable to. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM E: SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACT FOR BASTILLE DAY Councilmember Peterson explained the Edmonds Petanque Club is hosting a Bastille Day celebration. The Petanque Club and his business are working together to provide food for the event; therefore, he will abstain from the vote on this item to avoid any conflict of interest. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINING. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Michelle Martin, President, Edmonds Petanque Club, announced the Bastille Day celebration on July 14 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. will include food, wine, raffle tickets and a petanque tournament. The Bastille Day event is no longer held in Seattle as it was in the past. She wanted to have Bastille Day in Edmonds with a petanque tournament because petanque is a French game. Edmonds merchants are supportive of having Bastille Day in Edmonds. She encouraged the Council and the public to come. Dick Van Hollebeke commented Bastille Day is a way to stimulate the economy for Edmonds merchants, many of whom have contributed prizes. The Edmonds Petanque Club merchants also purchased a certificate from merchants who donated a certificate. Bastille Day in Edmonds will be a one day event; in Seattle it was a 2-3 day event at the Seattle Center. There is a big French community in the Puget Sound area. The cost to participate in the petanque tournament is $5. The Edmonds Petanque Club has existed for over two years and during that time, by holding two tournaments, donated $4,700 in money and merchandise to the Edmonds Food Bank. Their goal this year is to raise another $4,000 for the Edmonds Food Bank. He recognized the merchant sponsors who help pay the costs and donate prizes. He encouraged everyone to attend Bastille Day, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 14; there is no charge for admission, there is a $5 cost to participate in the tournament, and participants will be matched. Roger Hertrich spoke regarding the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program, advising he will not be present for the public hearing later on the agenda. He referred to the annual street preservation program that includes grinding, overlaying and chip seal, expressing concern that no specific street was identified to be chip sealed. He suggested the Council ask Public Works to present 1-2 streets that are good possibilities for chip seal. Chip sealing saves money, is cheaper than an overlay and saves streets. Next, he relayed the State's indication they were not interested in a study of SR 104. He suggested the $25,000 for a study be increased due to the number of businesses in the bowl that depend on visitors from out of town. He envisioned visitors who have to deal with the traffic jam from I-5 to Hwy. 99 and down Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 277 Edmonds Way would be unlikely to return to shop in Edmonds. He suggested a coordinated effort with King County who borders Edmonds Way as investing more money in the study to show the State that Edmonds is interested in improving the roadway to provide economic benefits to downtown Edmonds. Next, he was glad consideration was being given to improvements other than a traffic light at SR 524/88th Avenue. 5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO WALKER KASINADHUNI, STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE. Council President Petso read Resolution 1292 commending Student Representative Walter Kasinadhuni for his service as student representative from March 12 to June 18, 2013. Student Representative Kasinadhuni commented that he appreciated the opportunity to serve. 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILE NO. APL20130001) OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON TOM AND LIN HILLMAN'S CRITICAL AREAS AND SETBACK VARIANCES (FILE NO. PLN20120033) FOR A NEW RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 1139 SIERRA PLACE. APPELLANTS: STEPHEN SCHROEDER, CHERYL BEIGHLE, TODD BROWN, & CANDY BROWN Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record review is for the City Council to address an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision on reconsideration on a street setback variance, side yard variance and two critical areas reasonable use variance requests to construct a single family home at 1139 Sierra Place. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling explained the hearing is not open to public testimony; this is a hearing on the appeal of Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown and Candy Brown. It is not an open record hearing and there will be no opportunity during the closed record appeal hearing for public testimony. Oral argument will be allowed from the applicant and parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the appeal outside of the public hearing process. Councilmembers Buckshnis, Johnson, Yamamoto, Peterson, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas, Council President Petso and Mayor Earling stated they had not. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed they could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Peterson, Bloom, Yamamoto, Johnson, and Buckshnis and Council President Petso stated they had no conflicts and could hear the matter in a fair and objective manner. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to the Council's or his participation as a decision -maker in the hearing. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling described the procedures for presentation of oral argument: staff will be allowed 15 minutes for its presentation and the applicant and appellants will be allowed 20 minutes each to address the Council. The 20 minutes may be used by any combination of parties of record who wish to testify, a total of 20 minutes for each side. The Council was agreeable to the described procedures. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 277 Mayor Earling explained the Council's jurisdiction in the closed record appeal hearing is to determine whether the decision by the Hearing Examiner was clearly erroneous under the evidence in the record. The City Council shall affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained Jen Machuga was the Project Planner for this application but was unable to attend tonight's meeting. He shares an office with Ms. Machuga and is very familiar with the project. He explained the subject site is located at 1139 Sierra Place within the single family residential zone RS-12. The site is currently a vacant lot and the property owners, Tom and Lin Hillman, propose to construct a new single family residence on the site. He displayed a map prepared by Wetland Resources, page 189 of the record, explaining the site is incredibly limited by the existing critical areas. A Category 3 wetland is located across the middle portion of the property and the 50-foot buffer for a Category 3 wetland extends into the eastern portion of the property and encompasses the entire western portion of the site. A non -fish bearing perennial stream, Type Np, is located on the northern side of the western half of the property. The minimum required 50-foot stream buffer overlaps with the wetland buffer and covers much of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern portion of the site. Erosion hazards are 15-40% slopes; he was uncertain of the exact slope on this property but it was on the higher end of the erosion hazard. Due to the presence of critical areas and associated buffers throughout much of the site, development on the site is impossible without some impact to the critical areas and/or buffers. ECDC contains a provision for a critical areas reasonable use variance when a site is so encumbered by critical areas and their associated buffers that it is not possible to develop the site in such a way that fully complies with the City's critical area code requirements. A critical area reasonable use variance allows for exceptions to the requirements of the critical areas code in order to allow for development of the site in such a way that has the least possible impact on existing critical areas and buffers while still allowing reasonable economic use of the property. Mr. Lien explained the Hillmans requested a critical area reasonable use variance because they felt strict application of the City's critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. The City's code defines reasonable economic uses as the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state, federal, constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. Reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, minimum reasonable use of a residential lot that meets or exceeds the minimum bulk requirements is use for one single family residential structure. Determination of reasonable economic use shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as the desire to make more profitable use of the site. In addition to the requested critical areas variance, the Hillmans also requested a setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 for the residence and 3 feet for a retaining wall and to reduce the minimum required western setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan of the property (page 109 of the record) identifying the 12 foot setback variance, a 3 foot street setback and a 3 foot side setback for the retaining wall. He identified where the house and the retaining wall intrude into the wetland. He identified the wetland buffer and stream buffer. He explained the variance reduces the 50-foot stream buffer to 25 feet. The residence would be located in the southwestern corner of the property. The building footprint is proposed to be 2,174 square feet which includes a 578 square foot garage and 1,596 square feet of living space on the first floor, and 1,027 square feet of living space on the second floor. Both variance requests, consolidated in one application, were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner as a Type III-B decision. Following a public hearing on March 14, 2013, the Hearing Examiner issued an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 277 initial decision on March 28, 2013. Both the City and the applicant requested reconsideration of his decision. Following an order of reconsideration issued by the Hearing Examiner on April 16, 2013 and receipt of comments from parties of record, the Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision on Reconsideration on April 24, 2013 which was mailed to all parties of record on April 25, 2013. The Hearing Examiner's April 24, 2013 decision includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the requested setback variances as well as in support of the requested encroachment into the stream and wetland buffers. However, the decision specifically states there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachment as required by the variance criteria. The decision states further information is needed to determine whether direct encroachment of the proposal can be avoided. The Hearing Examiner included a condition of approval, Condition 1, requiring that the applicant submit additional information to staff in order to determine the wetland encroachment can occur. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision was submitted by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown and Candy Brown on May 8, 2013. As required by ECDC 20.07.005.13, the appellants, applicant and parties of record submitted written arguments, responses and rebuttals which are included as attachments to the Council's agenda packet. The applicant's final surrebuttal was received after the agenda memo was published and was mailed to the City Council, applicants and posted on the website developed specifically for this closed record appeal. The Council's decision options on the subject closed record appeal are set forth in ECDC 20.07.005.H and are outlined in a memo from Lighthouse Law Group, included as Attachment G to the agenda packet. The Council may choose to affirm, modify, reverse or remand the Hearing Examiner's decision. Appellant Presentation Steve Schroeder, 1142 Vista Place, explained he and his wife, Cheryl Beighle, live one property adjacent and directly north of the subject property. He pointed out the structure, yard and driveway will be located entirely in the wetland and its buffers which are all environmentally critical areas. He displayed the Critical Areas Study Map and Wetland Mitigation Plan (page 189 of the record) and identified the location of the buffers. He displayed a blowup of the same map, highlighting the footprint of the proposed structure including the garage, the oversized driveway and the wetland boundary. He noted the garage, a portion of the house and two-thirds of the driveway would be located within the wetland. Mr. Schroeder stated this is a beautiful urban oasis that should be preserved and not degraded. He displayed an aerial photograph of the property and identified the approximate property boundaries, his house, the Brown's house, Sierra Place and the location of the proposed structure. He provided a blowup of the aerial photograph, identifying his and the Brown's houses, the wetland occupying two-thirds of the property, and the buffer. He contends the applicant has not met their burden of proof; the code requires the proposed impact on the critical area be the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. The Hearing Examiner found in both his original order and order on reconsideration that the encroachment into the wetland could be avoided by limiting the footprint of the house. The original design has a footprint close to a 4,000 square foot house; however, the total square footage was reduced due to the vaulted ceilings. The Hearing Examiner found the footprint was larger than necessary to achieve reasonable economic use. As the City Attorney pointed out in their memo, this appears to be a finding of fact by the Hearing Examiner and that some parts of his order are consistent with that finding. Mr. Schroeder noted the Hearing Examiner pointed out the only reason for not using the second floor for living space was an aesthetic preference for a ground floor structure and to avoid a boxy looking house. The Hearing Examiner also found these were not sufficient reasons to push the footprint into the wetland. Mr. Schroeder made reference to a preference to avoid a "snout" house, a garage where the bays look like the snout of an animal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 277 Mr. Schroeder explained the Hillmans have proposed what appears to be a compromise — adopt the Hearing Examiner's language to limit the footprint of the house to the structure without the garage, approximately a 1600 square foot footprint. In their proposed compromise, the Hillmans remove the driveway provision and include the driveway as they designed it and the retaining walls and add language that the building driveway shall be placed no further eastward than the squared off line than is necessary to meet draining requirements and in no case further than the original proposal. He summarized that took back all concessions related to the driveway and would once again appear to place the discretion to make this decision in the hands of the experts the Hillmans have hired. He opposed that compromise. Mr. Schroeder referred to the Hearing Examiner's language that the Hillmans have not justified putting the footprint of the house or the driveway into the wetland. He pointed out there is no evidence in the record to justify the oversized driveway, two-thirds of which would be located in the wetland. Mr. Schroeder explained the Council has the option of modifying the Hearing Examiner's decision. If the Council does so, he urged the Council to adopt the language Mr. Taraday suggested that there be no encroachment into or variance to use the wetland itself and the footprint of the structure inclusive of the garage not exceed 1600 square feet. He urged the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the variance because they had not met their burden of proof that this is the minimum necessary for a reasonable economic return on the property. Mr. Schroeder noted Edmonds is a beautiful place and it is a gift to live here; livability is of the essence of the community. The Council has been instrumental in achieving a proper balance between development and livability. In Edmonds, livability trumps runaway development. Regulation of environmentally critical areas necessarily would determine that some parcels are not suitable for development. He referenced the Lucas case that refers to regulatory takings, where regulations take all economic use of a property. Background principles of law that include reasonable land use regulation are an exception under the Lucas case to the regulatory takings analogy. If it is created, there is no takings even if economic use of the property is restricted or taken away. Mr. Schroeder explained the City is familiar with this concept. There are developers who argue that the height limits in the commercial zone make commercial building economically infeasible, yet the City has steadfastly held the line in favor of livability and against runaway development. All land use regulations put constraints on land and do so for the common good, to promote the general welfare and happiness of the citizenry. Variances give relief to people in unique situations where a strict application of the law would result in an unjust outcome. Because other properties are subject to wetland regulations, this situation is not unique and does not justify a variance. Mr. Schroeder referred to 23.40.320 that defines reasonable use as a single family residence on a lot that meets the bulk requirements. The Hearing Examiner and staff take this out of context to mean it trumps all other provisions of the code. The legislative intent of the Council is to protect wetland and other critical areas when the critical areas ordinance was enacted in 2004. The inclusion of the definition in 2004, which he envisioned was in response to the Lucas case, complicated the process. He did not believe the Council's intent via adoption of this definition was to redefine takings law. The code also states if any provisions conflict with that title, that which provides the most protection of the critical area shall prevail. Taking this definition out of context and treating it as if it trumps case law and the rest of the code is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Mr. Schroeder referred to the Hillman's point in their rebuttal document that if the definition were taken by itself, they could put three houses on their lot and meet the 1200 square foot requirement. He pointed out that would require the stream be placed in a culvert, the wetland filled and the buffers eliminated and degrade the habitat beyond recognition. If the Council accepts that the definition of reasonable economic Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 277 use implies a single family residence, the Council would be helpless in preventing that result and could not stop destructive development anywhere in the City. Mr. Schroeder explained the Hillmans lack a reasonable investment expectation. Critical area regulations were in place at the time they purchased the property. The Hillmans needed a variance to build a single family residence. They paid $75,000 for a nearly 1 acre lot where adjacent properties sold for upward of $500,000. This property has remained undeveloped for 100 years; everything around it has been developed. If the Hillmans wanted to build a 4,000 square foot house with most of the living space on the first floor and an oversized driveway, they could do so on an unrestricted lot and likely would have to pay a reasonable market value for the lot. Mr. Schroeder urged the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision that grants the variance. The Council enacted ordinances governing sensitive areas; he urged the Council to certify that all provisions are important and should be construed together in a manner that protects sensitive areas. If on occasion that means a property cannot be developed, that is the price of maintaining a livable community. Todd Brown,1135 Sierra Place, explained he lives northwest of the Hillman Family Trust property. The area is very wet year round and prone to flooding. Even the City acknowledged what a number of downstream neighbors have stated in the record; development in the larger area has exceeded the stormwater drainage capacity. On page 24 of the record, the City engineering staff states that this stream receives stormwater runoff from an area of at least 16 acres encompassing 40+ lots and City right-of-way that were developed largely before stormwater management was required. Staff also states it is problematic to verify that the proposed development will prevent any increase in the stormwater discharge to neighboring properties. The development seems at odds with the City ordinance that stated development cannot be materially detrimental to properties in the City. Mr. Brown played the Zehner Video 1 from the record that illustrates water flow from the Hillman Trust property entering the wetland on the eastern side of the I I I I property, through an open ditch during a typical rainstorm. Mr. Brown summarized they have been described as having a no growth attitude. Although true to some extent, he questioned who wouldn't in their position and the history of this property and the inconsistencies in the story. He would like to believe the Hillman Family Trust intends to simply build one or more houses and sell them, but as Ronald Reagan said, trust yet verify. That aside, their other pertinent and justified concerns have to do with the drainage problem on the property and the shortcomings of the stormwater plan. He agreed with Sheri Zehner's statement in one of her opposition letters, "don't use us and our downstream neighbors as drainage guinea pigs." He also paraphrased Councilmember Bloom, "Edmonds is indeed a gift, we should show our appreciation by not allowing these extreme variances." A member of the audience asked to speak as a party of record. Mayor Earling advised parties of record should have been included with the appellant's or applicant's presentation. The 20 minute timeframe for each party was to include statements from all parties. Applicant Presentation Tom Hillman, 15915 74th Place West, explained his wife, Lin, and he are the applicants. He noted the open questions that have no final answer, nor should they have, are what is the minimum necessary or the minimum variance. To clearly define them would prevent someone from building or allow them to build too much. By necessity, the minimum necessary or the minimum variance are not clearly defined. In his introduction, the Hearing Examiner uses the term, encroachment, when actually the term impact is more appropriate. He quoted from the Hearing Examiner's introduction, if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria, but minimizing impacts is different Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 277 than minimizing encroachments. The standard is no net loss of wetland functions, and that is the minimum impact. Mr. Hillman referred to the Hearing Examiner's statements in his documents, on the one hand this and on the other hand that. He disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's statement that the purpose of the variance is to maximize the distance of the proposal from the Category 3 wetland; the purpose of the variance is to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Hearing Examiner then states, on the other hand, although a priority for building within buffers over wetlands themselves is a reasonable inference to make, this priority is not expressly imposed in the City's wetland regulations and there is no scientific evidence in the record to support this priority. Mr. Hillman summarized the Hearing Examiner is stating on one hand building needs to stay away from the wetland, and on the other hand this priority is not expressly opposed and not required by the City or supported by scientific evidence. The Hearing Examiner acknowledges there is no mandate to prefer the wetland versus the buffer. The Hearing Examiner further states it is possible that encroachment into the stream buffer would cause more environmental damage than wetland filling. Mr. Hillman referred to the criteria; no other reasonable economic use of the property has less impact on the critical area, stating the Hearing Examiner acknowledges that reasonable economic use is defined as a single family home. The Hearing Examiner then wonders if other reasonable economic use might include redesign. The code does not specify design criteria to meet reasonable economic use of the property; how would it be determined whether a redesign met the criteria. Mr. Hillman referred to minimum; the RS-12 requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet. Two 10-foot setbacks would allow a 60-foot wide house. The RS-6 zone has a 60 foot minimum lot width and side setbacks of 5 feet which would allow a 50 foot wide house. The Hearing Examiner's condition limits the house to approximately 52 feet and because of the setback due to drainage, the house will only be 36 feet wide. He questioned a 36-foot wide house in an RS-12 zone where the neighbors enjoy a minimum 80 foot lot width. Mr. Hillman referred to the wetland report that states the wetland is sloped, has no ability to retain water, contains blackberry bushes and is not very high functioning. The area of their proposed encroachment is approximately 1800 square feet; they are proposing to enhance over 15,000 feet of the wetland, the entire wetland. Their wetland biologist concluded they will achieve a net gain of the wetland function. With regard to statements that the amount they paid for the lot should limit their variance, the code explicitly states reasonable economic use shall not include considerations of factors personal to the owner, such as how much they paid for the lot. The appellant stated and the Hearing Examiner repeated, if the lot were not encumbered by a critical area, it would have cost $500,000. The 35% maximum coverage and setback would allow a 14,000 square foot house to be built on a lot this size that was unencumbered by critical areas. They paid $75,000 for the lot; 15% of $500,000; 15% of 14,000 is approximately 2,100 square feet, approximately what they are proposing. He concluded proportionately they are not demanding the maximum that could be built, only what is reasonable and what others would be able to build. Conversely 1,600 square feet is only 11% of the 14,000. He calculated if they are limited to 1,600 square feet, the land is only worth $56,000 and they paid $75,000. Mr. Hillman explained when they purchased the property it had an active, approved variance that they could have used to build. The previous variance was for a structure upslope with the driveway through the wetland, affecting 3,000 square feet of wetland. They decided not to do that. The house next door applied for and received a similar variance to build their house within 10 feet of the stream with access to their house over the stream. When they purchased the property, they had a reasonable expectation they would also be able to obtain a variance due to the existing variance and their proposal was less than the existing variance. He did not feel Condition 1 was necessary because no net loss is no net loss and building in the buffer exclusively is not required over building in a critical area to achieve that no net loss. He referred to their wetland biologist report that states, it is generally impractical to disturb forested habitat for the sake Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 277 of wetland mitigation if ultimate mitigation measures can be achieved. The forested habitat is the mature trees near the stream buffer. The stream buffer and those trees are more important than the sloped, blackberry infested area they are encroaching into and mitigation improves the situation. He explained they pulled their project forward to preserve a tree in the stream buffer that is 30 inches in diameter. The Hearing Examiner reached his conclusion applying an interpretation of the code; the Council may reach a different conclusion. To that end they proposed a modification. They tried to use the Hearing Examiner's language, striking his request for more information. Mr. Hillman explained the driveway is 25 feet from the property line as required by the City, disagreeing it was a massive, oversized driveway. The driveway and the house must be higher than the stream. If the house is moved downslope as suggested by the Hearing Examiner, the drainage system will not function. They have 74 feet of detention but only 58 feet depth on the west side. There is currently an L shape that utilizes the front yard and side yard. The City found the drainage system required the retaining wall on the west side to provide coverage; a variance is required because the retaining wall is in the setback. Mr. Hillman explained their modified proposal strikes the driveway language because it removes a corner of the driveway. They would propose moving the driveway only in the event it does not work technically. He suggested the modification was not reasonable, 52 feet at its widest is minimal in Edmonds and an arbitrary square footage limit of 1,600 does not seem appropriate because it does not address the critical area encroachment issue. By way of rebuttal of the appellant's testimony, Mr. Hillman said they do not have an oversized driveway and are not trying to get the driveway as big as possible. The driveway is as wide as it needs to be for the garage and includes some of the sidewalk area. With regard to this being an urban oasis, Mr. Hillman explained they would like to enhance the wetland, improve its function and be stewards of the wetland by building a house nearby. He was unsure what the appellant meant by his reference to 4,000 square feet, their footprint is 2,174. He concluded the City's code is not on trial, they do not want the Council to change the laws but rather work with them and recognize their rights as property owners. He noted the code states reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant; that is their request. Donna Breske, civil engineer assisting the Hillmans with storm drainage design, provided rebuttal to the appellant's comment regarding increased storm drainage from the site. She explained a detention system will be installed. A detention system is above and beyond what would be required by the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. The manual requires stormwater detention systems be installed if a project creates 5,000 square feet or more. The manual provides jurisdictions the ability to be more stringent; Edmonds' code requires detention systems for more than 2,500 square feet and less than 5,000 square feet. Mr. Hillman referred to Condition 1, limiting the wetland encroachment to the line defined by the Hearing Examiner. Their intent is to abide by the Hearing Examiner's language. He urged the Council to remove Condition 1 and if not, modify it as they have requested. Although it would limit their building footprint, they are seeking clarity and finality in this process. Council Questions Mayor Earling cautioned the Council to limit their requests to information contained in the record. He suggested there had been some extraneous information provided and requested Councilmembers focus on the issues of appeal of final decision on reconsideration related to a street setback variance, side yard variance and two critical areas reasonable use variances. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the proposed wetland mitigation included in the report from the wetland specialist and who would monitor it. Andrea Bachman, Senior Ecologist, Wetland Resources, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 277 responded the Hillmans have the opportunity to contract with Wetland Resources to do annual monitoring. They would visit the site, evaluate plant materials, recommend maintenance and produce a monitoring report that would be submitted to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Wetland Resources opined they did not see a problem with filling the wetland because the remaining wetland would be improved. Ms. Bachman answered the Hillmans would enhance the wetlands at an 8:1 ratio which is beyond the minimum requirement. Mr. Schroeder pointed out the wetland report prepared by Ms. Bachman identifies $5,000 to purchase plants for mitigation. He noted anyone landscaping property knows that a small front yard cannot be landscaped for $5,000. There is nothing in the report for labor, removing invasive, non-native species or planting; the report is grossly inadequate. He referred to Ms. Bachman's statement that the Hillmans have the opportunity to hire Wetland Resources to oversee monitoring, noting there does not appear to be a contract in place. Mr. Lien stated the wetland report (page 163 of the record) includes a monitoring program. Standards for monitoring include 100% survival in year 1, no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species; 40% aerial coverage of native species in year 2, no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species; and 70% aerial coverage of native species by year 3, no greater than 20% invasive species. The monitoring plan includes a performance bond to ensure these criteria are met. The Hillmans would typically hire a wetland consultant to do the monitoring and submit monitoring plans to the City to show that the criteria are being met. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 282 of the record, David Thorpe's letter, that states a Category 3 wetland requires a replacement ratio of 2:1. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 23.50.050.F that explains mitigation ratios for wetland. A Category 3 wetland has a mitigation ratio for replacement of 2:1; for every square foot impacted, 2 square feet would need to be replaced. The applicant's proposal is for enhancement. ECDC 23.50.050.G, wetland enhancement mitigation, states the mitigation ratios in F are doubled. Therefore, wetland enhancement for a Category 3 wetland would be 4:1. The wetland report proposes enhancement of 8:1 which is more than twice what the critical area code requires. Councilmember Bloom said Mr. Thorpe was referring to replacement of the lost wetland at a 2:1 ratio. She asked whether the code requirement was for the 1800 square feet of lost wetland to be replaced at double that amount. Mr. Lien responded there are a number of ways to mitigate; replacement is one way, enhancement is another way. If the proposal were to replace wetland, the ratio would be 2:1. The mitigation proposed is enhancement which is double the replacement ratio or 4:1. The wetland report proposes an 8:1 ratio, double what is required by the City's code. Councilmember Bloom asked if the mitigation was for the 1800 square feet and how that was calculated. Mr. Lien referred to page 12 of the record, explaining the applicant is proposing to enhance 15,560 square feet for the wetland impact. There is also an impact to the buffer which they are proposing to mitigate at a ratio of 0.5:1. The critical area code does not specify mitigation ratios for impacts to buffers. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained for a mitigation ratio of 2:1, for every square foot impacted, 2 square feet would be created. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the mitigation would be done in an area beyond the wetland. Mr. Lien answered yes if a wetland were being created, enhancement is an allowed mitigation. The proposal is to enhance the wetland on the site. Councilmember Bloom referred to no net loss. Mr. Brown's letter references the removal of 29-30 trees which she assumed were in the 1800 square foot wetland and that some of the trees were 30-40 inches in diameter. She asked whether the mitigation would replace those at an 8:1 ratio. She questioned how there would be no net loss. Mr. Brown clarified those trees were in the buffer and in the wetland. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 277 Mr. Brown referred to the closed record appeal procedures that state objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought before the City Council before the City Council begins deliberations. He asked whether the Council was in deliberation or asking questions. Mayor Earling responded the Council was asking questions. Mr. Brown referred to the appeal procedures that state if information outside the administrative record is offered by a party of record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide justification supporting the objection. He referred to the applicant's reference to alternative driveway plans. Mayor Earling suggested that be addressed after the current question. Councilmember Bloom asked how mitigation will result in no net loss if 29-30 trees are removed from the wetland and buffer. Mr. Lien referred to pages 160-161 of the record that address the proposed enhancement plantings. Ms. Bachman explained the enhancement plantings for both the wetland and the buffer add about 700 plantings to the site, a significant net increase in native vegetation coverage. They will replace invasive blackberries and ivy with native trees and shrubs, planting a total of almost 40 native trees including conifers. Council President Petso referred to one party's reference to the driveway as oversized and Mr. Hillman's indication it was the minimum depth required by the City. She asked whether the driveway was the minimum width to access and exit the garage. Mr. Hillman answered the code does not specify a minimum width. Council President Petso asked if it was the minimum practical width needed to get a car in and out of the garage. Mr. Hillman answered there is a turnaround issue; one of the reasons for the shape is to allow vehicles to back out and turn around to avoid backing out into the street. He noted this is the first anyone has said the driveway was oversized. Council President Petso relayed her understanding of the criteria was that it be the minimum necessary impact on the critical area. Mr. Hillman answered the impact of the driveway, yard, sidewalk, planting strip, etc. will be mitigated. The wetland report states on -site creation of a new wetland is impossible on the property; they chose to double the required mitigation. Council President Petso responded she understands mitigation; the minimum necessary is different than mitigating the impact. Mr. Hillman responded that goes to the term encroachment versus impact. City Attorney Jeff Taraday, representing staff, explained there is a distinction between what minimum necessary standards require and what the functions and values of the wetland are and how they may/may not be mitigated by the applicant's mitigation plan. The applicant may be required to satisfy both, but merely providing mitigation for impact does not get one over the hurdle of minimum necessary or minimum reasonable use; those are two separate prongs of analysis. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to define minimum reasonable use. Mr. Taraday answered the code states reasonable economic use means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of subsequent due process. He noted if the code stopped there, tonight's discussion would be very different. The code goes on to state that reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. The critical sentence in his opinion in the definition is, for example, the minimum residential use for a residential lot which meets or exceeds the minimum bulk requirements is the use for one single family residential structure. A determination for reasonable economic use shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. Mr. Taraday explained the inclusion of the example in the City's definition of reasonable use makes it difficult to tell the owner of a single family lot that conforms to the City's minimum dimensional standards that under no circumstances can they ever build a single family home on the single family lot because of the wetland. One could say the City's code makes it possible for a property owner to build a single family home; that is a very different question than making it possible to build the single family home of your desire because the code states it is the minimum use. Considering Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 277 this definition in the context of the variance criteria, there is an obligation by the property owner to propose the minimum single family home. He acknowledged reasonable minds can differ what is the minimum single family home. Mr. Taraday paraphrased one of the applicant's comments in their brief or made at the Hearing Examiner meeting: they are not required to build the minimum single family home; they get to build a reasonable single family home and get the minimum variance possible to build our reasonable single family home. He disagreed with that analysis; he believed the applicant was required to build the minimum single family home. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a detention system was similar to a dry well. Ms. Breske answered it is a piped detention system that detains stormwater from the new hardscape and releases it at a slow rate over 24-36 hours to the stream that runs adjacent to the northern part of the site to prevent a gush of water into the stream. Mr. Brown commented the applicant has assured all the stormwater from impervious surfaces will drain into the detention pipe system, designed to hold water from an infrequent 10-year storm. This does not address the water from the footing drains, the house foundation and the 135 feet of retaining garden walls that will drain directly into the outfall pipe and flow uncontrolled into the stream. He referred to page 114 of the record, explaining this will direct water away from its normal drainage pattern, thereby increasing flow. The current plan does not minimize net loss of wetland function. He referred to the applicant's wetland ecologist's description of a better plan (page 204 of the record) as it avoids dumping any stormwater into the creek to the north and directs it along its natural drainage path based on topography to the southwest drain culvert. The wetland ecologist states this plan is the least impactful to the hydrological conditions of the surrounding critical areas. This plan also eliminates the impact of the drainage outflow pipe on the streamside 42-inch cedar which the applicant's wetland ecologist states is more important to the site than even the wetland into which the building is encroaching (page 55 of the record). The plan also saves another valuable tree, an 18-inch cedar. Mayor Earling cautioned trees were not the subject of the appeal. Mr. Brown referred to an inconsistency; the applicant says the plan is a non -starter because the southwest culvert has been buried, is non-functional and not on the City's stormwater map. Mr. Hillman stated at the hearing that they used an electronic device to show where this culvert was buried. He later learned the diagnostic approach was a shovel digging in the wrong place and a flimsy steel tape that could not be pushed all the way through a 25-foot long conduit (page 52 of the record). He has routinely witnessed water flowing through this culvert and knows it works. The fact that this was inadvertently left off the City's stormwater map in the 1970s seems easy to remedy by clearing blackberries from the outlet, putting it on the map and using it. Mr. Brown referred to page 248 of the record; the City required permission from the 1111 property owners downstream to discharge water from the Hillman Trust property into the southwest culvert before a variance could be granted and that an easement would be required during the building permit process. He referred to page 114 of the record, stating the entrance to the north culvert is outside the City's drainage easement and thus creates the same situation. The entrance to both culverts on the Hillman Trust property are not in the City's drainage easement and deliver stormwater to the 1111 wetland. Written permission from the property owners should be required before the variance is granted. The 1111 property owners have not indicated their approval. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Mr. Brown did not believe the detention system will address the runoff. Mr. Brown agreed, advising the flows as described by the wetland ecologist are called sheet flow, which will come down the hill, hit the retaining walls and be directed to the north to the stream that is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 277 often obstructed and overflows, flooding the lane. The southwest culvert would normalize that flow and was the initial plan supported by the applicant's wetland ecologist. Ms. Breske responded to Mr. Brown's comments. She identified Mr. Brown's property and his driveway and access lane and wetland on the adjacent properties. She commented Mr. Brown's driveway included a large earthen berm with a culvert underneath. If the City wanted minimum impact on the Brown's property, they would have required a bridge on piers to preserve the wetland underneath. Attorney Carol Morris, representing the City Council, suggested this information was outside the record. Ms. Breske explained the footings from the retaining wall will release to the stream and flow through the culvert. She identified the direction of existing surface and subsurface flows on the site that charge the wetland and stream. There is nothing in the City's drainage manual that states all existing drainage flows on the site must be maintained. She concluded the footing drains will not change the point of discharge or the existing flow to the stream and the hydrology already occurring. The final design has not been completed. With regard to drainage concerns, Engineering Technician Jennifer Lambert explained on October 10, 2012 the City received a letter from the Hillmans (page 204 of the record) stating they would like to use the southwest culvert for drainage. The City responded (page 247 of the record) asking them to provide documentation showing the natural flows on site; preservation of drainage systems is one of the City's minimum requirements #4. Staff received a map from Andrea Bachman showing the natural drainage flows (page 168 of the record) into the northwest culvert and natural flows of the site, when it overflows, uses a natural drainage that drains to the southwest culvert. Per Ms. Bachman, they are preserving the current site drainage. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 88 of the record, the 6 items that must be met; #5 Not Detrimental, which states: As discussed above, the purpose of the requested street and side setback variances is to minimize impact to the existing critical areas on the site. Additionally due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget Sound. The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. She pointed out "should not be detrimental" was not a finding of fact. Ms. Morris responded the appeal is not in regard to that variance section. The appeal is related to the subsection that the proposal minimizes loss of critical area functions and values consistent with best available science. The appeal claims that this section of the critical areas ordinance has not been satisfied because the Hearing Examiner states further investigation is required. Ms. Morris stated it appears the Hearing Examiner's decision itself is internally inconsistent because even as he says additional investigation is needed to determine whether this criterion has been satisfied, he also states there is no evidence in the record to support the criterion in 23.40.210.2.F, the proposal minimizes the critical area. Ms. Morris relayed the Hearing Examiner states on the first page of his Decision on Reconsideration that additional investigation is needed. And then on page 14 of his decision, the Hearing Examiner states a significant complicating factor in the application is it appears the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reason for not utilizing second floor living space presented by the applicant is a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and avoiding a boxy appearance. The Hearing Examiner's decision goes on to state Andrea Bachman was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris summarized the Hearing Examiner was saying more investigation was needed to determine whether the criterion had been met but also states the evidence in the record does not show the criterion has been met. She concluded that is a significant problem tonight. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 277 Ms. Morris referred to the second appeal issue related to takings and read from a case where the court states to some extent the reasonable use of property depends on the expectations of the land owner at the time of purchase of the property. If existing land regulations limit the permissible use of the property at the time of acquisition, a purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land for the prohibited purposes. Although not necessarily determinative, courts may look to the zoning regulations in effect at the time of purchase as a factor to determine what is a reasonable use of land. Presumably regulations on use of land are reflected in the price a purchaser pays for a piece of property. The land owner knew when he purchased this lot that it did not satisfy either the minimum lot size or setback requirements of the code. Ms. Morris clarified she was reading from a case where a person purchased a waterfront lot that did not meet the minimum square footage requirement. The entire lot was only 8,500 square feet, there was a 10,000 square foot minimum lot requirement but most of the lot was underwater. In this case, the court said that a reasonable use of this property was as a recreational property even though it was single family zoned, meaning the owner could camp on it. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Council should be discussing drainage issues. Ms. Morris responded the Council has two appeal issues before them. The Hearing Examiner said there is not enough evidence to support a decision on the criteria with regard to the critical areas ordinance. The applicant did not appeal that. The issue before the Council is whether there is evidence in the record to support the Hearing Examiner's decision, whether to reverse, affirm, or modify his decision. Ms. Morris felt the Hearing Examiner's decision was internally inconsistent, citing another part of the Hearing Examiner's decision that states there isn't evidence in the record, meaning they did not meet the criterion. Councilmember Bloom asked if Ms. Morris was saying because the significant critical areas include a wetland, stream and erosion hazard area, the property owners should not expect to be able to develop it. Ms. Morris responded the City's code describes what a reasonable use property is. She recommended the Council focus on the two parts of the appeal, 1) do the applicants meet all the criteria for approval of a reasonable use exception and 2) the takings issue. The Council may not need to consider the takings issue and can instead focus on the issue that the Hearing Examiner mentioned in his first page, that more investigation is needed and that not enough information is available to determine the applicant meets the critical areas reasonable use exception. If the Council agrees with the Hearing Examiner that there is not enough information in the record, it would seem that the Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision. The applicant can submit another application with a modified proposal; the Council does not have to remand although the Council can if they wish. Councilmember Peterson asked Ms. Morris to address remand. Ms. Morris responded if the Council remanded, the applicant would first need to agree to the remand due to the legal limitations on the ability to hold more than one open record hearing and more than one closed record hearing as well as limitations on the time period for issuance of a final decision after a complete application has been submitted. If the applicant agreed and the Council remanded, it would go back to the Hearing Examiner and the additional evidence the Hearing Examiner says was missing would need to be submitted. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant would need to submit the initial plan or could they alter the plan as part of the remand for example no longer encroaching into the wetland and instead only encroach into the buffer. Ms. Morris answered if the Council wants to remand, it would be for the applicant to submit evidence to demonstrate that criterion has been met. If the Council wants to reopen to allow the applicant to submit new information for a new proposal, the Council could deny and the applicant could submit a new application. Councilmember Yamamoto asked what the Council could modify. Ms. Morris did not recommend modification because someone would need to review all the variance criteria to ensure they were satisfied with regard to the modification which would be difficult to do at a Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 277 Councilmember Bloom asked Ms. Morris to reference the exact verbiage in the Hearing Examiner's decision, relaying her understanding the Council had two options, reverse or remand, based on the inconsistencies. Ms. Morris referred to the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration (page 1 of the record), where the Hearing Examiner states the conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria. Ms. Morris referred to the first paragraph on page 14 of the record: Almost [all] of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings. Ms. Morris referred to the third paragraph on page 14 of the record where the Hearing Examiner states a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space and the author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris referred to paragraph 9 on page 16 of the record, in which the Hearing Examiner states, the size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. She was uncertain what was meant by this statement. In response to the case that Ms. Morris cited regarding a property that was physically incapable of accommodating a house and the only use was recreational, Mr. Hillman explained the subject property can easily accommodate a house, the wetland is very low functioning and it is not the same situation. In the case Ms. Morris cited, the land was underwater and there was little that could be done to mitigate. He concluded that case did not apply to this situation. Lin Hillman commented if the Council remanded for redesign, the criteria is still minimum reasonable use of a minimum house. She questioned the definition of a minimum house, and whether another design would meet the criteria simply because it was smaller. She noted the plan they submitted was smaller than the plan that had previously been submitted. The Hearing Examiner allowed for the fact that everything had been considered by staff but was not in the record. The Hearing Examiner felt denial of the application was too harsh a penalty which was the reason he included the statement about checking with staff and the wetland biologist to confirm their proposal was environmentally sound. In their modification, they were willing to strike the language requiring further investigation by staff and the wetland biologist and living with the line the Hearing Examiner drew. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant could be asked if they preferred remand over reversal. Ms. Morris answered the Council needed to make that determination based on the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Peterson asked how much time remained on the review clock. Staff responded zero. Ms. Morris reiterated the Council could ask the applicant to waive the legal requirements with regard to the time period for final decision and the prohibition on more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal if the Council remanded the decision. Councilmember Peterson asked if the applicant would be willing to waive those requirements. Mr. Hillman responded he could not say without knowing how long the delay would be. They were not willing to rehash the entire thing again. The Hearing Examiner seems to have reached a conclusion that they met the criteria and if they could show the one little thing, they could have it all. They are willing not to show that and want to have finality regarding what they can build. Ms. Morris explained a remand would be limited to that one narrow issue that the Hearing Examiner pointed out, that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate the proposed house is the minimum necessary and that there is insufficient reason to justify encroachment into the wetland. If the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 277 Council remanded the decision, she was uncertain there was information to satisfy that issue. The applicant could develop reasons why the proposal was the minimum necessary but the Hearing Examiner's decision appears to indicate it cannot be satisfied. She concluded the Hearing Examiner's decision is inherently inconsistent; he says more information is needed but his decision states it appears the encroachment into the wetland could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space and no one has said why the house cannot be redesigned to move it out of the wetland. If the Council remanded the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant could introduce a new witness such as an architect or building designer to explain why the home cannot be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris answered they could. Mr. Schroeder asked if the appellants could introduce expert opinion testimony in opposition to the applicant's expert opinion. Ms. Morris said that was a future issue, depending on the Council's decision. Mr. Schroeder inquired about the scope of the remand. Ms. Morris explained if the Council remanded the decision, it would not be just the applicant submitting evidence. Ms. Hillman explained the Hearing Examiner recognized this was a complex multi -dimensional puzzle and that everything that went on between them and staff and the various designs that were proposed and eliminated for various reasons were not in the record. She referred to page 72 of the record, which states, "The examiner recognized that it is likely that staff has thoroughly considered the need to encroach into the wetland and has determined that the proposed encroachment results in the least overall impacts to the wetland while accommodating the right of the applicant to reasonable use. Unfortunately, this aspect of the staff's analysis did not make it into the record and the direct encroachment into a wetland is too serious an issue to authorize on the presumption that other options have been fully assessed. If staff has already in fact compared the impacts of building more in the second story of the home or further northward into the buffer in lieu of encroaching into the wetland, no further work on the condition imposed by the preceding paragraph is necessary." Council Deliberation Council President Petso commented despite the potential for remand, she had concerns with that action. She read the language to say the impact to the critical area must be the minimum necessary impact. She understood the applicant was mitigating the impact but that was different than the minimum necessary impact. She pointed out instead of a cutout on the driveway to minimize the amount of wetland covered by concrete, the proposal is to have a turn around. She did not find that the minimum necessary impact. If the decision is remanded to the Hearing Examiner, she did not anticipate he would redraw the proposal any more than the Council would. She favored reversing the Hearing Examiner's approval of the reasonable use variance. Councilmember Bloom referred to 24.50.040B which prohibits building on wetlands. The applicants are proposing to build on 1,790 square feet of wetland, a permanent wetland impact. The code regulates wetlands that are 250 square feet and above, the proposal is six times the minimum wetland that is regulated by the Edmonds critical areas ordinance. Referring to the buffer impact of 3,920 square feet, a permanent buffer impact, she noted the code requires a 50 foot buffer. She supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision, not only because it was not a reasonable use and the minimum damage to the wetland, but the Council would not be enforcing the code if they allowed building on wetlands. She found this a dangerous precedence to set in this instance or in the future. A property owner who purchases property with a wetland and a stream should expect to build a very small house in order to meet the setbacks and wetland criteria. Wetlands are disappearing and there are serious drainage issues throughout the City. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Shoreline Master Plan, no net loss and wetlands. She appreciated the amount of work everyone has done on this application. She agreed wetlands are very Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 277 important and although the applicant proposed mitigation, their building would eliminate wetlands. She agreed there was insufficient information for the Hearing Examiner to answer questions regarding a smaller building. She supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Peterson advised he also supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision but for different reasons. He found it frustrating that by sitting as a quasi-judicial rather than legislative body, the Council could not tweak things. He disagreed with Councilmember Bloom, pointing out mitigation was allowed by the code. His supporting reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision had less to do with the applicant or the appellants and more to do with the Hearing Examiner's decision. His decision is inconsistent, unclear and vague. Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Morris to speak to the modification option. Ms. Morris explained the Council would be considering the language proposed in the surrebuttal, changes to Condition #1. She recommended the Council not modify tonight because it would require analyzing the modification under the criteria for the various variances which would require a significant amount of time. Councilmember Johnson observed the Council was given four choices, 1) affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision which it appeared the Council was not interested in, 2) modify which Ms. Morris did not recommend, 3) remand which would require the applicant's agreement, and 4) reverse. She noted the only viable option appeared to be reversal. Ms. Morris explained reversal would be a denial. It would not prohibit the applicant from submitting a revised application that demonstrates some of the things in the Hearing Examiner's decision, to show the proposal is the minimum under the criteria in the code. Councilmember Yamamoto asked about the applicant's options with a reversal. Ms. Morris answered if the Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision, the application would be denied. The applicant could submit a new application and using the Hearing Examiner's decision and what they have heard tonight to formulate something that better meets the criteria, to show the reasons for the size of the house and why it is the minimum required. She noted the applicant's indication that they want to keep the upstairs small because they want more living space on the first floor as they age is not something that is considered in a variance because it relates to the personal aspects of the applicant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recognized reversal was probably the better decision. She was disappointed in the Hearing Examiner's decision, finding the inconsistencies troubling in making a decision. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REVERSE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2014-2019). Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an introduction to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to adoption of the budget • Document contains all regionally significant transportation projects that a city plans to undertake in the next six years • City of Edmonds policy: TIP is financially constrained the first three years • Federal and state grants and local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 277 Mr. Hauss reviewed scheduled construction projects in 2014: 1. 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements • Project Description o Corridor Safety Improvements for entire transportation system o Critical east -west connection Restrict unsafe southbound left turn from Hwy. 99 onto 76th Av. W Install traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 228th St. SW — Provide safe left turn for the southbound movement from Hwy. 99 to 76th Av. W — Create additional safe pedestrian crossing on Hwy. 99 between 238th and 224th St. SW ■ Overlay along 228th St. SW and Lakeview Dr. Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Complete in Spring 2014 o Construction: Summer 2014 — Spring 2015 Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $5,196,800 ■ Design: $ 679,000 ■ ROW: $ 328,800 ■ Construction: $4,189,000 o Funding sources ■ Federal grant secured: $4,769,000 ■ Local Funds: $ 427,800 2. Hwy. 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) • Project Description o Installation of luminaires along Hwy 99 from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW. o Pedestrian / vehicular safety improvements Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Summer 2013 — Spring 2014 o Construction: Summer 2014 — Spring 2015 Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $684,000 ■ Design: $100,000 ■ Construction: $584,000 o Funding sources ■ 100% grant funded ADA curb ramp upgrades along 3rd Ave. S • Project Description o Installation of ADA compliant curb ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Pine St. to Main St. Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Summer 2013 — Spring 2014 o Construction: Summer 2014 — Fall 2014 • Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $80,000 ■ Design: $30,000 (from Fund 112) ■ Construction: $50,000 (from secured grant) 4. Sidewalk Projects secured through Safe Routes to School prog am 236th St. SW Walkwav from SR-104 to Madrona School 15th St. SW from SR-104 to 8th Ave. S 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W • Project Description Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 22 of 277 o Addition of sidewalk on one side of the street o Installation of sharrows • Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Summer 2013 — Spring 2014 o Construction: Summer 2014 — Fall 2014 • Funding o Design and construction phases: 100% grant funded 5. Five Corners Roundabout • Project Description o Installation of a single lane roundabout ■ Various Improvements — Intersection delay improvement — Non -motorized transportation safety improvements — Stormwater / overhead utility conversion / water line replacement • Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Complete in December 2013 o Construction: Spring 2014 — Fall 2014 • Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $3,139,000 ■ Design: $ 419,000 ■ ROW $ 226,000 ■ Construction $2,494,000 o Funding sources ■ Federal grant secured: $2,400,000 ■ Local funds $ 739,000 (Funds 112, 421 and 422) Mr. Hauss reviewed scheduled projects in design (2014-2016): 1. 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements • Project Description o Add left turn lane for both approaches of 76th Av. W and right turn lane for WB movement of 212th St. SW o Installation of bike lanes and wider sidewalk o Improve from LOS F to LOS D • Tentative Status / Schedule o Design/ROW: Fall 2011 — End 2014 o Construction: TBD (pending grant funding) • Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $2,615,000 ■ Design: $ 340,000 ■ ROW $ 975,000 ■ Construction: $1,300,000 o Funding sources ■ Federal grant secured: $ 940,000 — $294,000 for design — $646,000 for ROW ■ Local Funds $146,000 — $46,000 for design — $100,000 for ROW 2. Sunset Ave. from Bell St. to Caspers St. • Project Description Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 23 of 277 o Install sidewalk / bike path on west side of Sunset Ave. from Bell St. to Caspers St. to provide more scenic non -motorized route o Parking stalls may need to be reconfigured Status / Schedule o Design phase: Summer 2013 — Spring 2014 o Construction phase: TBD (pending grant funding) • Funding o Estimated Total Project Cost $866,000 o Design Funding Sources ■ Federal grant secured: $159,000 ■ Local Fund $ 25,000 3. SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization (New Project in 2014-2019 TIP) Project Description o Install gateway elements with access management improvements o Improve corridor safety for all modes of transportation • Status / Schedule o Design phase: 2014 (pending grant funding) o Construction phase: 2015-2016 (pending grant funding) • Funding 4. SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study New Project in 2014-2019 TIP) • Project Description o Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety throughout the corridor • Status / Schedule o Preliminary Study: 2014 Funding o Pending grant funding for all phases once preliminary engineering is completed Mr. Hauss reviewed other projects: A) Preservation / Safety / Capacity projects • Annual Street Overlay ($1,500,000 / year from 2017 to 2019) • Main @ 9`h Ave. / Walnut @ 91h Ave. (Interim Solutions / 2014) Signal Upgrades: 0 238`h St. SW @ 100`h Ave. W (2017) o Puget Dr. @ OVD (2017 — 2018) o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (2018 — 2019) • Intersection Improvements: 0 220`h St. SW @ 76`h Ave. W (2017) o Hwy. 99 @ 2121h St. SW (2017 —2019) o Hwy. 99 @ 2161h St. SW (2017 —2019) B) Non -Motorized Transportation Projects • 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (2014-2017) • SR-104 / Edmonds Way Pedestrian mid -block crossing north of Pine St. intersection (2014) • Sidewalk projects near schools: 0 80`h Ave. W (2017 —2019) o Maplewood Dr. Walkway (2018 — 2019) o Walnut St. Walkway (2017) • ADA Transition Plan (2017 —2019) • Bicycle loops and connections (2017 —2019) Mr. Hauss provided a summary of recently secured grants: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 24 of 277 Design Education Total Grant Phase Grant Construction Grant Project name Type Grant Amt Amt Grant Amt Amt ADA curb ramps along 3rd Ave S Federal $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sunset Ave. Walkway from Edmonds St to Caspers St Federal $159,000 $ 159,000 238'h St SW Walkway from 100th Ave W to 104`h Ave W State $115,000 $ 55,000 $ 421,000 $ 591,000 15`h Ave W from SR-104 to 8`h Ave W State $ 71,000 $ 55,000 $ 248,000 $ 374,000 236``' St SW from SR-104 to Madrona School Federal $ 76,000 $ 55,000 $ 363,000 $ 494,000 Total $421,000 $165,000 $1,082,000 $1,668,000 Mr. Hauss recommended the Council approve the 2014-2019 TIP. Council President Petso referred to the 228`h and Hwy. 99 project and asked if Mountlake Terrace was paying a portion of the project in their jurisdiction. Mr. Hauss replied Mountlake Terrace is paying for a portion. Councilmember Bloom referred to the 238`h St. SW @ 100`h Ave. W. and the description that states rebuild the signal system with video detection. Mr. Hauss answered the life cycle of signals is approximately 20-30 years; these signals are reaching 30+ years. The mast arms that support the signals need to be replaced. Traffic signals typically include loops in the pavement that detect a vehicle or video detection, cameras on the mast arms that detect a vehicle. The advantage of video detection over pavement loops is video detection works when there is snow on the ground. Councilmember Bloom noted the Sunset Avenue project is still in the planning stage. City Engineer Rob English explained a consultant selection process was recently completed and a consultant will be selected this week. Once the consultant is hired, there will be public outreach to develop a concept for the walkway/trail. Councilmember Bloom asked if there would be a bicycle access. Mr. English replied there will be. He referred to WSDOT's presentation at the Council's mini -retreat regarding Complete Streets, envisioning Sunset would be a perfect fit for a Complete Street that includes a walkway, bike sharrows and mixing all modes of travel. The width of the pavement will be reduced and a trail installed on the western edge of the roadway as well as sharrows for bicycles while still allowing for vehicular access. Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff on all the grants they have obtained. She asked about the timetable for the Five Corners roundabout. Mr. English recognized Mr. Hauss' efforts related to applying for grants. He then explained right-of-way is currently being acquired for the Five Corners roundabout; agreements have been reached with at least three of the five property owners and negotiations continue with two property owners. Rather than a late summer/fall start once the right-of-way is acquired, a decision was made to postpone construction until spring 2014 with the goal of completing construction in one season rather than starting in September/October and extending it into the next year to reduce the impacts on businesses. Councilmember Peterson asked for an update on the 5th Avenue overlay. Mr. English answered the project will be advertised mid -July with an early September start date. It will be a 5-6 week construction period with completion by mid -October. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 25 of 277 Councilmember Yamamoto asked how much total grant money was obtained compared to City funds. Mr. Hauss answered the total grant funds was approximately $1.7 million. There is no local match for the bottom three projects in the table; they are 100% grant funded. The first project has a $30,000 local match for the design phase and the second project has an approximately $25,000-$30,000 City match. For these five projects, City funds total approximately $60,000 and a total of $1.7 million in grant funds. Councilmember Bloom asked about the location of the SR 524 / 196`" SW /88`" Ave W guardrail. Mr. Hauss explained it is on the west side of the intersection where a curve with a rockery has a 12-foot drop. There is currently only a fence at that location. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment, and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1293. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 10.75 - CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Council President Petso explained this ordinance has been reviewed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee twice. The primary change is to allow a second Council representative on the Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Peterson has volunteered to be the second Council representative. COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3927, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 ECC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 11, 2013 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the committee considered the following: • Possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure — recommended the Resolution be forwarded to the full Council after the City Attorney finalizes the Resolution to include the four points referenced by Council President Petso at the May 7, 2013 City Council Meeting. • Proposed changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 regarding the Citizens Economic Development Commission — approved on tonight's agenda. The Ordinance also included advertising EDC vacancies. • Code of Conduct for Council appointed commissions — Councilmember Peterson will work with staff. As a result of training at the Council mini -retreat, he will also add information regarding commissions' knowledge of public records. Finance Committee Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the committee considered the following: • Presentation by the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board — a presentation to full Council will be scheduled. • Authorization to Contract With James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles — approved on Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 23 Packet Page 26 of 277 • Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and Proposed Sewer Utility Rate Increases — will be scheduled for full Council following review by the Planning Board. • Adoption of Revenue bond Ordinance and Resolution — will be scheduled for presentation to full Council. • Discussion Regarding Future City Utility Rate Adjustments — staff will analyze the necessary rate increase and number of years versus borrowing. • Authorization for Mayor to Sign Acceptance of Additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding — approved on Consent Agenda. • April 2013 Monthly Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda. • Park Impact Fee Study Direction — will be scheduled for full Council. • Public Comment from two citizens. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained as a result of heavily attended Finance Committee meetings, Council President Petso agreed to the members' request to move the Finance Committee meeting out of the Jury Meeting Room and into Council Chambers. Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee considered: • Special Event Contract for Bastille Day — approved on tonight's agenda. • Park Impact Fee Study Direction • Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228`h St. SW Corridor Improvement project — approved on Consent Agenda. • Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) — approved on tonight's agenda. • FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award — approved on Consent Agenda. • Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases — a presentation will be made to the Council in July. • Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution — will be scheduled for upcoming Council meeting. • Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments — staff will develop and present options. • Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project — approved on Consent Agenda. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling commented on the success of the Arts Festival last weekend. He attended two of the three days; there was a spectacular crowd and a lot of fun music, art and food. Mayor Earling commented on the grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation to the Edmonds Arts Festival for new art work display boards. Mayor Earling provided a reminder of the Arts Summit on Saturday, June 29 at Edmonds Center for the Arts, 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Everyone is welcome to attend; approximately 200 people have indicated they plan to participate. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she attended the Arts Festival on Saturday and agreed it was very crowded. In the past, the weather is usually drizzly; this weekend's weather was spectacular. She commended the Arts Festival volunteers who organized the event. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 24 Packet Page 27 of 277 Councilmember Peterson echoed the commendations of the Arts Festival volunteers. He noted the people attending the Arts Festival were all over town; a great weekend for downtown businesses. Council President Petso advised typically the fourth Tuesday meetings are work sessions. She brought to the Council's attention that next Tuesday's meeting will include two public hearings on public markets and on park impact fees. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked all the Arts Festival Directors and volunteers. It is a fabulous festival every year and this year they had record dollar amounts. It is a great group of people and she was glad to be a part of it. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). This item was removed from the agenda via action under agenda item 2. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. This item was removed from the agenda via action under agenda item 2. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 25 Packet Page 28 of 277 AM-5889 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 4. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #202722 through #202855 dated June 20, 2013 for $738,490.73. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60245 through #60266 for $454,303.81, benefit checks #60267 through #60274 and wire payments of $199,913.22 for the period June 1, 2013 through June 15, 2013. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. 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• Revenue• Expenditure• Fiscal Impact: Claims $738,490.73 2013 1,392,707.76 Fiscal Impact Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $454,303.81 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $199,913.22 Total Payroll $654,217.03 AttarhmPntc Claim checks 06-20-13 Project Numbers 06-20-13 Packet Page 29 of 277 Payroll Benefit 06-15-13 Payroll Summary 06-15-13 Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Roger Neumaier 06/20/2013 02:01 PM Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 02:21 PM Dave Earling 06/20/2013 02:49 PM Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 03:29 PM Started On: 06/20/2013 12:38 PM Packet Page 30 of 277 vchlist 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202722 6/20/2013 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 3Z100771 MAY 13 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 931.62 Total: 931.62 202723 6/20/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 613328 SPRING PICKLE BALL SPRING PICKLE BALL 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 35.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 3.36 613364 STAFF AND CAMPER T-SHIRTS DA` STAFF AND CAMPER T-SHIRTS DA` 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 702.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 66.74 Total: 807.98 202724 6/20/2013 065568 ALLWATER INC 060313054 WWTP - WATER COOLER DEC, MA WWTP - WATER COOLER DEC, MA 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 161.47 Total: 161.47 202725 6/20/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 75240 WWTP - SAMPLE TESTS, MERCUR WWTP - SAMPLE TESTS, MERCUR 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 1,015.00 Total: 1,015.00 202726 6/20/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6856882 UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 33.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.16 Total: 36.40 202727 6/20/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 69703 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 1 Packet Page 31 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202727 6/20/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 150.32 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 150.32 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 154.87 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 516.89 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 516.88 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.28 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.71 69981 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.20 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.20 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.94 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 311.36 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 311.36 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 7.79 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 7.79 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 10.39 Page: 2 Packet Page 32 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202727 6/20/2013 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) Total: 2,454.58 202728 6/20/2013 074031 BARTH, RUTH BARTH 17027 NO FEAR DRAWING NO FEAR DRAWING 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 423.50 Total : 423.50 202729 6/20/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 8242 INV#8242 - EDMONDS PD - INVENT TACTICAL BATON W/FOAM 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 78.95 BLACK TACTICAL PATROL BAG 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 99.98 BELT KEEPERS/BW/HIDDEN SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 44.85 FLASHLIGHT RING/BW 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 22.20 998521 INV#998521 - EDMONDS PD - SWIT Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 20.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.90 998521-80 INV#998521-80 CR FOR OVERCHG Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -0.95 Total : 266.88 202730 6/20/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 057100 Storm - Recycle Concrete Fees Storm - Recycle Concrete Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 141.75 Total : 141.75 202731 6/20/2013 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 301585 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel Page: 3 Packet Page 33 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202731 6/20/2013 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL (Continued) Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 697.73 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 697.73 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 697.73 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 697.71 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 66.29 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 66.29 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 66.29 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 66.27 Total: 3,056.04 202732 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830813 PARKS AND REC IRC5051 PARKS AND REC IRC5051 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 23.75 12830817 PARKS AND REC ICR10301F PARKS AND REC ICR10301F 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 27.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 2.66 12832790 PARKS MAINT IRC10301F PARKS MAINT IRC10301F 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 3.14 Tota I : 340.55 Page: 4 Packet Page 34 of 277 vchlist 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 5 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202733 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830811 INV#12830811 CUST#572105 - EDM MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL (4) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 COPY CHARGES 4/30 TO 5/31/13 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 314.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 85.16 Total: 981.47 202734 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830812 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COPIER LEE Lease City Clerk's Office 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 12830814 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 202735 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830815 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 202736 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12832787 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 12832788 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 68.55 Page: 5 Packet Page 35 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202736 6/20/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 12832789 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 Total: 441.15 202737 6/20/2013 074281 CARBURETOR CONNECTION INC 0012975 Unit 447 - LPG PreFiliters, VSI Filter Page: 6 Packet Page 36 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202737 6/20/2013 074281 CARBURETOR CONNECTION INC (Continued) Unit 447 - LPG PreFiliters, VSI Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 235.73 Unit 449 - LPG PreFiliters, VSI Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 235.73 Unit 450 - LPG PreFiliters, VSI Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 235.73 Unit 681 - LPG PreFiliters, VSI Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 235.71 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 89.58 Total: 1,032.48 202738 6/20/2013 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DIST CO 593246 WWTP - CALCIUM NITRATE SOLUT WWTP - CALCIUM NITRATE SOLUT 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,425.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 116.38 Total: 1,541.38 202739 6/20/2013 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 33127 Plaque and name plaque for wall boa Plaque and name plaque for wall boa 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 39.97 Total: 39.97 202740 6/20/2013 068484 CEMEX LLC 9426109276 Roadway - Liquid Asphalt Roadway - Liquid Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 55.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 5.23 9426295496 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 17.10 9426311620 Roadway - Asphalt Page: 7 Packet Page 37 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202740 6/20/2013 068484 CEMEX LLC (Continued) Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 320.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 30.40 9426311621 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 3.33 Total: 646.06 202741 6/20/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 194923 WWTP - OPERATING SUPPLIES, AL WWTP - OPERATING SUPPLIES, Al. 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 0.65 Total: 7.45 202742 6/20/2013 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 113001253 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 567.00 Total: 567.00 202743 6/20/2013 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2487 E3FB.REIMBURSE FOR 50% OF PEI E3FB.Reimburse for 50% of Perteet 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,710.40 Total: 2,710.40 202744 6/20/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2555627-1 Fac Maint - Switch Assembly Fac Maint - Switch Assembly 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.18 W2561585 Fac Maint - Filters, Sponges, Seat Fac Maint - Filters, Sponges, Seat Page: 8 Packet Page 38 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202744 6/20/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 514.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.87 Tota I : 622.92 202745 6/20/2013 074382 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS IN00031800 Storm - 6 - 6' x 24" H/C Pipe with Storm - 6 - 6' x 24" H/C Pipe with 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,220.28 8.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 104.94 Total: 1,325.22 202746 6/20/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 329824 PLN20080046 SHORESHIRE - ENG PLN20080046 Shoreshire - Eng Revil 001.000.245.963 1,056.00 Total: 1,056.00 202747 6/20/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 335438 Unit 448 - Replacement Cords Unit 448 - Replacement Cords 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 151.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.11 Total: 174.11 202748 6/20/2013 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS DRS Correction DRS CORRECTION FOR NON REPF DRS contribution for correction made 811.000.231.540 2,502.98 Total: 2,502.98 202749 6/20/2013 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY LISTING CEMETERY LISTING 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 35.25 Total: 35.25 Page: 9 Packet Page 39 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202750 6/20/2013 074389 DRAKE, BARB Invoice DRAKE MAY 2013 202751 6/20/2013 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2162.1 202752 6/20/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 202753 6/20/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 23433 22604 202754 6/20/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 613 202755 6/20/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 0061313 202756 6/20/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 PO # Description/Account Amount BEACH RANGER ELEMENTARY PR BEACH RANGER ELEMENTARY PR 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 67.80 Total : 67.80 CITY PARK TOPO SURVEY CITY PARK TOPO SURVEY 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 9,759.78 Total : 9,759.78 COPPER SPARK PLUGS COPPER SPARK PLUGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.63 Total : 7.24 PW - Tri-Power V-Belt PW - Tri-Power V-Belt 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.96 Total : 22.56 WOVEN RLR WOVEN RLR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.16 Total : 24.90 REFUND, CUSTOMER CANCELLED REFUND, CUSTOMER CANCELLED 001.000.239.200 73.00 Total : 73.00 CITY PARK Page: 10 Packet Page 40 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202756 6/20/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.25 1-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 699.58 1-00875 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.52 1-02125 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 39.98 1-03710 290 MAIN ST 290 MAIN ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-03900 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-05125 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.71 1-05285 GAZEBO IRRIGATION GAZEBO IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-05340 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-05650 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-05675 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 612.92 1-05700 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 Page: 11 Packet Page 41 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202756 6/20/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-09650 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 39.98 1-09800 SW CORNER SPRINKLER SW CORNER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.52 1-10780 PLANTER PLANTER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.36 1-16130 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 48.17 1-16300 CORNER PARKS CORNER PARKS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.01 1-16420 118 5TH AVE N 118 5TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-16450 CITY HALL TRIANGLE CITY HALL TRIANGLE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 46.21 1-16630 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 59.09 1-17475 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 1-19950 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD PINE STREE PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 64.89 1-36255 1141 9TH AVE S 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 Total : 2,231.30 Page: 12 Packet Page 42 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202757 6/20/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Invoice 1-00655 1-00925 1-01950 1-03950 1-05350 1-05705 1-13975 1-14000 202758 6/20/2013 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 183877 PO # Description/Account LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 OLD PUBLIC WORKS SHOP METEF OLD PUBLIC WORKS SHOP METEF 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Total INV#183877 CLIENT#5118 - EDMOP VIRBANTEL 114MG/DEWORMING C 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 VIRBANTEL 30MG /DEWORMING C 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 WORMING #8829,8828,8848,8850 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 BOARDING IMP#8850 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 EXAM -OFFICE CALL IMP#8850 Amount 34.52 31.79 34.52 508.54 71.04 67.43 517.29 84.54 1,349.67 96.00 153.00 76.00 234.00 Page: 13 Packet Page 43 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202758 6/20/2013 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 49.00 WOUND TREATMENT IMP#8850 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 25.00 CONVENIAABO INJECT IMP#8850 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 55.00 EAR CLEANING IMP#8850 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 21.00 TRESADERM SOLUTION IMP#8850 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 24.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 33.17 Total: 766.26 202759 6/20/2013 074174 EPOA 0190158-IN 0190158-IN CUST 00-EDM003 CHAL 25 DEPARTMENT CHALLENGE COII 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 199.25 Total: 199.25 202760 6/20/2013 074464 EXEC MOBILE PRESSURE WASHING 1 WWTP - PRESSURE WASH 1 BLOC WWTP - PRESSURE WASH 1 BLOC 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 1,650.00 Total: 1,650.00 202761 6/20/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28771 HOOKS HOOKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 83.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.90 Total: 91.10 202762 6/20/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28728 Storm - Supplies Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 42.09 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4.00 Page: 14 Packet Page 44 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202762 6/20/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) WAMOU28775 Storm - Supplies Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 8.17 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0.78 Total: 55.04 202763 6/20/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0380766 Water Meter Inventory #2027 - — 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 281.00 Water Meter Inventory #2027 - -- 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,957.86 0380783 Water Meter Inventory - 2026 — Water Meter Inventory - 2026 — 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,563.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 243.53 Total: 6,045.87 202764 6/20/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS Lll WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS Lll 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 59.53 Total: 59.53 202765 6/20/2013 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 243.26 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 243.26 253-011-1177 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 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE Page: 15 Packet Page 45 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202765 6/20/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 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 20.78 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI` 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.56 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 46.84 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 53.80 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 41.65 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 Tota I : 874.89 202766 6/20/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9158069824 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.13 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.25 9158117235 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 98.91 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.38 9158117243 Fac Maint - Gauze Page: 16 Packet Page 46 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202766 6/20/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) Fac Maint - Gauze 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.21 Total: 148.18 202767 6/20/2013 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD B023157 Storm - Di Pipe Storm - Di Pipe 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,490.04 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 141.55 Total: 1,631.59 202768 6/20/2013 066575 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 26842524-001 Storm - Big Top - Boom Rental Storm - Big Top - Boom Rental 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 1,387.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 131.79 Total: 1,518.79 202769 6/20/2013 066519 NOGGINS, DALE 400212211254 REIMBURSEMENT PRINTING FOR I REIMBURSEMENT PRINTING FOR 1 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 56.00 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 5.32 Total: 61.32 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1035220 Yost - Filter Pit Supplies Yost - Filter Pit Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 305.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.98 1037128 Storm - Supplies Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 69.79 Page: 17 Packet Page 47 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 6.63 1041725 PS - Paint Supplies PS - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.19 1041800 PS- Supplies PS- Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18 1045843 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.35 1284733 Log Cabin - Staining Supplies Log Cabin - Staining Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.71 2076637 FS 17 - Supplies FS 17 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.24 2094264 Storm - Big Top - Spring Clamps Storm - Big Top - Spring Clamps 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 0.94 3032823 Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Supplies Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Supplies Page: 18 Packet Page 48 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.34 3041283 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 22.45 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 85.31 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 85.31 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 85.31 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 85.31 Public Works - Misc. Supplies for 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 2.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 8.11 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.11 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.09 3250120 FAC Dumpert - Returns FAC Dumpert - Returns 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -13.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -1.23 3284689 FAC - Dumpster area Supplies Page: 19 Packet Page 49 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) FAC - Dumpster area Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.98 4040899 FAC - Dumpster Supplies FAC - Dumpster Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.11 4041068 Fac Maint Shop Paint Supplies Fac Maint Shop Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.17 4042521 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.77 4042621 City Hall- Dev Svc - Lobby remodel City Hall- Dev Svc - Lobby remodel 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 98.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.38 4045109 LF 12 - Stop Leak Supplies for WetW LF 12 - Stop Leak Supplies for WetW 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 44.09 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.19 4255024 FAC - Small Tool - Level - Returned FAC - Small Tool - Level - Returned 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 -229.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 -21.76 Page: 20 Packet Page 50 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 5042309 Dev Svc - Lobby Project - Supplies Dev Svc - Lobby Project - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.04 5044851 Log Cabin - Supplies Log Cabin - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.94 5044969 FAC - Dumpster Small tool (self FAC - Dumpster Small tool (self 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 229.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 21.76 5045003 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Cordless Drill and Fac Maint Unit 26 - Cordless Drill and 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 140.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 13.39 5105165 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 31.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.03 7034050 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.75 7034098 City Hall - Dev Svc - Lobby Remodel City Hall - Dev Svc - Lobby Remodel 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 86.83 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 21 Packet Page 51 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.25 7044416 Storm - Supplies for Lk Ballinger Higl- Storm - Supplies for Lk Ballinger Higr 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 51.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4.89 7083971 Parks - Post Caps Parks - Post Caps 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.84 7566546 FAC - Plastic Epoxy FAC - Plastic Epoxy 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.52 7583875 Traffic - Paint to coverup Graffitti Traffic - Paint to coverup Graffitti 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 36.98 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.51 8033736 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 51.46 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.89 9046405 Yost - Hot Water Tank Supplies Yost - Hot Water Tank Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 71.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.75 94894 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.53 Page: 22 Packet Page 52 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202770 6/20/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.10 9594629 Fac Maint - Brush and Dust Pan Fac Maint - Brush and Dust Pan 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.04 Total: 1,999.97 202771 6/20/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2291254 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 62.84 Tota I : 62.84 202772 6/20/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2281511 POST IT POP UP NOTE PADS, PM F Post it Super Sticky Pop up note pad; 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 25.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.39 2284397 POST IT POP UP NOTE PADS Post it Super Sticky Pop up note pad: 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 16.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.54 2287051 ADJUSTABLE KEYBOARD TRAY 3M Adjustable Keyboard Tray 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 161.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 15.32 2287405 BUSINESS SOURCE BOND PAPER Business Source Bond Paper 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -3.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -0.33 2293083 3M ADJUSTABLE KEYBOARD TRAY Page: 23 Packet Page 53 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202772 6/20/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 3M Adjustable Keyboard Tray 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -161.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -15.32 2294039 DYMO ADDRESS & FILING LABELS AA Batteries, Dymo Address & Filing 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 62.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.90 Total: 109.43 202773 6/20/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2291068 Misc. office supplies including chair Misc. office supplies including chair 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 374.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 35.61 Total: 410.36 202774 6/20/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2286932 UB - Pink Paper for Late notices, etc. UB - Pink Paper for Late notices, etc. 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.57 UB - Pink Paper for Late notices, etc. 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 40.57 UB - Pink Paper for Late notices, etc. 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 40.56 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.86 Total: 133.26 202775 6/20/2013 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E7AA.Pmt 6 E7AA.PMT 6 THRU 5/15/13 E7AA.Pmt 6 thru 5/15/13 Page: 24 Packet Page 54 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202775 6/20/2013 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued) 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 9,982.40 Total: 9,982.40 202776 6/20/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3685194 INV#3685194 ACCT#100828 - EDMC LATERAL FILE CABINET 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 524.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 49.81 Total: 574.14 202777 6/20/2013 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE 23316 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WATER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WATER 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 4,348.67 Total: 4,348.67 202778 6/20/2013 074330 KING, BEN 6/1/13 - 6/15/13 GEOSPATIAL DATA COLLECTION & Geospatial Data Collection Mapping 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 834.76 Total: 834.76 202779 6/20/2013 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC 1603754-1283 E6MA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2013 E6MA.Services thru May 2013 129.000.24.595.70.41.00 442.00 Total: 442.00 202780 6/20/2013 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 03433 WWTP - POLYMER SUPPLIES WWTP - POLYMER SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 450.63 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 53.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 47.90 Total: 552.07 202781 6/20/2013 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC JUN-2013 06-13 LEGALS FEES 06-13 Legal fees Page: 25 Packet Page 55 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202781 6/20/2013 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC (Continued) 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00 Total: 32,000.00 202782 6/20/2013 074325 LOPEZ, YUREMI LOPEZ 6/11/2013 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 10 HOUF VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 10 HOUF 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 202783 6/20/2013 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6697 EDMONDS CITY PLAY AND SPRAY EDMONDS CITY PLAY AND SPRAY 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 511.46 Total: 511.46 202784 6/20/2013 019599 MARSH, MARK SHELTON 5/13 EXPENSE CLAIM SHELTON PIO TFZ DINNER - 5/27/13 PIO TRAINING SH 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 21.00 BREAKFAST - 5/28 PIO TRAINING S 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 11.00 DINNER - 5/28 PIO TRAINING SHEL 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 21.00 DINNER - 5/29 PIO TRAINING SHEL 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 21.00 Total: 74.00 202785 6/20/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1256 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1291 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 1293 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1294 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES Page: 26 Packet Page 56 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202785 6/20/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total: 353.28 202786 6/20/2013 019940 MC COMAS, GARY 50 LEOFF reimbursement LEOFF reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 47.98 LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 67.82 Total: 115.80 202787 6/20/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 52951612 WWTP - MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES WWTP - MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 27.36 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.12 53153626 WWTP - MAINTENANCE, PUSH BR( WWTP - MAINTENANCE, PUSH BR( 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 126.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 35.29 Total: 194.77 202788 6/20/2013 020450 MICRO DATA BUSINESS FORMS 41445 INV#41445 - EDMONDS PD 2,200 CRIMINAL CITATION FORMS 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 748.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 25.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 73.48 Tota I : 847.00 202789 6/20/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 169818 CHAINSAW CHAINSAW 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.45 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 27 Packet Page 57 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202789 6/20/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.71 Total: 8.16 202790 6/20/2013 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 13-1427-1 E1 GA.SERVICES THRU 4/30/13 E1 GA.Services thru 4/30/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 10,617.90 E1 GA.Services thru 4/30/13 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 5,229.71 Total: 15,847.61 202791 6/20/2013 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 2839803 LEOFF Ins premiums LEOFF Ins premiums 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,148.97 LEOFF Ins Premiums 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 8,189.74 Total: 9,338.71 202792 6/20/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0498500-IN Fleet Hydrolic Fluid Fleet Hydrolic Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 453.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 43.09 0498610-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.42 Total: 512.91 202793 6/20/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 42132 WWTP - BISULFITE SUPPLIES WWTP - BISULFITE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,060.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 100.78 Tota I : 1,161.58 Page: 28 Packet Page 58 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202794 6/20/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 388 ADB Minutes on 6/5/13. ADB Minutes on 6/5/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 224.00 000 00 391 Planning Board minutes on 6/12/13. Planning Board minutes on 6/12/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 256.00 000 00 393 Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 128.00 Total: 608.00 202795 6/20/2013 073522 NW HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC 16948 E3FB.SERVICES THRU 5/31/13 E3FB.Services thru 5/31/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 8,277.26 Total: 8,277.26 202796 6/20/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 110409 DISCOVERY FILING SYSTEM DISCOVERY FILING SYSTEM 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 11.69 SHARPIES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.77 Total: 33.22 202797 6/20/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 035031 INV#035031 ACCT#520437 250POL 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 5.13 SLIM LINE CD CASE 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 54.00 Total: 59.13 202798 6/20/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 005015 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies Page: 29 Packet Page 59 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202798 6/20/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 79.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 7.54 Total: 86.96 202799 6/20/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 3283 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 533.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.64 Total: 583.74 202800 6/20/2013 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACIFIC FLOATS 17130 GOLD PANNING RAFT TRIP GOLD PANNING RAFT TRIP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 200.90 Total: 200.90 202801 6/20/2013 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 54229 TOPSOIL TOPSOIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 325.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.88 Total: 355.88 202802 6/20/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 023037400 PAINT SUPPLIES PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.31 Total: 107.32 202803 6/20/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023037302 FAC - Paint Supplies FAC - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.09 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 30 Packet Page 60 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202803 6/20/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.05 Total: 35.14 202804 6/20/2013 007800 PETTY CASH March29-June18 MARCH 29 THRU JUNE 18 PETTY C Refreshments for WCIA Sponsored 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 41.62 Frefreshments for WCIA Training - - 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 46.32 Mileage & Parking for Seminar in Sea 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 33.20 Mileage to training in Stanwood - - 001.000.22.518.10.43.00 44.80 Mileage to training in Everett - -- 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 42.94 Kleenex for Development Services DE 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 15.51 Snohomish County Clerks & Finance 001.000.25.514.30.43.00 18.00 Parking for meetings at Snohomish 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 9.00 Mileage for training in Everett 001.000.25.514.30.43.00 18.42 Lamp and Light bulbs for Reception 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 48.10 Software download for I -pad 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 32.82 Parking for meeting in Seattle- 001.000.61.519.70.43.00 8.00 Supplies for Health and Wellness Faii 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 21.90 Total: 380.63 202805 6/20/2013 008350 PETTY CASH PETTY MAY 2013 P&R PETTY CASH 5/13 BATTERIES DISCOVERY 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 14.22 Page: 31 Packet Page 61 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202805 6/20/2013 008350 PETTY CASH 202806 6/20/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PASTRIES FOR FLORETUM FLOWE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.00 COFFEE FOR FLORETUM FLOWER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.09 SLIDE WHISTLE GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 6.56 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 12.05 PHOTOS FOR DISCOVERY 001.000.64.574.35.49.00 13.46 LAMINATE PHOTOS FOR DISCOVEI 001.000.64.574.35.49.00 15.05 DUCK TAPE FOR SPRING SHOW G 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 5.46 LAMINATE PHOTOS 001.000.64.574.35.49.00 27.58 PHOTOS FOR DISCOVERY 001.000.64.574.35.49.00 3.74 PARKING FOR WSAC TRAINING 117.100.64.573.20.43.00 12.00 Total: 156.21 683 Unit 136 - Gas Unit 136 - Gas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.30 Unit 405 - Gas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.19 Unit 203 - Gas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.39 Unit 405 - Gas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.90 Unit 44 - Gas 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.75 Unit 405 - Gas Page: 32 Packet Page 62 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202806 6/20/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.69 Svc Fees 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.99 Total: 112.21 202807 6/20/2013 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-JN13 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 5/30 to 6/30 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26 Total: 786.86 202808 6/20/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 207656 Storm - Grainger Return postage Storm - Grainger Return postage 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 15.38 207787 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-b Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.90 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.89 207914 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-b Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.50 207934 Sewer - Sewer Equip Return Postage Sewer - Sewer Equip Return Postage Page: 33 Packet Page 63 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202808 6/20/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 16.46 207975 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L� Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 2.50 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 2.50 Total: 63.43 202809 6/20/2013 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POR CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POR 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,513.24 Total: 2,513.24 202810 6/20/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 41.73 Total: 41.73 202811 6/20/2013 074342 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2013-3955 Interim Finance Director Interim Finance Director 001.000.31.514.20.41.00 5,623.80 Total: 5,623.80 202812 6/20/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INV#00000136845 INSCRIPTION SPENCER INSCRIPTION SPENCER 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 210.00 INV#00000136846 ELAINE DE ARMAN ELAINE DE ARMAN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 INV#00000136847 INSCRIPTION ANDERSON INSCRIPTION ANDERSON Page: 34 Packet Page 64 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202812 6/20/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC (Continued) 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 Total: 410.00 202813 6/20/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 84416 INV#84416 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2004 DODGE #AFA8816 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 202814 6/20/2013 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 295778 LPG Aux Power Gen for Sewer LS 7 LPG Aux Power Gen for Sewer LS 7 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 487.18 Total: 487.18 202815 6/20/2013 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC E9GA.Pmt 6 E9GA.PMT 6 THRU 5/31/13 E9GA.Pmt 6 thru 5/31/13 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 433,514.39 Total: 433,514.39 202816 6/20/2013 074467 REED, PATRICIA REED 062013 REFUND CHECK, CUSTOMER WITF REFUND CHECK, CUSTOMER WITF 001.000.239.200 72.75 Total: 72.75 202817 6/20/2013 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 004385 Storm Street Sweeping Dump Fees Storm Street Sweeping Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,656.48 Total: 1,656.48 202818 6/20/2013 074465 REIDY, KEN APL20090002 Withdrew appeal. Withdrew appeal. 001.000.257.620 330.00 Total: 330.00 202819 6/20/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 0197-001593681 WWTP - RECYCLING/DISPOSAL FE Page: 35 Packet Page 65 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202819 6/20/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) WWTP - RECYCLING/DISPOSAL FE 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 6,993.88 Total: 6,993.88 202820 6/20/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 140.72 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 27.89 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 105.99 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 105.99 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 105.99 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 105.99 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 106.00 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 149.29 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 64.98 Total: 912.84 202821 6/20/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5026321469 Meter charges for large DS copier 90' Meter charges for large DS copier 90" 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 76.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.29 5026321470 Meter charges for Engineering color Meter charges for Engineering color Page: 36 Packet Page 66 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202821 6/20/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC (Continued) 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 147.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 14.03 Total: 245.75 202822 6/20/2013 073930 RODMAN G MILLER STUDIO 06132013 REPLACEMENT PARTS FLOWER P, REPLACEMENT PARTS FLOWER P, 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 219.00 Total: 219.00 202823 6/20/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 198484 Unit 448 - Towing Unit 448 - Towing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 202824 6/20/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDIN WAY 9537 BOWDIN WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,661.92 2025-4064-7 8100 190TH ST SW 8100 190TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 Total: 1,693.19 202825 6/20/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHK WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHW 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.33 2019-2988-2 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.33 Total: 64.66 202826 6/20/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-0685-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 Page: 37 Packet Page 67 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202826 6/20/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.91 2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC. PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2014-4175-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 82.80 2016-9084-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 900 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 900 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2017-9000-3 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 46.86 2022-8945-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 148.15 Total: 411.59 202827 6/20/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE MAY 2013 INMATE MED EDMONDS PD MAY 2013 INMATE M INMATE MEDICATION - MAY 2013 001.000.41.523.60.31.00 54.55 Total: 54.55 202828 6/20/2013 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 62399 SOLID WASTE MAY 2013 SOLID WASTE MAY 2013 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 875.00 Total: 875.00 202829 6/20/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC W WTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 1,485.74 Tota I : 1,485.74 Page: 38 Packet Page 68 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202830 6/20/2013 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2009734-01 Street/Storm - Coated work gloves Street/Storm - Coated work gloves 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 71.28 Street/Storm - Coated work gloves 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 71.28 Freight 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 4.75 Freight 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 4.75 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 7.23 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 7.22 Total: 166.51 202831 6/20/2013 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 23348 LIGHT POLE REPAIRED/ WE PAY FI Freight 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 473.36 Total: 473.36 202832 6/20/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100548729.001 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 155.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.73 S100548729.002 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 103.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.81 Total: 282.79 202833 6/20/2013 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 30382762 Storm - Upside -Down Paint - White, C Storm - Upside -Down Paint - White, C 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 672.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 39 Packet Page 69 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202833 6/20/2013 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 63.84 Total: 735.84 202834 6/20/2013 071666 TETRATECH INC 50640978 WWTP - SCHEMATIC DESIGN WWTP - SCHEMATIC DESIGN 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,098.00 Total: 1,098.00 202835 6/20/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1823335 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3924 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 1823336 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3925 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 27.52 1823404 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing -Public Markets 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 41.28 Total: 92.88 202836 6/20/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 360748 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.16 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.86 Total: 21.30 202837 6/20/2013 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEU 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 214.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 20.42 US54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR Page: 40 Packet Page 70 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202837 6/20/2013 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) 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 US54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING S ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING S 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.48 Total: 492.92 202838 6/20/2013 068256 TOTEM ELECTRIC OF TACOMA INC E6MA.Pmt 3 E6MA.PMT 3 THRU 5/31/13 E6MA.Pmt 3 thru 5/31/13 129.000.24.595.70.65.00 114,251.15 Total: 114,251.15 202839 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 4675 HORTICULTURE RENEWAL HORTICULTURE RENEWAL 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 61.00 WOTSAD IN WRITERS DIGEST 117.100.64.573.20.44.00 1,850.00 DAYCAMP FIRST AID 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 56.77 Total: 1,967.77 202840 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 2985 WWTP - CISCO MANAGED SWITCF WWTP - CISCO MANAGED SWITCF 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 210.43 WWTP - WEFTEC MEMBERSHIP 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 82.00 WWTP - FIBERGLASS CABINET DC 423.000.76.535.80.48.11 241.00 WWTP - HDMI CABLE 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 52.97 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 41 Packet Page 71 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202840 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.11 22.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 5.03 2985 WWTP - WEFTEC MEMBERSHIP CE WWTP - WEFTEC MEMBERSHIP C/ 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 -82.00 Total: 532.33 202841 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 50613 ROOM FEE FOR PROBATION CONF ROOM FEE FOR PROBATION CONF 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 220.62 ROOM FEE FOR COURT MANAGER 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 52.82 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 70.70 Total: 344.14 202842 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD CHARGES MAY E3FB.Lake Ballinger Measuring Tool 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 62.04 Tota I : 62.04 202843 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 5593 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 150.50 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 82.50 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 82.50 Total: 315.50 202844 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 3389 Robert's Rules books for Councilmen Robert's Rules books for Councilmen 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 75.73 Total: 75.73 Page: 42 Packet Page 72 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202845 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 3447 Meals - approved travel/training Meals - approved travel/training 001.000.22.518.10.43.00 49.54 Lodging - approved travel/training 001.000.22.518.10.43.00 377.96 Ads - Facility Attendant 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00 Total: 477.50 202846 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 2519 INV#2519 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD MEAL/VLT CRIMES-MCINTYRE/SMI- 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.28 MEAL/VLT CRIME-MCINTYRE/SMITE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 103.00 LODGING/VIOLENT CRIME-MCINTY 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 77.00 LODGING/VIOLENT CRIME-D.SMITF 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 77.00 MEAL/LAW ENFORCE-HARDWICK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 32.18 FUEL/LAW ENFORCE-HARDWICK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 41.38 MEAL/LAW ENFORCE-HARDWICK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 4.87 LODGING/LAW ENFORCE-HARDWI 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 113.69 3181 INV#3181 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE- 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 179.10 LODGING/ BASIC PUB INFO -MARS 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 84.70 REG/ESS RIDGEOLOGY-MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 600.00 REG/REMINGTON ARMORER-D SM 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 450.00 Page: 43 Packet Page 73 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202846 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) KINGSTON FLASH DRIVES 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 92.68 DRY ERASE KIT 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 11.18 SUPPLIES FOR ANIMAL SEARCH 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 77.39 FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS 001.000.41.521.80.48.00 40.04 PELICAN CASES 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 29.19 CANON POWER SHOT CAMERAS 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 162.31 POWER CORD FOR SALLY PORT 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 32.82 3215 INV#3215 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD MEAL/LABOR RELATION-COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 48.60 LODGING/LABOR RELATION -COME 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 175.24 LODGING/PNWD-IAI CONF-MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 319.42 3 MEALS/WASPC CONF-COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 142.18 LODGING/WASPC CONF-ANDERSC 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 362.04 LODGING/WASPC CONF-COMPAA* 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 411.33 LODGING/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 411.33 3314 INV#3314 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD MEALS/WASPC-LAW LESS/ANDERE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 68.63 3520 INV#3520 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD FEDEX CHG #13-1500,13-1154 Page: 44 Packet Page 74 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202846 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.76 NAMOA-MTCYCL RESV-FALK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.50 TOW CHG CASE #13-1500 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 19.71 NAMOA-FERRY CHG-FALK/HARBIN 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 65.00 NAMOA-WA ST FERRY CHG-FALK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.50 NAMOA-WA ST FERRY CHG-HARBI 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.50 LODGING/NAMOA-ROTH (1 NIGHT) 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 145.22 MEAL/NAMOA-FALK-HARBI NSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 80.51 NAMOA-CAN FERRY CHG-FALK-HA 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 72.52 MEAL/NAMOA-HARBI NSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 46.33 MEAL/NAMOA-FALK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 26.59 MEAL/NAMOA-HARBI NSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.82 FUEL/NAMOA-FALK-HARB I NSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 28.80 LODGING/NAMOA-FALK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 576.97 LODG I NG/NAMOA-HARBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 576.97 MEAL/NAMOA-HARBI NSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 42.00 FEDEX CHG - DNA PROP CRIMES 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 66.73 FEDEX CHG #13-1782,#13-1443,#1 c Page: 45 Packet Page 75 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202846 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.01 FEDEX CHG #13-1773,#13-1780 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.01 7914 INV#7914 06/06/13 - EDMONDS PD REPLACEMENT KEYS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.00 OFFICER OF YEAR PLAQUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 104.03 NON -OFFICER EMP OF YEAR PLAC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 104.02 DIGITAL RECORDERS (PATROL) 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 177.37 MEALS/HOSTAGE -MACK-FROLAN[ 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.45 MEALS/HOSTAGE-MACK-FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 55.00 FUEL/HOSTAG E-MACK-FROLAN D 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 44.84 MEAL/HOSTAGE-MACK-FROLAN D 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 16.60 MEALS/HOSTAGE-MACK-FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 100.70 MEAL/HOSTAGE-MACK-FROLAN D 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.33 MEALS/HOSTAGE-MACK-FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 46.25 LODGING/HOSTAGE-MAC K 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 285.69 LODGING/HOSTAGE-FRO LAN D 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 285.69 VERSAPAK GOLD 6 PAK BATTERIE; 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 105.74 REPLAC CORE FOR TAPE DISPEN 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.99 Page: 46 Packet Page 76 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202846 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) LODGING/BASIC PUB INFO-MARSF 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 169.40 Total: 7,546.13 202847 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK 2813 Home Depot - Shop Tool Home Depot - Shop Tool 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 28.44 OReilly Auto - Unit 083 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.32 OReilly Auto - Unit 083 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.43 Dudley Perkins - Unit 405 - Caliper 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 262.20 Fisheries - Unit 405 - Canvas Snaps 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.66 OReilly Auto - Unit 21 - V Belt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.22 Fisheries - Unit M-16 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.42 Good2Go - Pass Use 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 30.00 OReilly Auto - Unit 42 - Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.02 2813 OReilly Auto - Fleet Return OReilly Auto - Fleet Return 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -2.66 3405 Guardian Security - Old PW Guardian Security - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Alpha Eco - PS - Maint 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 111.01 3546 KCAWWA- Class - J Waite, K Kuhnh KCAWWA- Class - J Waite, K Kuhnh 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 130.00 Page: 47 Packet Page 77 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202847 6/20/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) Clear Stream - Recycle - Compostabl 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 81.85 Fred Pryor Seminars - Annual Membe 001.000.65.519.91.49.00 199.00 Total: 1,034.91 202848 6/20/2013 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 3050119 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 72.72 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 72.72 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 74.93 Total: 220.37 202849 6/20/2013 074470 VAN BERKOM, JILL 6565860 PRINTING OF ESCC BROCHURE Reimbursement for printing of 500 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 143.77 Total: 143.77 202850 6/20/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29351085 WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI' WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI' 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 500.00 Total: 500.00 202851 6/20/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 49161 INV#49161 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2002 BMW #B78606G 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 STORAGE FOR 2002 BMW (20 DAY; 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 820.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 92.91 Total: 1,070.91 202852 6/20/2013 067086 WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO 0018743-IN WWTP - BRIDGE CRANE REPAIRS Page: 48 Packet Page 78 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202852 6/20/2013 067086 WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO (Continued) WWTP - BRIDGE CRANE REPAIRS 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,093.52 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 35.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 202.29 Total: 2,331.66 202853 6/20/2013 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9032 DEAD ALDER REMOVAL DEAD ALDER REMOVAL 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 580.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 55.10 Total: 635.10 202854 6/20/2013 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 727952 LEAF SPRING AND BALL BEARING LEAF SPRING AND BALL BEARING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.91 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.53 Tota I : 40.72 202855 6/20/2013 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000023348 Traffic Control - Solar Eng Yellow Traffic Control - Solar Eng Yellow 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,920.00 Mounting Wedge 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 578.95 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 237.40 Total: 2,736.35 134 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 738,490.73 Page: 49 Packet Page 79 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 06/20/2013 12:31:09PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 134 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Total vouchers Amount 738,490.73 Page: 50 Packet Page 80 of 277 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 6/20/2013 Packet Page 81 of 277 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 6/20/2013 Packet Page 82 of 277 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Upda nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repa STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 83 of 277 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Am c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects AW E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reductrofit Sfudy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements * _ WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements STIR E61DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program E7AA Main Street LightipjLand_§ygwalk Enhancements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements _ E7CB hell Valley Emergency ccess Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES E7MA ayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) E8GC NSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking 2009 Street Overlay Program STIR E91DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 84 of 277 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 Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation 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 6/20/2013 Packet Page 85 of 277 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 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STIR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR 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 E21FA 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 E21FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WWTP c385 N/A WWTP Switchgear Upgrade WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STIR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STIR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 EYA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E31FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive STIR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 86 of 277 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 87 of 277 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect 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 SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB 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 STR 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 WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD 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 Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 88 of 277 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD 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 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 Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC 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 WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 6/20/2013 Packet Page 89 of 277 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 90 of 277 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 615 - 06/01/2013 to 06/15/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60267 06/20/2013 mebt AST TTEE 79,635.91 0.00 60268 06/20/2013 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,088.00 0.00 60269 06/20/2013 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 301.50 0.00 60270 06/20/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 399.83 0.00 60271 06/20/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,241.05 0.00 60272 06/20/2013 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,231.68 0.00 60273 06/20/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,215.57 0.00 60274 06/20/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 15,950.50 0.00 108,064.04 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2013 06/20/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 91,476.28 0.00 2015 06/20/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 164.40 0.00 2016 06/20/2013 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00 91,849.18 0.00 Grand Totals: 199,913.22 0.00 6/19/2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 91 of 277 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 615 (06/01/2013 to 06/15/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 69.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 32.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 429.25 14,373.91 122 VACATION VACATION 1,180.78 42,277.33 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 113.50 3,701.57 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 43.00 1,066.68 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 147.00 5,544.78 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 12.00 379.97 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 108.00 3,901.94 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 142.52 6,043.91 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 234.36 8,521.80 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 61.11 2,222.08 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 38.56 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 14,490.47 516,712.31 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 110.00 4,574.31 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,169.89 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLAW 15.00 1,341.86 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 348.75 21,453.50 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 3.00 184.73 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 797.97 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 133.57 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 35.25 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 155.50 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 160.89 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 80.05 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 513.04 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 795.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 722.30 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 834.14 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,920.31 06/19/2013 Packet Page 92 of 277 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 615 (06/01/2013 to 06/15/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 177.50 7,983.62 fmlV VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 7.00 328.08 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 211.31 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,928.00 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 1,518.30 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 4,669.31 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 394.81 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 223.39 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 643.91 Iqh LONGEVITY Longevity Hourly 0.00 0.00 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 191.78 ooc MISCELLANEOUS 5% OUT OF CLASS 0.00 239.28 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 44.66 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,665.12 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 147.00 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 290.85 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 147.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 17,963.99 $664,719.56 Total Net Pay: $454,303.81 06/19/2013 Packet Page 93 of 277 Page 2 of 2 AM-5893 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrr"0+inn Submitted By: 4. C. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim check #202856 dated June 21, 2013 for $58,176.97. Approval of payroll check #60275 dated June 21, 2013 for $28,050.00. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll 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: 86,226.97 Fiscal Impact: Claims $58,176.97 Payroll $28,050.00 Fiscal Impact A+fonhmnn+e Claim check 06-21-13 Payroll Summary 06-21-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 94 of 277 Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 06/21/2013 Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 06/21/2013 09:27 AM 06/21/2013 09:31 AM 06/21/2013 09:46 AM 06/21/2013 09:51 AM Started On: 06/21/2013 09:05 AM Packet Page 95 of 277 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/21/2013 9:01:37AM City of Edmonds Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202856 6/21/2013 074469 FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 2012-LGW-0002 OAH 2O12-LI-0002 FINAL ORDER Prejudment Interest 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 5,500.00 Attorney fees 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 48,533.80 Costs against respondent 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 3,223.40 Post judgment interest 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 919.77 Total : 58,176.97 Bank total : 58,176.97 Total vouchers : 58,176.97 Page: 1 Packet Page 96 of 277 Hour Type Hour Class 904 MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 655 (06/2112013 to 06/21/2013) Description Lump -Sum Payout Hours 0.00 0.00 Total Net Pay: Amount 33,000.00 $33,000.00 $28,050.00 06/21 /2013 Packet Page 97 of 277 Page 1 of 1 AM-5887 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Committee: Public Works Finance Submitted By: Carla Raymond Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell a surplus city vehicle. Recommendation 4. D. It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell a surplus city vehicle. Previous Council Action On June 11, 2013 the Council approved the surplus of this vehicle, but there was a scrivener's error, the VIN number was incorrect. The number has been corrected below. Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following vehicle: Unit # 128-WTR 2002 Ford F-250 Utility Truck Vin # 1FTNX20SX2EC51077 Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: $4,500 Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into B-Fund Replacement Account Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carla Raymond Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Form Review Date 06/20/2013 10:40 AM 06/20/2013 10:42 AM 06/20/2013 10:48 AM Started On: 06/20/2013 10:04 AM Packet Page 98 of 277 AM-5883 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: 5 Minutes Carrie Hite Parks and Recreation Action Information Subject Title Proclamation in recognition of Parks & Recreation Month Recommendation Mayor declare July, 2013 as Parks and Recreation Month in Edmonds. Previous Council Action Narrative Committee Action: 71, America has celebrated July as the nation's official Park and Recreation Month for more than 25 years and in 2009 the U.S. House of Representatives officially mandated July as "Park and Recreation Month". Programs like Park and Recreation Month and the First Lady's "Let's Move!" campaign are energizing an American population to adopt healthy lifestyle choices. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) created Park and Recreation Month to specifically promote the many benefits of local parks and recreation, and celebrate the value they bring to their community. This year's theme is " Why I love Parks and Recreation", and we will be reaching out to the community asking citizens to give us their ideas, wishes, desires for the Parks and Recreation Department as part of our planning for the future. Visit a park, build a sand castle, attend a free Sunday concert or an outdoor movie, join the Senior Center walking club, take a class, learn to swim, or adopt a park. Experience the many benefits we have to offer. Tonight Mayor Earling will proclaim July as Park and Recreation Month in Edmonds. Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 09:04 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/20/2013 09:06 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 09:11 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 06/20/2013 08:28 AM Packet Page 99 of 277 Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Packet Page 100 of 277 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Recreation &Parks Month July 2013 WHEREAS, parks and recreation are dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for communities throughout this country, including the City of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation activities provide opportunities for young people to live, grow, and develop into contributing members of society; create lifelines and continuous life experience for older members of the community; generate opportunities for people to come together and experience a sense of community; and pay dividends to communities by attracting businesses, jobs, and increasing housing value; WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who are mentally or physically disabled, and also improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is currently in the process of updating the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, and encourages all citizens to give input into their wishes, desires and priorities for the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation areas are fundamental to the environmental awareness and well-being of our community; and WHEREAS, parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and WHEREAS, the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Park and Recreation Month; and WHEREAS, Edmonds recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources NOW, THEREFORE, I, David Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim July 2013 as Recreation & Parks Month in Edmonds and encourage all citizens to participate in recreational a vities, visit our parks and experience the joy that comes from our spaces and places. David O. Earling Mayor June 25, 2013 Packet Page 101 of 277 AM-5884 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Finance Type: Action Information Subject Title Park Impact Fee Study Public Hearing and Possible Adoption 7. Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Recommendation Council to conduct public hearing in regards to assessing Park Impact Fees. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council to discuss options and adopt Park Impact Fees. Previous Council Action Council authorized the completion of a Park Impact Fee Study on March 6, 2012. Council amended their motion to allow staff to proceed with selection of a consultant on March 20, 2012. On April 23, 2013, Council received the final report and presentation from Randy Young, Young, Henderson and Company, and discussed merits of assessing Park Impact fees. On June 1 lth, the Parks and Finance Committees of the Council discussed various options for Park Impact Fees, and directed staff to come to full Council with options. Narrative Randy Young from Henderson, Young and Company has been working with staff to complete the Park Impact Fee study. Mr. Young made a presentation of his final report, findings and recommendations on April 23rd, 2013. Council was asked to weigh in on several options in regard to the recommendations via email, and included: Park Impact Fee: yes or no? 2. If yes, residential and commercial, or just residential? 3. Low income housing exemption: yes or no? 4. Keep the rates Randy outlined, raise the rates, or lower the rates? 5. Phase in for 2, 3, or 4 years or implement full rate in first year? Based on the input to these questions, staff was charged to come back to the Council committees if there Packet Page 102 of 277 were varying opinions. The Parks Committee and Finance Committees both discussed options, and directed staff to come back with an ordinance, and ECC language to address Park Impact Fees. There were still varying opinions on the specifics listed above, and Randy Young will be available tonight to address these issues as Council discusses options. For the Public Hearing, staff recommend that Council hear a brief presentation by Mr. Young, hold the public hearing, and discuss the merits and options of assessing a Park Impact Fee. It is also recommended that Council adopt a Park Impact Fee at tonight's meeting. Park Impact Fee Rate Study Park Impact Fee Ordinance Edmonds City Code: Park Impact Fees Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 06/21/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/20/2013 04:00 PM 06/21/2013 09:47 AM 06/21/2013 09:51 AM Started On: 06/20/2013 08:39 AM Packet Page 103 of 277 RATE STUDY FOR IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION FACILITIES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EDP � d ,417c�j Sq(0, Prepared By Henderson Young & Company April 5, 2013 Packet Page 104 of 277 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................I 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................3 3. GROWTH ESTIMATES.......................................................................................................................................10 4. PARK IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS..........................................................................20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES.........................................................................................................................................I TABLE2: POPULATION.................................................................................................................................................10 TABLE3: EMPLOYMENT...............................................................................................................................................I I TABLE 4: GROWTH OF EQUIVALENT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT........................................................................12 TABLE 5: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAPITAL VALUE.....................................................................................................14 TABLE 6: VALUE OF PARKS PER EQUIVALENT POPULATION........................................................................................15 TABLE 7: VALUE OF PARKS NEEDED FOR GROWTH.....................................................................................................16 TABLE 8: INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS FOR GROWTH............................................................................................17 TABLE 9: INVESTMENT IN PARKS TO BE PAID BY GROWTH..........................................................................................18 TABLE 10: GROWTH COST PER PERSON.........................................................................................................................19 TABLE 11: IMPACT FEE PER UNIT..................................................................................................................................19 Packet Page 105 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of Edmonds, Washington for parks, open space, and recreation facilities as authorized by RCW' 82.02,090(7). Throughout this study the term "parks" is used as the short name that means parks, open space, and recreation facilities. Summary of Impact Fee Rates Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2, Impact fee rates for new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use. The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for each land use category. Table 1: Impact Fee Rates Type of Development Unit Impact Fee per Unit Single -Family dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Multi -Family dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail sq, ft, 2.48 Office sq, ft, 0.62 Manufacturing sq, ft, 0.72 Construction sq, ft, 0.25 Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy or use the new development. Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners or developers. Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons; 1) to obtain revenue to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to ' Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington. 2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or "broad public purposes", but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 1 Company Packet Page 106 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds serve new development, The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C); system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts); local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or land donations or fees in lieu of land. Organization of the Study This impact fee rate study contains three chapters: • Chapter 1 - Introduction: provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used land use categories, and other introductory materials. • Chapter 2 - Statutory Basis and Methodology: summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement. • Chapter 3 - Growth Estimates: presents estimates of future growth of population and employment in Edmonds because impact fees are paid by growth to offset the cost of parks, open space and recreation facilities that will be needed to serve new development. • Chapter 4 - Park Impact Fees: presents impact fees for parks. The chapter includes the methodology that is used to develop the fees, the formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and the calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the requirements of Washington state law. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 2 Packet Page 107 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State of Washington, and describes how the City of Edmonds' impact fees comply with the statutory requirements. Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess,) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees, RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees. The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), There are several important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements'' (which are "on -site'' and provide service for a particular development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost, time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case -by -case basis. The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the statutes. Types of Public Facilities Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities. RCW 82,02,050(2) and (4), and RC W 82, 02, 090(7) Types of Improvements Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), as opposed to ''project improvements" (which are typically provided by the developer on -site within the development). RCW 82, 02, 050(3) (a) an d RC W 82, 02. 090(5) an d (9) Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 3 Packet Page 108 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Benefit to Development Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which will benefit new development, RCW 82.02.050(3)(0) and (c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land uses. RCW 82.02.060(7) Proportionate Share Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b), RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.090(6) Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(7)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(7)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(4) Exemptions from Impact Fees Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2) and (3) Developer Options Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(6). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5), The developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 4 Packet Page 109 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plans Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of 1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82,02,050(4), RCW 82, 02, 060(8), an d RC W 82, 02, 070(2) New Versus Existing Facilities Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(7)(0) and for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(8) subject to the proportionate share limitation described above. Accounting Requirements The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82,02,070(7)-(3) Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in calculation of the parks impact fee in Chapter 3. Some of the statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below. Types of Public Facilities This study contains impact fees for parks. This study does not contain impact fees for transportation, fire, or schools. In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Edmonds is legally and financially responsible for the parks facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82,02,090 (7), Types of Improvements The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), and "designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in RCW 82,02,090(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 110 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds provided by the developer on -site within the development or adjacent to the development), and "designed to provide service for a development project, and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.090(5). The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are described in Chapter 3. No project improvements are included in this study. Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include land acquisition and development. The costs can also include design studies, engineering, land surveys, appraisals, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements. Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees; 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(7) 1. Proportionate Share. First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies in existing facilities. Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law; • Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways; (1) by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new development when calculating impact fees. • Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense. The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 6 Company Packet Page 111 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are needed to serve new growth). The impact fees calculated in this study include an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion of growth's proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is in response to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2), The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality and design of donated land or recreation facilities can be required to be acceptable to the local government. 2. Reasonably Related to Need. There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be "reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family or business enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services to the fee -paying property or are customers or visitors at the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by the following techniques: Impact fees are charged to properties that need (i.e,, benefit from) new public facilities. The City of Edmonds provides its infrastructure to all kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been calculated for all types of property. The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee amounts (i.e,, different impact values for different types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different numbers of persons per dwelling unit for residential development, and different numbers of employees and visitors for different types of non-residential development. Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use restrictions). Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 7 Packet Page 112 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures. Two provisions of Edmonds' impact fee ordinance comply with the requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City. 4. Service Areas for Impact Fees Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless such "zones" are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee and the development. Because of the compact size of the City of Edmonds and the accessibility of its parks to all property within the City, Edmonds' parks serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. Exemptions The City's impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions, Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as a result of the exemption. Developer Options A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the City of Edmonds. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these provisions are addressed in the City's impact fee ordinance, and none of them affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 8 Packet Page 113 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan There are references in RCW to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et. seq. pertaining to a "capital facilities plan". The City of Edmonds annually adopts a 6-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and also an annual update to its CFP that extends beyond the 6-year CIP. These two documents fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. All references to a CFP in this study are references to the CIP and CFP documents described above. The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of public facility. Chapter 3 provides this analysis. New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government, and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These requirements are addressed by Edmonds' impact fee ordinance, and are not factors in the impact fee calculations in this study. Data Sources The data in this study of impact fees in Edmonds, Washington was provided by the City of Edmonds, unless a different source is specifically cited. Data Rounding The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 9 Packet Page 114 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds I GROWTH ESTIMATES Impact fees are meant to have "growth pay for growth" so the first step in developing an impact fee is to quantify future growth in the City of Edmonds. Growth estimates have been prepared for population and employment. Table 2 lists Edmonds population and growth rates from 1940 to the present, and projections to the year 2025. Table 2: Population Year Population Compound Annual Growth Rate Compound Growth Rate Years 1940 1,288 1950 2,057 4,79% 1940-1950 1960 8,016 14,57% 1950-1960 1970 23,684 1 1,44% 1960-1970 1980 27,679 1,57% 1970-1980 1990 30,744 1, 06% 1980-1990 2000 39,515 2,54% 1990-2000 2010 39,709 0,05% 2000-2010 2011 39,800 0,23% 2010-2011 2025 44,880 0,82% 2010-2025 Source of Population for years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2025: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, December 2012, page 10. Source of Population for 2010: U.S, Census. Source of Population for 2011: Washington Office of Financial Management. In addition to residential population growth, Edmonds expects businesses to grow. Business development is included in this study because businesses and their employees and customers benefit from Edmonds' parks. For example, City parks provide places for employees and customers to fake breaks from work and shopping, including restful breaks and/or active exercise to promote healthy living, The Puget Sound Regional Council monitors "covered employment" which is employment tracked by the Washington State Employment Security Department. The data is tracked for eight different major sectors of employment, such as manufacturing, retail, and services. Table 3 lists employment in Edmonds businesses from 2000 to 2011, and growth that is projected to the year 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 10 Packet Page 115 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 3: Employment Annual Const Change Year /Res FIRE Mfg. Retail Svices. WTU Govt. Educ. Total of Total 2000 666 513 129 1,594 4,735 321 1,402 892 10,253 2001 766 578 114 1,504 4,593 258 1,717 889 10,418 1,61 % 2002 647 522 81 1,437 4,432 267 1,718 897 10,001 -4,00% 2003 750 532 103 1,426 4,442 307 1,915 888 10,362 3,61 % 2004 778 582 69 1,408 4,669 314 1,670 887 10,377 0,14% 2005 842 591 98 1,426 4,830 346 1,897 899 10,929 5,32% 2006 797 642 97 1,419 5,046 397 1,701 881 10,980 0,47% 2007 813 692 79 1,477 5,320 417 1,665 873 11,338 3,26% 2008 776 696 100 1,492 5,639 312 1,690 883 11,588 2,20% 2009 606 484 116 1,368 5,375 297 1,719 900 10,864 -6,25% 2010 535 400 129 1,363 5,261 294 1,747 946 10,675 -1,74% 2011 482 397 137 1,514 7,292 240 380 919 11,362 6,44% 2025 549 452 156 1,725 8,310 274 433 1,047 12,947 0,94% Const/Res = Construction & Resources; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; Mfg, = Manufacturing; Svices. _ Services; WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Govt. = Government; Educ. = Education Source of Employment for 2000 - 2011: Puget Sound Regional Council, Source of Employment for 2025: Henderson, Young & Company, based on 2011 PSRC data and compound annual growth rate from 2000-2011. It is clear from Tables 2 and 3 that Edmonds expects growth of population and businesses in the future, so there is a rational basis for park impact fees that would have future growth to pay for parks, open space and recreation facilities that are needed to provide appropriate levels of service to new development. Population and employment are both expected to grow, but they should not be counted equally because employees and visitors spend less time in Edmonds than residents, therefore they have less benefit from Edmonds' parks. There is a well -established and widely -used technique for accounting for these differences in impact, and if involves "equivalency." The Appendix to this study describes equivalency, and explains how the "equivalent population coefficients" were developed for this study of park impact fees for the City of Edmonds. The result allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. Table 4 multiplies the equivalent population coefficients (from the Appendix) times the actual population and employment data from Tables 2 and 3 to calculate the "equivalent" population for the base year (2011), the horizon year (2025) and the growth between 2011 and 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 11 Packet Page 116 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 4: Growth of Equivalent Population and Employment 2011 2011 2025 2025 2011- 2011- Base Base Horizon Horizon 2025 2025 Year Year Year Year Growth Growth Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Land -Use Category EPQ 1 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 4 Pop 5 Permanent Pop 0.9375 39,800 37,313 44,880 42,075 5,080 4,762 Construction 0.1986 482 96 549 109 67 13 FIRE 0.5056 397 201 452 229 55 28 Manufacturing 0.5814 137 80 156 91 19 11 Retail Trade 2.0038 1,514 3,034 1,725 3,457 211 424 Services 0.5056 7,292 3,687 8,310 4,202 1,018 515 WTU 0.6004 240 144 274 164 34 20 Government 0.7060 380 268 433 306 53 37 Education 0.5357 919 492 1,047 561 128 69 Total n.a. n.a. 45,314 n.a. 51,194 n.a. 5,880 ' Source: Appendix - Equivalent Population Coefficients. 2 Sources: Tables 2 and 3. 3 Equivalent Population = Equivalent Population Coefficient x Full Population. 4 2011-2025 Growth Full Population = 2025 Full Population - 2011 Full Population. e 2011-2025 Growth Equivalent Population = 2025 Equivalent Population - 2011 Equivalent Population The totals in Table 4 provide the equivalent population for the purpose of developing park impact fees for Edmonds. The total equivalent population for the base year (201 1) is 45,314, for the horizon year (2025) is 51,194, therefore the growth between 2011 and 2025 is 5,880. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 12 Packet Page 117 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 4. PARK IMPACT FEES Overview Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities use an inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current investment per person (i.e„ equivalent population or equivalent person). The current investment per person is multiplied times the future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific other revenues that are available and the result is the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net investment by the growth of the equivalent population results in the investment per person that can be charged as impact fees. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each fee -paying development for impact fee cost per person multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development, These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees. Throughout this chapter the term "person" is used as the short name that means equivalent population or equivalent person. Formula 1: Parks Capital Value Per Person The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the asset inventory by the current equivalent population, Value of Parks Current Capital Value ' Inventory _ Equivalent = Per er Person Equivalent population was described in Chapter 3 and explained in the Appendix. There is one new variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks inventory. Variable (A): Value of Parks Inventory The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities is calculated by determining the value of park land and improvements. The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City's park and recreation system. The values in this study come from King County's tax assessment data base. The values of parks in this rate study do not include any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to "front fund" the costs that will be paid by Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 13 Company Packet Page 118 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such costs. Table 5 lists in alphabetical order the inventory of park land and improvements that make up the City of Edmonds' existing park system. Each listing includes the name, type of park, acreage, land value, improvement value and total value. The total value of park land and improvements currently owned by the City of Edmonds is $80.3 million. Table 5: Asset Inventory and Capital Value Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value 144 Railroad Ave Regional 1.0 $ 333,200 $ 200,000 $ 533,200 Tidelands 7th & Elm Neighborhood 1.5 508,500 0 508,500 Anderson Center Neighborhood 2.3 5,363,100 1,983,600 7,346,700 Ballinger Lake Access Special Use 0.1 80,000 100,000 180,000 Beautification Areas (12 Open Space 9.8 200,000 200,000 400,000 sites) Brackett's North Regional 2.7 3,461,300 57,600 3,518,900 Brackett's South Regional 2.0 4,512,600 0 4,512,600 Cemetery Special Use 5.5 1,721,200 16,700 1,737,900 Centennial Plaza Special Use 0.1 25,000 100,000 125,000 City Park Community 14.5 15,895,200 81,500 15,976,700 City Park Maintenance Special Use 1.1 150,000 1,141,192 1,291,192 Bldg Dayton Street Plaza Special Use 0.1 250,000 250,000 Edmonds Library & Plaza Special Use 2.0 2,736,000 2,748,000 5,484,000 Edmonds Marsh/Walkway Open Space 23.2 254,500 0 254,500 Haines Wharf Park Regional 0.5 354,700 2,600,000 2,954,700 Hazel Miller Plaza (Old Special Use 0.5 250,000 150,000 400,000 Milltown) Hickman Neighborhood 5.6 1,414,800 3,000,000 4,414,800 Hummingbird Hill Park Neighborhood 2.0 352,000 0 352,000 Hutt Park Open Space 4.7 744,200 0 744,200 Interurban Trail Special Use 3.4 2,962,080 1,700,000 4,662,080 Maplewood Hill Park Open Space 12.7 2,066,300 0 2,066,300 Marina Beach Park Regional 4.5 535,800 0 535,800 Mathay Ballinger Neighborhood 1.5 70,000 0 70,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park Special Use 1.3 230,000 156,700 386,700 Meadowdale Natural Open Space 2.0 85,100 0 85,100 Area Ocean Ave Viewpoint Special Use 0.2 32,900 50,000 82,900 Olympic Beach Regional 4.3 1,167,300 0 1,167,300 Park/Walkway Olympic View Open Open Space 0.5 10,000 0 10,000 Space Pine Ridge Park Open Space 22.0 4,118,800 0 4,118,800 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 14 Packet Page 119 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value Pine Street Park Neighborhood 1.5 398,800 0 398,800 Seaview Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,143,500 37,600 1,181,100 Seaview Reservoir Open Space 3.0 183,000 0 183,000 Shell Creek Open Space Open Space 1.0 270,400 0 270,400 Sierra Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,812,000 0 1,812,000 South County Senior Center Regional 1.0 5,961,000 624,000 6,585,000 SR 104 Mini Park Special Use 0.3 301,000 0 301,000 SR 104 Wetlands Open Space 9.0 9,200 0 9,200 Stamm Overlook Park Special Use 0.4 386,800 0 386,800 Sunset Ave Overlook Special Use 0.5 240,800 0 240,800 Wade James Theater Special Use 0.7 1,265,000 60,000 1,325,000 Wharf Street Open Space 0.2 30,000 30,000 60,000 Willow Creek Hatchery Special Use 1.0 76,500 0 76,500 Willow Creek Park Open Space 2.2 24,500 0 24,500 Yost Park & Pool Community 48.0 2,900,400 450000 3,350,400 TOTAL 210.4 64,887,480 15,486,892 80,374,372 JOUrce of Jana ana Improvemem vaiues: rung C-ounty Tax assessment TIIes. Table 6 lists the total value of $80,374,372 (from Table 5) and divides it by the current equivalent population of 45,314 (from Table 3) to calculate the capital value of $1,773,71 per equivalent population. Table 6: Value of Parks per Equivalent Population Total Current (2011) Capital Value Value of Equivalent per Equivalent Edmonds Parks Population Population $ 80,374,372 - 45,314 = $ 1,773.71 Formula 2: Value Needed for Growth Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2, The first step in determining growth's needs is to calculate the total value of parks that are needed for growth. The calculation is accomplished by multiplying the capital value per person times the number of new persons that are forecast for the City's growth. Capital Value Equivalent Value Needed 2. x Population = per Person Growth for Growth Table 7 shows the calculation of the value of parks needed for growth. The current capital value per person is from Table 6, The growth in equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 15 Company Packet Page 120 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population is from Table 4. The result is that Edmonds needs to add parks valued at $10.4 million in order to serve the growth of 5,880 additional people who are expected to be added to the City's existing equivalent population. Table 7: Value of Parks Needed for Growth Capital Value Growth of Value per Equivalent Equivalent Needed Population Population for Growth $ 1,773.71 x 5,880 = $ 10,429,210 Formula 3. Investment Needed for Growth The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any existing reserve capacity from the total value of parks needed to serve the growth. Value Value of Investment 3 Needed _ Existing = Needed for for Reserve Growth Growth Capacity There is one new variable used in formula 3 that require explanation; (B) value of existing reserve capacity of parks. Variable (B): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City's existing inventory of parks, and the value of those assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing population. Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value that can be used to serve future population growth )3. Table 8 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that is needed for growth. The value of parks needed to serve growth (from Table 7) is reduced by the value of existing reserve capacity, in this case zero, and the result shows that Edmonds needs to invest $10A million in additional parks in order to serve future growth. 3 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing deficiency. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82,02.050(4) to determine whether or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for any deficiencies. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 16 Company Packet Page 121 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 8: Investment Needed in Parks for Growth Value of Value Existing Investment Needed Reserve Needed for Growth Capacity for Growth $ 10,429,210 $ 0 $ 10,429,210 Formula 4. Investment to be Paid by Growth The future investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth may be reduced if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks. The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total investment in parks needed to serve growth. Investment City Investment 4. Needed for - Investment = to be Paid Growth for Growth by Growth There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (C) revenues used to fund the City's investment in projects that serve growth. Variable (C): City Investment of Non -impact Fee Revenues The City of Edmonds has historically used a combination of state grants and local revenues, such as real estate excise taxes, to pay for the cost of park and recreation capital facilities. The City's plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and some local revenues to pay part of the cost of parks needed for growth. A detailed analysis was made of the City's 2013-18 CIP and 2019-25 CFP. There are a total of $76.13 million of parks projects. $51.98 million add capacity to the park system, and therefore are considered projects eligible for impact fee funding. $15,76 million of the capacity projects have identified potential funding from grants and/or local revenues. $15,76 million is 30.33% of $51.98 million, therefore grants and local revenues will pay for 30.33% of park projects that add "capacity" to the park system for new development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets. Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not contribute to such projects. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 17 Company Packet Page 122 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The other potential credits that reduce capacity costs (and subsequent impact fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and the City of Edmonds. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a case -by -case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid. Table 9 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to serve growth (from Table 8), is multiplied times 30,33% to calculate the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local revenues. The result is that growth in Edmonds needs to pay $10,4 million for additional parks to maintain the City's standards for future growth. The City expects to use $3.1 million in grant and local revenue towards this cost (calculated at 30.33% of $10,4 million needed for growth), and the remaining $7.3 million will be paid by growth. Table 9: Investment in Parks to be Paid by Growth Investment City Investment Investment Needed for Growth @ to be Paid for Growth 30.33% by Growth $ 10,429,210 - $ 3,163,265 = $ 7,265,945 Formula 5: Growth Cost Per Person The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population growth. Investment Growth of Growth Cost 5, to be Paid - Equivalent = by Growth Population per Person There are no new variables used in formula 5. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. Table 10 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to be paid by growth (from Table 9), is divided by the growth population (from Table 4), and the result shows that cost for parks to be paid by growth is $1,235.73 per person. Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 123 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 10: Growth Cost per Person Investment Growth of Growth Cost per to be Paid Equivalent Equivalent by Growth Population Population $ 7,265,945 - 5,880 = $ 1,235.73 Formula 6: Impact Fee per Unit of Development The amount to be paid by each new development unit depends on the equivalent population coefficient. The cost per unit of development is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per person by the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development. Growth Cost Equivalent 6, x Population per Person Coefficient Cost per Unit = of Development There are no new variables used in formula 6. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. However, the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix were calculated for standard increments of 1,000 square feet, but the impact fee is charged per square foot, therefore the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix are divided by 1,000 and the result is used in Table 11. Table 11 shows the calculation of the parks impact fee per unit of development. The growth cost of $1,253.73 per person from Table 10 is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient to calculate the impact fee per unit of development. Table 11: Impact Fee per Unit Type Of Development Growth Cost per Equivalent Person Equivalent Population Coefficient Unit of Development Impact Fee Per Unit of Development Residential - single family 1,235.73 2.2125000 dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Residential - multi family 1,235.73 1.8937500 dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail 1,235.73 0.0020038 square foot 2.48 Office 1,235.73 0.0005056 square foot 0.62 Manufacturing 1,235.73 0.0005814 square foot 0.72 Construction 1,235.73 0.0001986 square foot 0.25 Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 124 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS What is "Equivalency"? When governments analyze things that are different than each other, but which have something in common, they sometimes use "equivalency" as the basis for their analysis. For example, many water and sewer utilities calculate fees based on an average residential unit, then they calculate fees for business users on the basis of how many residential units would be equivalent to the water or sewer service used by the business. This well -established and widely practiced method uses "equivalent residential units" (ERUs) as the multiplier that uses the rate for one residence to calculate a variety of rates for different types of businesses. If a business needs a water connection that is double the size of an average house, that business is 2.0 ERUs, and would pay fees that are 2.0 times the fee for an average residential unit. Another use of "equivalency" that is used in public sector organizations is "full time equivalent" (FTE) employees. One employee who works full-time is 1.0 FTE, A half-time employee is 0.5 FTE. By adding up the FTE coefficients of all part-time employees, the total is the FTE (full-time equivalent) of all the part-time employees. Cities like Renton and Redmond charge business licenses on the basis of the number of employees in each business. In order to be fair to businesses with part-time employees, they convert the part-time employee count to FTE, and then pay the fee per FTE. Equivalency and Park Impact Fees The use of equivalency can be used to develop park impact fees that apply to new commercial development as well as residential development. Equivalent population coefficients for park impact fees use the same principles as ERUs or FTEs to measure differences among residential population and different kinds of businesses in their availability to benefit from Edmonds' parks. They document the nexus between parks and development by quantifying the differences among different categories of park users. The analysis that calculates equivalent population coefficients takes into account several factors and reports the result as a statistic that allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. The "equivalency" calculation recognizes that employees and visitors have less time in Edmonds to benefit from Edmonds' parks (in the same way that part-time employees spend less time on the job than full-time employees). The equivalent population coefficients are used in two ways. First, they are multiplied times the number of employees in different types of businesses in Edmonds to count employees and visitors to businesses as "equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 20 Company Packet Page 125 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population" in Edmonds. This provides a total population of residents, employees and visitors that will be used to calculate the park value per equivalent population. Second, the adjusted park growth cost per equivalent population is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of business to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of business. Calculation of Equivalent Population Coefficients for Park Impact Fees There are two parts to the equivalent population coefficient: (1) employees, and (2) visitors. Table A-14 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing employees: the number of days per week and hours per day that different types of businesses are typically open, the percent of hours that the employees are typically at the business location, and the resulting number of hours per day that each employee is in their business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-1: Employee Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Employees Days per Week at Location Hours per Day at Location' Percent of Time At Location' Hours in Location per Person 2 Construction 5 9.0 25.0% 11.2500 FIRE 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Manufacturing 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Retail Trade 7 9.0 100.0% 63.0000 Services 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 WTU 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Government 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Education 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities ' Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 2 Hours in Location per Person = (#days/week x # hours/day x % of time at location) Table A-2 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing visitors: the number of days per week that different types of businesses are typically open, the number of hours that visitors are typically at the business location, the number of visitors per employee at different types of business, and the resulting 4 The original version of Tables A-1 through A-3 was developed by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a leading scholar and researcher in the field of impact fees. The table appeared in Nelson's 2004 Planner's Estimating Guide, The Underlying employee data has been updated to the most recent edition (2008) of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 21 Company Packet Page 126 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds number of visitor hours per employee that visitors are in the business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-2: Visitor Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Visitors Days per Week at Location' Hours per Day at Location' Visitors Per Employees Visitor Hours in Location per Employee ° Construction 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 FIRE 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 Manufacturing 5 1,0 0,7668 3,8340 Retail Trade 7 1,0 15.0461 105.3227 Services 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 WTU 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 Government 5 1,0 4,6605 23.3025 Education 5 na na 0,0000 Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 3 Visitors per Employee from Planner's Estimating Guide, Does not include tourists. which are important to Edmonds, but for which no data is available that measures tourists per employee by type of business. ° Visitor Hours in Location per Employee = (#days/week x # hours/day x visitors/employee) Table A-3, presents the last step in calculating the equivalent population coefficient. Employee hours are added to visitor hours per employee for each type of business. The total is divided the total by 84 hours per week. Parks are considered a "daytime" public facility that is assumed to be available 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, for a total of 84 hours5, The result of this calculation is the daytime equivalent population coefficient for each type of business. Table A-3: Equivalent Population Coefficients Land -Use Category Total Total Hours in Location per Employee 5 Daytime Equivalent Population Coefficient - Hours @ 84 Construction 16.6860 0.1986 FIRE 42.4740 0.5056 Manufacturing 48.8340 0.5814 Retail Trade 168.3227 2.0038 Services 42.4740 0.5056 WTU 50.4360 0.6004 Government 59.3025 0.7060 Education 45.0000 0.5357 5 Total Hours in Location per Employee = Employee Hours + Visitor Hours s By way of comparison, police and fire facilities are considered to be "24-hour" public facilities, therefore 24 x 7 = 168 hours for their equivalent population coefficient calculations, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 22 Company Packet Page 127 of 277 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The equivalent population coefficient for residential development is based on the same methodology, but without a separate factor for visitors because residences do not have regular visitors that can be quantified like a business. The residential coefficient assumes 7 days a week, 15 hours per day, 75% at the location, for a total of 78.75 hours in location. Dividing 78.75 by 84 hours for daytime facilities (described above) produces an equivalent population coefficient of 0.9375 for residential development. When calculating the impact fee, the coefficient is multiplied times the average number of persons per housing unit. A single family home has an average of 2.36 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.36 = 2.2125. A multi -family unit, such as an apartment or condominium, has an average of 2.02 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.02 = 1.89375. As noted previously, the equivalent population coefficients will be multiplied times the number of employees in each type of business and the residential population to calculate the total equivalent population in Edmonds. Later in the impact fee calculation, the equivalent population coefficient is multiplied times the growth cost per equivalent population for each type of business and housing unit to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of development. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 23 Packet Page 128 of 277 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 et seq. authorizes cities to impose impact fees upon new development; and WHEREAS the 2008 adopted Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan calls for exploration into several revenue options to fund parks, including park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, Randy Young from Henderson Young and Company made a presentation to the city council on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012, the city council held a public hearing on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2013, the city council held another public hearing on this proposed park impact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, the collection of park impact fees will add an important source of revenue that will help the city implement its plans to add and/or enhance capital facilities within its park system; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Park Impact Fees," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto an incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Packet Page 129 of 277 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, 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 130 of 277 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 A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 131 of 277 Edmonds, WA Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 PARK IMPACT FEES Sections: 3.36.010 Findings and authority. 3.36.020 Definitions. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. 3.36.040 Exemptions. 3.36.050 Credits. 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. 3.36.070 Appeals. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. 3.36.090 Refunds. 3.36.100 Use of funds. 3.36.110 Review. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. 3.36.010 Findings and authority. The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to assess impact fees for parks. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the park system. 3.36.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning. 1. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015. 2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, 1 Packet Page 132 of 277 demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. 3. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for parks. All references to a CFP in the impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to the parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan. 4. "City" means the city of Edmonds. 5. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds. 6. "Department" means the development services department. 7. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. 8. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the commencement of a development activity. 9. "Director" means the director designed by the mayor to administer the park impact fee program or that director's designee. 10. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050. 11. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. 12. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. 13. [reserved] 14. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010. 15. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application. 16. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. 17. "Independent fee calculation" means the park impact calculation and/or 2 Packet Page 133 of 277 economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120, or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. 18. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds. 19. [reserved] 20. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use where none previously existed. 21. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. 22. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.150. 23. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement. 24. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental entities. 25. "Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of Edmonds, dated April 5, 2013. 26. "Residential" or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single- family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments. 27. [reserved] 28. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds. 29. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system improvements for which the impact fee is assessed. 30. [reserved] 31. "State" means the state of Washington. 32. [reserved] 33. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3 Packet Page 134 of 277 3.36.120, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein, including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for public facilities. 1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory to a residential use, and signs. 2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for which there is no increase in the number of residential units. 3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the park impact fee rates in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit. 1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use. 2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3. [reserved] 4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. C. Payment. Impact fees shall be paid at the time the building permit or business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 have been paid in the amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050. 3.36.040 Exemptions. A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the 4 Packet Page 135 of 277 payment of all impact fees under this chapter: 1. Low-income housing provided by non-profit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity. Owners of low-income single family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute and record a lien against the property, in favor of the City, for a period of ten (10) years guaranteeing that the dwelling unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the Low-income housing is exempted, plus interest shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall pay the City the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.050 Credits. A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any park system improvements provided by the feepayer, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving the development activity. B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection A of this section. C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an independent appraiser acceptable to the director. D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the City and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by - case basis. F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded. G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of 5 Packet Page 136 of 277 such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to accept any proposed dedication. I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments for park impact fees, the feepayer shall submit receipts and a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public park facilities. J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit. K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. 3.36.070 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other provisions of city ordinance. C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein: 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city; 2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review; 3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; Ce Packet Page 137 of 277 this shall be the same as that imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision; 4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for review. D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the park impact account. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within ten years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the ten-year period. Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the ten-year period, the council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. 3.36.090 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first -out basis. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for a park impact fee refund. This notification shall be done by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a 7 Packet Page 138 of 277 refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur; provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.100 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations. B. Park impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying, land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously 1-1 Packet Page 139 of 277 incurred by the city to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. 3.36.110 Review. The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council. The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows: A. Effective October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $1,660.19 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $1,421.01 per dwelling unit. 3. Retail: $1.24 per square foot. 4. Office: $0.31 per square foot. 5. Manufacturing: $0.36 per square foot. 6. Construction: $0.12 per square foot. B. Effective October 1, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $3,320.38 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $2,842.02 per dwelling unit. 3. Retail: $2.48 per square foot. 4. Office: $0.62 per square foot. 5. Manufacturing: $0.72 per square foot. 6. Construction: $0.25 per square foot. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks, the department may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the 7 Packet Page 140 of 277 calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be agreed to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the city for conducting the review of the independent fee calculation shall be $200.00 plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the city, unless otherwise established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review. C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case - by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the feepayer. D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21 C and 82.02 RCW. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. 10 Packet Page 141 of 277 AM-5878 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: 15 Minutes Stephen Clifton Community Services Action Information Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3921 - Adopting Amendments to Zoning Regulations to Allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones. Recommendation June 12, 2013 - The Edmonds Planning Board voted to support Interim Ordinance 3921 subject to two recommended amendments (Attachment #1, pages 2, 4, 7 and 8 - amendments highlighted in red text). Previous Council Action May 21, 2013 - The City Council approved Interim Ordinance 3921 adopting amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21; the ordinance is good for a period of up to six months, as long as the City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390). May 21, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3922, related to amending ECC Chapter 4.90 (licensing); although this ordinance does not require a public hearing by the Planning Board or City Council, Ordinance 3922 was provided to the Planning Board for reference purposes. May 22, 2013 - The Planning Board conducted a public workshop to review and discuss the interim ordinance. June 12, 2013 - The Edmonds Planning Board voted to support Interim Ordinance 3921 subject to two recommended amendments (Attachment #1, pages 2, 4, 7 and 8 - amendments highlighted in red text). Narrative During the summer of 2012, Edmonds Historical Museum representatives contacted City staff and asked about the ability of allowing a produce and food farmers' market to operate each Wednesday evening within the Community Business (BC) or Downtown Business (BD) zone beginning in September and operating until late November of 2012. The most likely location to operate a produce and food only farmers' market at that time was on the Salish Crossing property located at the northwest corner of Dayton Street and SR104. On September 18, 2012, the City Council passed an interim ordinance that Packet Page 142 of 277 would have allowed community oriented open-air and/or farmers' markets to operate within BD and BC zones throughout the year. Unfortunately, market sponsors were not able to move forward with this proposal and the interim ordinance has since expired. The Edmonds Historical Museum is now able to move forward with this proposal and would like to begin operations on June 12, 2013 on the Salish Crossing property. Upon the review of existing regulations applicable to such a proposal, City staff found that current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and food farmers' market from operating each Wednesday evening during any month of the year. Additionally, existing regulations conflict with current operations of the Edmonds Historical Museum Garden and Summer Markets that take place each Saturday. Specifically, while current code allows a community oriented open-air market to operate only during the months of July, August and September of each year, the Garden and Summer Markets operate from early May through early October. One other find is that while City officials and staff, as well as community residents, have discussed for many years the possibility and/or feasibility of establishing a year-round farmer's or public market, current regulations would not allow this to happen. To move toward the goal of operating a farmers'/community oriented open-air/seasonal farmers' market and/or public market during any time of the year and within various commercial zones, and to address current issues related to licensing these types of activities, I worked with the City Attorney and City staff on a new interim ordinance that would amend Titles 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), albeit similar to the interim ordinance approved on September 18, 2012. A second ordinance amends Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 4.90 (Community Oriented Open Air Markets) related to licensing markets as this chapter was also outdated and needed to be revised to meet the goals outlined below. Review of Existing City Codes Review of the existing City of Edmonds Development Code (ECDC) and Edmonds City Code (ECC) revealed the following. Depending on the type of market proposed, regulations limit where and when markets can take place and preclude the ability of markets to take place year round, or for extended periods of time. 1. Community Oriented Open -Air Markets - are currently allowed within BD or BC zones as well as General Commercial (GC). Although this use is allowed per Sections 16.43.020 16.50.010 and 16.60.010 of the ECDC, the term is not included in ECDC Title 21 - Instead, the definition was contained in ECC Section 4.90.010 which stated: a "site or location where new or used items are sold by two or more individual vendors, with each vendor operating independently from the other vendors and subleasing booths, stalls or tables for the purpose of placing before the public for sale on a temporary basis used goods, new wares or merchandise. The activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week during the months of July, August and September of each year. " Additionally, "No other community oriented open-air market activities shall be licensed nor eligible as a permitted use under the provisions of Sections 16.60.020(D) and 16.15.010 (A) "; these references are no longer valid since the particular subsections were previously removed from the ECDC. ECC Chapter 4.90 stated this chapter is "established by the Edmonds city council in order to study the effects of open air markets on the community and determine appropriate limits and conditions for license issuance " and references issuing licenses to nonprofit community organizations "Based upon limited right-of-way and other available area and the 1994 working test. " Most within the community of Edmonds would agree that year 2013 is well past the testing period and that the current Garden and Summer markets are Packet Page 143 of 277 successful and well run. Chapter 4.90 not only precluded the ability of other community oriented open-air markets to exist within the City, it also limited community oriented open-air market activities to the months of July, August and September. Current Garden and Summer market operations run from May through October of each year. 2. Farmers Market - is not expressly defined or listed within ECDC Title 21 or ECC Chapter 4.90 as a permitted use within the BC and BD zones. 3. Seasonal Farmers Market - is expressly defined in ECDC Section 21.90.009 and is an allowed use within BC and BD zones, however, the activity is "permitted only during the period between May and September, inclusive, of any given year." This would limit the Edmonds Historical Museum's proposal to operate a produce and food farmers market into late fall. Additionally, it is difficult to determine whether the provisions of ECC Section 4.90.010, which limited daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week during the months of July, August and September, also applied to seasonal farmers' markets. Highlights of Proposed Amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21 and ECC Chapter 4.90 Goals of amending ECDC Titles 16 and 21 in addition to ECC Chapter 4.90 are to: 1. create one definition that would be located in ECDC Title 21 - Definitions and could apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets; the term Public Market is the preferred term included within the proposed attached draft 2. allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within buildings, or both 3. allow public markets to operate in public rights of way, private property, and public property not located within public rights of way 4. establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic, residential properties, etc. 5. allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time, e.g., four months, 8 months, or year-round 6. remove provisions of ECC Chapter 4.90, Section 4.90.060, that are more land use oriented and move them to ECDC Sections 16.43 and 16.50 The attached interim zoning ordinances meet all of the goals cited above, in the following ways: Goals 1 and 2. The term Community Oriented Open -Air Market has been deleted from ECC Section 4.90.010 - Definitions. A new Section 21.80.103, entitled "Public Market," would be added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows: "21.80.103 Public Market Public Market shall mean an indoor and/or outdoor retail market open to the public consisting of two or more independent vendors, with each vendor operating independently from other vendors and subleasing booths, stalls or tables for the purpose of placing before the public farm -grown or home-grown produce, food, flowers, plants or other similar perishable goods; or the sale of farm -grown or home-grown produce, food, flowers, plants or other similar perishable goods, and new wares, used goods or merchandise." The term Public Market would allow a stand-alone produce only farmers market, or a farmers market with produce, meats, cheeses, flowers and products produced from these (food), or the kind of spring and summer market that is currently operated by the Edmonds Historical Museum, i.e., produce, flowers, meats, bread, bakery items, arts and crafts, etc. The term also allows the use to take place indoors or outdoors. Goals 3 and 4. Amendments to ECC Section 4.90.020(C) reference operations that might take place in Packet Page 144 of 277 public rights of way, private property, and/or public property not located within public rights of way and establishes hours of operations. More specifically, "activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within public rights of way, but extended hours are allowed up to 10 p.m. for any day of the week if the market takes place outdoors on private property or public property not located within public rights of way. Operational hours related to activities of the market are not so limited when the market takes place within a fully enclosed building." Goal 5. Proposed amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21, and adopted amendments to ECC Chapter 4.90, do not place restrictions on what months a public market can operate, thus allowing a market to operate year-round. Goal 6. ECC Section 4.90.060 has been deleted and relocated to ECDC Title 16. This language relates more to land use which is why it has been moved to Sections 16.43.040 and 16.50.030 - Operating restrictions. NOTE: Existing ECDC Section 16.60.010 - General Commercial (CG) zoning allows "All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this section", thus, a public market would be allowed in this zone as well, just as community oriented open-air and seasonal farmers' markets are today. The City Council approved Interim Ordinance 3921 on May 21, 2013 adopting amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21; the ordinance is good for a period of up to six months, as long as the City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390). The Planning Board conducted a public workshop and public hearing on May 22, 2013 and June 12, 2013 respectively to review and discuss the interim ordinance and is proposing two minor amendments (see Attachment #1, pages 2, 4, 7 and 8 - amendments highlighted in red text). Ordinance 3922, related to amending ECC Chapter 4.90, approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013, did/does not require a public hearing by the Planning Board or City Council but was provided to the Planning Board for reference purposes and is also included within this council packet. Proposed Changes to ECDC Titles 16 and 21 and ECC Chapter 4.90 Strategic Action Plan Relationship The proposed ordinance relates to the following plan actions: • Plan Action 2a.2 (33) Farmers'/Public Market. "Expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out -of -area customers and tourists." • Plan Action 1b.5 (21) Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing. "Encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site." Amendments to Titles 16 and 21, as contained within Interim Ordinance 3921, would allow for a year round public market that could take place indoors, outdoors and/or both on private, public property or public rights of way. Attachments Packet Page 145 of 277 Interim Ordinance 3921 - Includes Proposed Planning Board Amendments from June 12, 2013 Public Hearing Interim Ordinance 3921 - Adopting Amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21 - Approved by City Council on May 21, 2013 Ordinance 3922 - Amendments to ECC Chapter 4.90 (Licensing) - Approved by CC on May 21, 2013 June 12, 2013 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft Minutes May 21, 2013 City Council Minutes - Agenda item 16 begins on pg. 15 May 22, 2013 Draft Planning Board Minutes - Agenda item begins on pg. 6 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Form Review Date 06/18/2013 02:05 PM 06/20/2013 09:06 AM 06/20/2013 09:11 AM Started On: 06/18/2013 11:00 AM Packet Page 146 of 277 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds only allows seasonal farmers markets to operate during the period between May and September, inclusive; and WHEREAS, there has been interest expressed in having a public market operating any time of the year; and WHEREAS, the city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a farmers market in the BC or BD zone on days other than Saturdays; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not expressly list farmers markets or public markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones; and WHEREAS, the operation of a public market would not likely result in any long term changes in the physical appearance of the city; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt zoning regulations that will allow public markets to operate in the BC and BD zones year round; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board will be conducting a public hearing on these regulations, and will be transmitting its recommendation to the City Council, but not in time for the proposed market to open at the proposed time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council will also be conducting a public hearing on these interim zoning regulations either contemporaneously with or within sixty days of their adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Packet Page 147 of 277 Section 1. Definition of Public Market. A new section 21.80.103, entitled "Public Market," is hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows: 21.80.103 Public Market. Public market shall mean an indoor and/or outdoor retail market oven to the public consisting of two or more independent vendors, with each vendor operating independently from other vendors and subleasing booths, stalls or tables for the purpose of selling farm -grown arm -grown or home-grown produce, food, flowers, plants or other similar perishable goods, and/or new wares, used goods or merchandise. Section 3. Deletion of Definition of Seasonal Farmers' Market. Section 21.90.009 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Seasonal farmers' market," which reads as follows: WSTIWATATO - - is hereby repealed. Section 4. Community Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.50.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough): 16.50.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Community or-ien4edo irPublic markets „duetva as an/outdoor- oper-atietH and -licensed pursuant to provisions in tlit-Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90; 0 Packet Page 148 of 277 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.; 13Seasonal f ..mer-s ,.,.,.,,.vo� B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4. Amusement establishments; 5. Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8. Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. 03 Packet Page 149 of 277 D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. Section 5. Community Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section 16.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seasonal farmefs-!-Public markets, provided that when located next to a single family zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. C. Interim Use Status — Public Markets: 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the public market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. Section 6. Downtown Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.43.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough): 4 Packet Page 150 of 277 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Cenu unity oriented open air -Public markets eendueted as an outdoor- oper-ation an licensed pursuant to provisions in the -Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90. A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Packet Page 151 of 277 Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: R Packet Page 152 of 277 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. Section 7. Downtown Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section 16.43.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5_SeasoHal fi ers'Public markets provided that when located next to a single family zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 EC 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. 7 Packet Page 153 of 277 C. Interim Use Status - Public Markets: 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. Section 8. General Commercial Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.60.040.A of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strilethfettgh): 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6. Public markets ' far-mefs markets s provided that when located next to a single family zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. [Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets: 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as an year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall Packet Page 154 of 277 be considered a temporary use. As a temporary activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. Section 9. Purpose. The purpose of the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is to establish the development regulations that will allow public markets to operate in the BC, BD and CG zones while the Planning Board holds a public hearing, gains public input on this issue, provides a recommendation to Council, and the Council considers the final version of the ordinance on this subject. Section 10. Duration of Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance within 60 days of adoption and shall adopt findings of fact justifying this Interim Zoning Ordinance no later than immediately after that hearing. This Ordinance shall only be effective for six (6) months from the effective date. Section 11. Duration of Public Market. No public market established pursuant to this interim ordinance shall have a duration longer than six (6) months. Section 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Page 155 of 277 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 10 Packet Page 156 of 277 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 INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 4852-4054-9897, v. 1 Packet Page 157 of 277 ORDINANCE NO.3921 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds only allows seasonal farmers markets to operate during the period between May and September, inclusive; and WHEREAS, there has been interest expressed in having a public market operating any time of the year; and WHEREAS, the city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a farmers market in the BC or BD zone on days other than Saturdays; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not expressly list farmers markets or public markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones; and WHEREAS, the operation of a public market would not likely result in any long term changes in the physical appearance of the city; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt zoning regulations that will allow public markets to operate in the BC and BD zones year round; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board will be conducting a public hearing on these regulations, and will be transmitting its recommendation to the City Council, but not in time for the proposed market to open at the proposed time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council will also be conducting a public hearing on these interim zoning regulations either contemporaneously with or within sixty days of their adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Packet Page 158 of 277 Section 1. Definition of Public Market. A new section 21.80.103, entitled "Public Market," is hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows: 21.80.103 Public Market. Public market shall mean an indoor and/or outdoor retail market oven to the public consisting of two or more independent vendors with each vendor operating independently from other vendors and subleasing booths, stalls or tables for the purpose of selling farm -grown or home-grown produce, food, flowers,. _plants or other similar perishable goods, and new wares used odds or merchandise. Section 3. Deletion of Definition of Seasonal Farmers' Market. Section 21.90.009 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Seasonal farmers' market," which reads as follows: .II.. e is hereby repealed. Section 4. Community Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.50.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethfough): 16.50.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone; 2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment sales and services; 3. New automobile sales and service; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents; 5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments; 6. Bus stop shelters; 7. Cemnmnity oriented epe Public markets and -licensed pursuant to provisions in Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90; N Packet Page 159 of 277 8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a structure; 9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070, 13. Seasonal famers markets. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use; 3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Commercial parking lots; 2. Wholesale uses; 3. Hotels and motels; 4. Amusement establishments; 5. Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions; 6. Drive-in businesses; 7. Laboratories; 8. Fabrication of light industrial products; 9. Convenience stores; 10. Day-care centers; 11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; 12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 3 Packet Page 160 of 277 1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use; 2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC. Section 5. Community Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section 16.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in triketh ,g ): 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5 Seasonal famwfsPublic markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. C. Interim Use Status — Public Markets: 1. Unless a ublic market is identified on a business license as a ear -round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market_ shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council finds that M signs or structures used its accordance with the public market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market theublic market use shall not decrease the require available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. Section 6. Downtown Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.43.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethfough): 4 Packet Page 161 of 277 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A Offices A A A A A Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Community eFiented open Public markets reenducted as an eutdoOF operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the -Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90. A A A A A Seasonal %HHOFS markets A A A A A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling A A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through(R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Packet Page 162 of 277 Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C C C C X Wholesale uses X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C Drive-in businesses C C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Day-care centers C C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 31 Packet Page 163 of 277 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. Section 7. Downtown Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section 16.43.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikedffeugh): 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Seri....l f nne Public markets; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 EC 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. C. Interim Use Status - Public Markets: 7 Packet Page 164 of 277 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, thepublic market use shall not decrease the required available parking far the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. Section 8. General Commercial Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.60.040.A of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Operating restrictions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ikethfeug''): 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010(B); 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 6. Ge it oriepAed Public markets w seasonalf "'''markets; 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 8. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. [Ord. 3902 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. B. Interim Use Status - Public Markets: 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as an year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a tem ora use. As a te=oraa activity, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. n Packet Page 165 of 277 Section 9. Purpose. The purpose of the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is to establish the development regulations that will allow public markets to operate in the BC, BD and CG zones while the Planning Board holds a public hearing, gains public input on this issue, provides a recommendation to Council, and the Council considers the final version of the ordinance on this subject. Section 10. Duration of Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance within 60 days of adoption and shall adopt findings of fact justifying this Interim Zoning Ordinance no later than immediately after that hearing. This Ordinance shall only be effective for six (6) months from the effective date. Section 11. Duration of Public Market. No public market established pursuant to this interim ordinance shall have a duration longer than six (6) months. Section 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPR P60 6��L ', MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: At-'-A� .zd �� CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE G7 Packet Page 166 of 277 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 3921 05-17-2013 05-21-2013 05-26-2013 05-31-2013 10 Packet Page 167 of 277 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3921 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 21 St day of May, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds passed Ordinance No. 3921. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 22"a day of May, 2013. 4852-4054-9897,v. 1 11 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 168 of 277 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, } COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH .,4—UMMARY_QP ORDINANCE NO, atY21 'I IE cit1yy of ErMds. Wuchingto t On the 21st day o1 May, 20t3, the City Cpuncll of tha Clty of Edmonds ppassod OrdinnV'a nce No. 3921. A summary of Iho nlerll of &aid oidiRARCn, conalstlnpp of th00 Ilife, pmrldea sa ftslhws; AN 0R1)1NANCE OF THE CITY OF EDhtONDS, wA$HINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO YONtNG REGULATION$ THAT WOULD At.LOW PUBLIC MARKET$ IN THE BC, Bit AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AN[) ESTABt1SHINO AN EFFECTIVE OATS. The full text ❑H thT60(dinance will be rrialled upon request. DATED this 221d day of Mal.2013. Published: May 28, 2013. ITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Account Name: City of Edmonds S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3921 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: May 26, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 2013 — [). -, i Notary Public in and for the State of 1 County, Account Number: 101416 27th ° NQTARY to r L dip� t EvePttjj§VWprmslt 2-17-2016 Q� OF WASN��C� Order Number: 0001821848 Packet Page 169 of 277 ORDINANCE NO.3922 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 4.90 RELATED TO LICENSING AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MARKETS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds historically only allows seasonal farmers markets to operate during the period between May and September, inclusive; and WHEREAS, there has been expressed interest in having public markets operating any time of the year; and WHEREAS, the City would like to update its licensing requirements for such public markets; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90 does not expressly include public market as a use subject to permitting and licensing requirements of this chapter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Community Oriented Open Air Markets," is hereby retitled "Public Markets" and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stril eugk): Chapter 4.90 G-GRA11AI NITV ORIENTED PUBLIC OPEN AIR MARKETS Sections: 4.90.010 Definitions. 4.90.020 Activities requiring a license. 4.90.025 Exemptions. 4.90.030 Prohibited activities. 4.90.040 Licensees limited to nonprofit community oriented organizations. 1 Packet Page 170 of 277 4.90.050 Sponsor licensee — Business license required when. 4.90.070 License fee. 4.90.080 Term of license. 4.90.090 Application for license. 4.90.100 Records. 4.90.110 Administration. 4.90.120 Violation of the provisions of the chapter — Civil infraction. 4.90.010 Definitions. A "Community oriented open airPublic market" shall mean a site OF IGGation mVhp—re Rew or used items are so Id--�y--two-��•�nore--in da vifi�aa I-ve�ior�-w+t#-easkw�dor-c3perat+eg•iade�en�i e�-tly-f�srx►--the-otk�e��e rod ors and subleasing booths; -stalls -or tables4ar-the-puflpB6�a(;4ng before the PuWiG4GP4a1gon a temp©rary basis Used goods, new waFes OF is defined in ECDC 21.80.103. The aGtWitwes of the market shall be limited to dayli-qht heur6 on Saturdav and Sunday of eaGIIAyeek- during- the rr3n4-Se tember o€ 2aG ear N�etha� m u t affe��ted� market-aGfiv4ie&-sha1I-be licef}sed under e �revlsioras of this chapter per eti lea er itted�sse under the mv•6ions of CGDG 1660 020( ) and 1R 1 F !11l1 /A1 cD� B. "Vendor" shall mean any person, association, group, partnership, corporation or firm who exhibits goods or services in a public market provided through a duly licensed sponsor, for the purpose of selling, bartering, trading, exchanging for advertising such goods or services for sale. C. "Sponsor" shall mean any person, association, group, partnership, corporation or firm engaged in the business of providing to any vendor, directly or indirectly, sale spaces, areas or structures within a site licensed fora GOMMURity oriented open aifp.uLblic market for the purpose of using such location during the term of the market's license. During the study phase in which this ordinance is effective, the promoter shall be a nonprofit organization as described in ECC 4.90.040. i�--c3alefi7� �a�l�i �uri-army-8i�1 W-L•lVat ; �t r3d-6 a , setrt{c)�3nit-unitf��loor area lif�Q licensed-coea -tgy-oriented-operation-where-c,}oods-0r-serrises-are--offered-er-diWayed h�envendor for the p irnoce of le �rle barter, evnhange or advertisement. �,-,o,-�r<�sa,� �, E-:-"Rerita-space"-shall-meann-all••space-at-tbe4iG&Psed--b siBess-losatior4-ta•be used4or4heupdertakeg beinooensed-exoent fiat spase-speclfatally-set-aside-an designatF,�e#iclL-parklag-f+re--lanes 4.90.020 Activities requiring a license. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, use or permit property to be used as a public market until the market and site have been licensed under this chapter. No person shall then sell or offer for sale products at any location in conjunction with a market activity until sponsor has been duly licensed and each vendor Packet Page 171 of 277 submitted to the city. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to authorize activities to be conducted in accordance with the market's activities unless appropriately licensed as required under another provision of this code; provided, however, that business license requirements are limited as provided in ECC 4.90.050. For example, pawnbrokers and dealers of secondhand goods shall not conduct activities in accordance with a market until duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4.75 ECC. Licensing under the provision of this chapter shall be an alternative to special event licensing under the authority of the city council or a license for a public amusement as required under Chapter 4.32 ECC. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale goods at a Gommunity oriented open aifp.ubfic market unless such person has been listed on the application fee of the licensee and paid the processing requirement specified herein. B. All structures employed on the site shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to the Uniform Building and Fire Code elements.. C. The activities of the public market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within Pubiic rights of way, but extended hours are allowed up to 10 p.m. for a ny day of the week if the market takes place outdoors on private property or Qublic property not located within gublic rights of way. Operational hours related to activities of the public market are not limited when the market takes place within a fully enclosed building. 4.90.025 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not be applied to: A. Require any farmer, gardener or other person who sells any fruits, vegetables or other farm produce or edibles produced by such person within Snohomish County, Washington and exempt pursuant to RCW 36.71.090 from paying any fee or application. Such persons are exempt from the licensing and fee requirements of ECC 4.90.080 but may be listed by the licensee as a vendor when sales are conducted in conjunction with a public market. B. n--ii dMd-61al GA his aF heF pFisr TLC-tlrnes peryeaF are -exT exempt F��"e provisions of this erdinanse. , 4.90.030 Prohibited activities. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, use or permit property to be used for any of the following prohibited acts in conjunction with the market and unlawful for any person to conduct any of the following acts in conjunction with the public market: A. The sale of any raw meat, fish or poultry product unless approved in writing for inclusion by the Snohomish County Health District; B. The sale of any beverage or foodstuff unless appropriately licensed from the Snohomish County Health District; and 3 Packet Page 172 of 277 C. No sound amplification system shall be used in conjunction with the market which produces noise which is audible beyond the boundaries of the area designated in the application. 4.90.040 Licenses limited to nonprofit community oriented organizations. T44ic. to FnPGrar_n e effenta of open air ma*et6 on the nnmmunity and deteFrninti_•J'pPFOPriat6 1i.A46 aAd nnnditinnc fer 1iG8RGe i6 rRnga Qar.ed eiPOP limited Fight _nf_W-1 anr) nthe available aFGa d the 1994 working.tect ILicenses to conduct up blic markets shall be issued only to nonprofit community organizations. Nonprofit community organizations are hereby defined to mean: bona fide nonprofit organizations recognized by the United States Internal Revenue Service as a charitable institution exempt from taxation under Section 503C of the Internal Revenue Code and whose principal offices or meeting place is located within the city of Edmonds. 4.90.050 Sponsor licensee — Business license required when. The issuance of a up blic market license to the sponsor is intended to serve as a master license authorizing limited business activities during the hGUF6 of daylight on Saturday and Sunday during Aily, August and Septembe . Vendors at the markets renting or leasing space from the master licensee are not required to have a city business license unless they engage in other business activities subject to licensing under the provisions of this title. By way of illustration and not limitation the following examples are offered: A. Pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers are required to have licenses as provided by Chapter 4.75 ECC. B. A business license shall be obtained by any vendor who conducts severed business activities beyond the premises licensed as a up blic market and/or outside of the time for which the license is issued. For example, a business operating from a booth on the premises licensed as a GOMMURity oriented up blic market during the days of approved market operation shall not require a business license to conduct such activities. If, however, the vendor conducts other business activities subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.72 ECC, the person conducting such activities shall be duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of that chapter. A - - - the purposes of FECDC.. . _.. . TM �-Till- - .. 4 Packet Page 173 of 277 4.90.070 License fee. An applicant for a license to operate a ublic market shall pay a $5100.00 fee. This fee is based upon the cost to the city of reviewing and processing the application and shall be submitted in conjunction with the application. Each participating vendor shall pay $5.00 for its participation in the up blic market during each calendar year. No application shall be deemed complete until all fees have been paid. 4.90.080 Term of license. Each license issued under this chapter shall be limited to the number of days approved for operation for the up blic market for which the license was issued. =;Games shall be only during daylight hour6_*n july, August and Septembe . Ne linencc shall he of Gtive beyond 4.90.090 Application for license. Each applicant for a license to operate a up blic' market shall file an application with the city clerk accompanied by the license fee provided for in ECC 4.90.070. The application shall be in writing and submitted on a form prepared by the city clerk and signed by the applicant. The application shall give the applicant's nonprofit organization's business address and principal business location, a copy of documents indicating its charitable nonprofit status as well as the residence address and phone number of the applicant's agent. In addition to such other information as the city clerk shall require, the application shall be accompanied by: A. A plot plan showing the location of any outdoor facilities or activities. Adequate parking and ingress and egress shall be maintained during the course of this temporary special event. Adequate precautions shall be put in place to prevent vehicular access to pedestrian pathways within the confines of the activity. Applications to utilize a site or lot already occupied by an existing business shall show on the plot plan the location of all parking required to be provided under the provisions of Chapter 17.50 ECDC for such business. B. A list of each and every vendor participating or anticipated to participate in the market for which the license is sought shall be submitted to the city clerk. The listing shall include the vendor's name, address and business phone number together with a general description of goods and/or services offered by each vendor. Any changes in the list of vendors shall be provided to the city clerk in a minimum of three business days prior to the date of the proposed change (i.e., the first date at which the new vendor will participate in the market). C. Provisions for event management and garbage control shall be addressed in a management plan. All tables, tents, booths, signs and other structures associated with the market shall be removed from public rights of way at the end of each day; provided, however, that approved outdoor storage may be provided between the close of business Fnemiragthe day a public market is held and commencement of business the following morning on public land not located within public rights of way or on private property. 5 Packet Page 174 of 277 D. Garbage receptacles shall be strategically located and have sufficient capacity to accommodate the vendors and estimated members of the public in attendance. In addition the area shall be kept clean of rubbish, garbage, junk, waste paper, plastic, styrofoam cups, sacks, food and other waste. The City of Edmonds encourages the use of recycling receptacles and products whenever possible. The license holder shall be responsible to keep the area clean. The area to be kept clean shall include the area immediately surrounding sidewalks and public streets. DE. Temporary signage announcing the event shall be approved on the site in the licensing process in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.60.080. €F. The fire marshal shall designate appropriate fire lanes through the licensed area on the plot plan. These fire lanes are intended for pedestrian use and shall be kept free of structures, debris or other blockage. Failure to maintain appropriate fire lanes shall be cause for immediate revocation of the license. The police chief may, in his or her sole discretion, require that security personnel be provided by the GOMMunity GRented open aiF2qtlic market during times and in a number designated by the police. 4.90.100 Records. The named licensee sponsor of the GOMM Rity oriented epen air up blic market shall maintain a record of all vendors participating in the event. Such record shall be available for inspection by the city clerk or a designated agent during normal business hours of city offices (that is 8:00 a.m. to 54:030 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). 4.90.110 Administration. The license fora up blic market may be revoked at the discretion of the mayor or designee at any time for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or for violation of any other provision of the city code. Notice of revocation shall be served personally 24 hours prior to the date such revocation shall be effective. The licensee may request a hearing before the Edmonds GCity sCouncil; provided, however, that in the interim no activity shall be conducted until such time as the Edmonds eCity sCouncil has heard the appeal of the licensee from the original determination of the mayor or designee. 4.90.120 Violation of the provisions of the chapter — Civil infraction. Any person violating any of the requirements of this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. EaGh day of violation rshall be a sepaFate offeA6e. Effective Date. This ordinance being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. l.1l,; 1h Colu*93 MAYOR DAVID O. EARLIN 0 Packet Page 175 of 277 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF CIE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 05-17-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 05-21-2013 PUBLISHED: 05-26-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05-31-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3922 Packet Page 176 of 277 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3922 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 21" day of May, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds passed Ordinance No. 3922. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 4.90 RELATED TO LICENSING AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MARKETS, AND ESTABLSIHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 22°d day of May, 2013. ITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 8 Packet Page 177 of 277 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, I COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH SlLM—MA£fY 4F ORDlNANC£ N0. 3,A2`2 at 1y4 of Efimorx#s, Washingjpn On the 21st dSy d ey $Q18, the W Courtin of the City of Edmgarfi pascot! ❑rHtnaulce No. 3M. A aummaty of the ewton o! sa d aComantxr, Wri6istf of the title. provides as totfows' AN ORDINA1yC£ OF THE [TY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTOt'1, AIAENDING EOh14NDS CITY CODE CHAPTER a.90 H TCi LICENSING AND PERMtTTINLi REOUIREMENTS FOR PU6LIC MAAK S. AND ESTA13LSIMING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Published: May 26, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No- 3922 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: May 26, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. rl r.— 1 0- Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of i -fty, 2013 27th �$slYly L,(af Notary Public in and for the State of Washrin;l' n, fe iding at Everett, S11ob mis i County. " 81-It; Account Number. 101416 Order Number: 0001821851 Packet Page 178 of 277 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 12, 2013 Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5tb Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Ian Duncan Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Neil Tibbott READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS CLARKE, REED AND DUNCAN ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 3921 — ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC), DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD), AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES Mr. Clifton advised that because there was no one present in the audience, he would keep his presentation short. He reminded the Board that he initially presented interim Ordinance 3921 and Ordinance 3922 to the Planning Board on May 22°d He advised that the City Council adopted interim Ordinance 3921, amending Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 16 and 21 related to public markets on May 215t. The interim ordinance is good for six months, allowing time for the Planning Board to conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council and for the City Council to conduct a hearing and adopt a permanent ordinance. Mr. Clifton said that also on May 21st, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3922, which amended Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.90 relating to licensing provisions for public markets. Packet Page 179 of 277 Ordinance 3922 is a permanent ordinance and no action is required of the Board. The ordinance was providcd in the Staff Report for the Board's information only. Mr. Clifton explained that although ECDC 16 allows "community -oriented, open-air markets" within the BC, BD and CG zones, the term is not included in ECDC 21. The definition is contained in ECC 4.90.010, but the markets are restricted to daylight hours on Saturday and Sundays during the months of July, August and September. No other open-air markets are permitted. In addition, the term "farmers' market" is not specifically defined or listed as a permitted use within the BC, BD and CG zones in either the ECDC or the ECC. "Seasonal Farmers' Market" is defined in ECDC 21 as an allowed use, but the activity is permitted only during the period between May and September. This provision conflicts with the current Edmonds Historical Museum's Garden and Summer Markets that take place each Saturday from May through October. It also precludes the ability to establish a year-round farmers' or public market. Mr. Clifton reviewed the goals of the proposed amendments to ECDC 16 and 21 as follows: 1. Create one definition for "public market" in ECDC 21.80.103 that would apply to all "community -oriented, open air markets," "farmers' markets," "seasonal farmers' markets," and "public markets." 2. Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within a building, or both. Mr. Clifton advised that Goals 1 and 2 can be met by deleting the term "community -oriented, open-air market" from ECC 4.90 and adding a new section ECDC 21.80.103 entitled, "public market." 3. Allow public markets to operate in public rights -of -way, private property and public property. 4. Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic and residential properties. Currently, outdoor public markets are limited to daylight hours only. Mr. Clifton advised that Goals 3 and 4 can be met by revising ECC 4.90.020 to allow operating hours to be extended until 10 p.m. for any day of the week for outdoor markets on private or public property not located within public rights -of -ways. Operating hours for public markets that occur inside a building will not be restricted. 5. Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time. Mr. Clifton said Goal 5 can be met by amending ECDC 16 and 21 and ECC 4.90 to remove restrictions on what months a market can operate. As proposed, public markets would be allowed to operate year round. 6. Relocate provisions in ECC 4.90.060 that are more land -use oriented to ECDC 16.43 and 16.50. Mr. Clifton reminded the Board that some City Council Members expressed concern about allowing public markets in BC zones that are located adjacent to single-family residential (RS) zones. The Board specifically discussed this issue on May 22°d as well. It was suggested that public markets located adjacent to RS zones should be restricted to inside a building to minimize disruption to neighborhoods. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the definition for "public market" (ECDC 21.80.103) in Ordinance 3921 is different than the definition provided in the Staff Report. Mr. Clifton said the definition contained in the ordinance is the one proposed for adoption. Board Member Ellis observed that, as per the proposed definition for "public market," vendors would be allowed to sell items other than food products. However, he suggested that the word "or" at the end of the definition should be changed to "and" to make it clear that a vendor could sell any combination of the types of items listed. This would allow public markets to exist even if no food items are sold. Mr. Clifton suggested that an even better solution would be to replace "or" with "and/or." Board Member Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed the Edmonds Historical Museum's role in the proposed amendments. He asked if the museum is still the sponsor of the public market at Salish Crossing, which just opened today. Mr. Clifton explained that the Edmonds Historical Museum Board decided that their current insurance policy Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 180 of 277 would not allow them to sponsor the Wednesday public market at Salish Crossing. However, the Edmonds Community College (ECC) Foundation has agreed to sponsor the event, instead. Board Member Lovell asked if the provisions for "public markets" would apply only to public markets sponsored by non- profit organizations. Mr. Clifton answered that the markets must be sponsored by non-profit organizations, but the vendors could be for -profit. Board Member Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposed amendments respond to at least two Strategic Action Plan items. He asked if the proposed amendments would allow the City to create a year-round, enclosed market. Mr. Clifton said the language would allow the City to partner with a non-profit organization as a tax- exempt entity, but the sponsor of the event market would have to be a non-profit. Mr. Clifton reported that tonight was the first night of the public market at Salish Crossing. He said he visited the site and found there were approximately six vendors. He said he anticipates more vendors as the event becomes more established. He reported that the application was processed quickly, and the applicant was able to meet the conditions required by the City. Chair Reed referred to the Board's previous discussion about allowing public markets to operate in BC zones that are adjacent to RS zones. He asked if it would be possible to modify the code to place specific restrictions on public markets in these areas. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively and suggested that one option would be to restrict public markets adjacent to RS zones to inside only. He noted that this provision is not currently included in the draft proposal. Board Member Cloutier suggested that rather than placing this restriction specifically on BC zones, the restriction could apply to all public markets in the BC, BN and CG zones that are located adjacent to RS-zoned properties. The remainder of the Board concurred. Chair Reed said his understanding is that the proposed ordinance would allow public markets in any BD, BC or CG zone. Mr. Clifton pointed out that any uses allowed in the BC and BD zones are also allowed in the CG zone by default. Chair Reed suggested that perhaps the ordinance could be more specific by restricting public markets in some areas of the three zones. Board Member Clarke asked if the proposed ordinance is designed to permit multiple public markets throughout the City. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively. He noted that, as of today, there are currently two public markets in the City, the Saturday Edmonds Historical Museum's Summer Farmers Market and the Wednesday ECC Foundation's Farmer's Market at Salish Crossing. He reminded the Board of an article he referenced on May 22nd about the trend in cities throughout the world to have small public markets located in neighborhoods. He noted that the current proposal is not suggesting that public markets be allowed in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zones at this time. This issue will be addressed as part of the Westgate and Five Corners District Plans. The proposed amendments would only apply to the BC, BD and CG zones. Chair Reed noted that there is a large public market located near the Sound in Olympia. He asked if this same type of use would be allowed on the Edmonds waterfront, as long as it is sponsored by a non-profit organization. Mr. Clifton said it is not the intent to preclude indoor or outdoor public markets in any of the BN, BC or CG zones, but the market would have to be sponsored by a non-profit organization. Mr. Chave clarified that a for -profit organization or entity could establish a year- round public market, but it would have to be located indoors and operated as a general retail use. For example, the antique mall is a form of public market that is allowed as a general retail use but it restricted to inside sales. Board Member Lovell asked if the ordinance would allow the City to partner with a property owner to develop a permanent location for a year-round public market. He also asked if the City would be allowed to recover funds spent to create a market. Mr. Clifton answered that the City could enter into a mutual agreement with a developer to create a permanent public market, and they would also be allowed to recover their investment. However, the City would not be allowed to make a profit from the project. Mr. Clifton advised that a gentleman previously expressed interest in doing a Calgary -style public market at Salish Crossing before it was purchased by the current owner. Unfortunately, the previous property owner was asking so much for the property that the project did not pencil out. He summarized that there is an interest for public markets in the City. The challenge is trying to find another individual who wants to move the concept forward. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 181 of 277 Board Member Clarke asked if the City can control the use of the name "Edmonds." Mr. Clifton noted that "Edmonds" is used in the name in a lot of different businesses, and he is not sure the City would want to corner the name unless they are in partnership with someone who wants to use that name. Board Member Clarke pointed out that farmers markets in Seattle are generally identified by the neighborhood in which they are located. Using the name "Edmonds Farmers Market" does not give a clear indication of where the activity is located. Mr. Clifton pointed out that everyone seems to know where the Pike Place Market is located even though it is not called the "Seattle Market." A market will become known by whatever name it is given, whether it includes a reference to a geographic location or not. Vice Chair Stewart asked what the public market at Salish Crossing would be called. Board Member Cloutier said the official name of the market is the Salish Crossing Farmers' Market. Mr. Clifton summarized that the proposed and adopted amendments to ECC 4.90 and ECDC 16 and 20 have cleared up the code language extensively. It will be fairly easy to incorporate additional minor amendments that come up later. CHAIR REED OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. AS THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Clarke pointed out that some of eliminated terms are fairly common and are used to describe a specific type of public market. He asked what the new permit application would be called. Mr. Clifton answered that the "public market application" would be used for all permits for farmers' markets, open-air community markets, etc. He noted that all of these common terms were included in the definition for "public market" (ECDC 21.80.103). BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 16 AND 21 TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS OUTLINED IN INTERIM ORDINANCE 3921 WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN ALL BC, BN AND CG ZONES. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 3921: • AMEND THE DEFINITION FOR PUBLIC MARKET (ECDC 21.80.103) BY CHANGING "OR" IN THE LAST SENTENCE TO "AND/OR." • ADD A PROVISION THAT RESTRICTS PUBLIC MARKETS LOCATED ADJACENT TO RS ZONES TO INDOORS ONLY. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE, THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION, ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION ON INCENTIVE ZONING OPPORTUNITIES AND HIGHWAY 99 ZONING INCENTIVESASSUES Mr. Chave advised that during the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) process, Highway 99 was prominently mentioned as an opportunity for some initiatives to encourage development along the corridor. The purpose of this agenda item is to continue that discussion. He specifically suggested the Commission discuss ways to promote and encourage transit -oriented development (TOD), particularly in association with Community Transit's SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service that is currently in place along Highway 99. He said the Highway 99 Task Force has also discussed the TOD concept, and they have an interest in station -oriented planning around the two BRT stations in Edmonds. He referred to the attachments provided in the Staff Report which includes a summary of the SAP (Attachment 1), minutes from the Highway 99 Report dated April 24, 2013 (Attachment 2), TOD-101 Guidebook (Attachment 3), Sound Transit's TOD policy (Attachment 4), and TOD design guidelines for the Capital Hill area in Seattle (Attachment 5). Mr. Chave recalled that, previously, the Planning Board proposed some targeted zoning changes for properties near the Highway 99 Corridor. The current code allows medical uses in the multi -family residential (RM) zones near the hospital, but a conditional use permit is required. This requirement can and does discourage the expansion or development of medical uses. He expressed his belief that the previously -proposed zoning was not targeted well enough and the proposed height limit Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 182 of 277 (55 feet and more in some locations) raised concerns amongst the multi -family residents and property owners in the area. He suggested the Board reconsider the concept. A type of Business Residential (BR) zoning might be appropriate for properties in this area to allow some degree of business development without requiring a conditional use permit. He reminded the Board that the mixed -use zoning concept applied to the Highway 99 Corridor does not require commercial development on the ground floor. Instead, it allows a developer to intermix the uses in different ways. Board Member Lovell said he currently serves on Sound Transit's Citizens Oversight Panel. He referred to Sound Transit's TOD Policy (Attachment 4), which was issued in December of 2012. He said the panel studied the policy, particularly the policy that requires Sound Transit to sell any land it purchases to rebuild the rail system or anything that goes along with, including extra land for staging, storage, etc., as soon as the project is done. The panel discussed that Sound Transit should do more than just sell the land; they should leverage the sale of the land to promote TOD in conjunction with the transit system. This will create more ridership, and ridership will help the community grow. Board Member Lovell referred to the chart on the last page of Attachment 4, which identifies both agency TOD strategies and community TOD strategies. He suggested they could cobble the language in the "Community TOD" column to fit the City's needs for both Highway 99 and the waterfront where the TOD concept came up in conjunction with the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan. His thought is that the City should attach some verbiage to various zones within Edmonds to make them more amenable to TOD and perhaps even force TOD in some situations. As an example, he referred to a TOD policy initiative that was adopted for the properties around the Roosevelt Station at 65th and Roosevelt in Seattle. The initiative involved a long public process, and there were some attempts to try and beef up the station structure so that buildings could be constructed on top. Although it was later determined that the option would not be economically feasible, the process resulted in a plan to essentially rebuild the area. The height limit was increased to allow eight to ten -story buildings, and Sound Transit recently awarded a contract for the tunnel. They anticipate that station construction will get started soon, as well. He noted that a similar process was used for the Northgate and Capital Hill stations. He recommended the City consider a similar planning process for the Highway 99 Corridor and perhaps other areas in Edmonds. Board Member Tibbott asked Board Member Lovell to identify areas in Edmonds where the TOD concept could be applied. Board Member Lovell advised that TOD would be supported by the SWIFT BRT line, particularly near the two stations in Edmonds. He said the demand for TOD would increase if and when the light rail is expanded to 220th Street in Edmonds. He noted that the medical area could become another TOD nucleus. He said the City should also pay attention to the potential expansion of Sound Transit's light rail service through Edmonds. With the rail service, ferry service and bus service, the waterfront area may be another good location for the City to apply the TOD concept. Board Member Tibbott questioned if it would be appropriate to apply the TOD concept to the Westgate and Five Corners commercial areas, as well. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Westgate and Five Corners commercial areas are of a different scale than the commercial area along Highway 99. While TOD may be a factor in these areas, opportunities would be more limited. Board Member Lovell said he envisions these areas providing more low-cost residential housing that would allow people to live in Edmonds at a reasonable price. Board Member Tibbott asked Board Member Lovell to share information about Sound Transit's plan to expand rail service along the waterfront. Board Member Lovell pointed out that another station in Seattle is needed in order to expand ridership of this rail line. Sound Transit must also address issues related to the frequent mudslides that interrupt service. Mr. Chave pointed out that any TOD t in the downtown/waterfront area would not be based solely on the rail service. It would be designed to take advantage of a combination of transit opportunities, including the ferry and bus service. Vice Chair Stewart asked the timeline for light rail coming to 2201h Street. Mr. Clifton answered that Sound Transit's goal is to have light rail service to Lynnwood by 2023. He said he serves on Sound Transit's Multi -Jurisdictional North Link Community Advisory Committee. He wrote a letter to Sound Transit on behalf of Mayor Earling, publicly requesting a station at 2201h Street, and the City's request has received support from Mountlake Terrace, as well. He noted that 2201h is a busy east/west corridor, and a station in this location would make sense. He said Sound Transit has agreed to study the proposal as part of their Phase 3 work. Board Member Ellis said that as he read through the materials contained in the Staff Report, he got the impression that TOD depends on increased residential density. He asked how this would fit in with the reluctance of many people in Edmonds to accept change in areas such as Harbor Square and Highway 99. Mr. Chave explained that the capacity for future growth on Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 183 of 277 Highway 99 is already available through existing zoning along the corridor. The bigger question is whether the zoning regulations allow sufficient flexibility for the potential growth capacity to be realized. He pointed out that TOD is more doable on Highway 99, where it is supported by the SWIFT BRT service. Board Member Ellis pointed out that Edmonds' share of the anticipated growth in Snohomish County is small. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, rather than increasing density in residential areas, the City is relying on redevelopment along the Highway 99 Corridor where there is a tremendous amount of capacity to help them meet their growth targets. Mr. Clifton recalled that when he previously presented information to the Board regarding the Highway 99 Corridor, he highlighted the Behar proposal that was presented a few years ago to the City Council as a potential redevelopment concept. The developer had planned to move the project forward in 2009 before the economy tanked. The project is still alive, but the developer needs commitment from future tenants before it can move forward. He said this project would result in five or six - story development at the intersection of Highway 99 and 220"' Street and is a good example of redevelopment interest along the corridor. Mr. Chave explained that, historically, Edmonds has never met its targets for projected population growth. Although it has the capacity to accommodate the growth, sufficient development to meet the growth targets did not occur. He noted that Edmonds must compete in a regional market, and development typically occurs where it is most feasible first. He expressed his belief that a catalyst project would help to spur redevelopment along the Highway 99 Corridor, and that is why it is important for the City to revisit its zoning regulations to identify any unnecessary obstacles that might discourage redevelopment. Mr. Chave said a few property owners on Highway 99 between 236th and 238th Streets have indicated a desire to move forward with a mixed -use development, and they approached the Highway 99 Task Force to discuss modifying the zoning around the station area to accommodate their project. The issue was presented to the City Council at their spring retreat, and some interest was expressed about studying the option further. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to meet with Economic Development Commission's (EDC) Land -Use Committee, as well as members of the Highway 99 Task Force to discuss the options. He noted that other communities are planning for TOD, as well, so the City would not have to reinvent the wheel. Board Member Clarke said he has done a lot of professional work in locations where TOD is taking place. He pointed out the importance of having flexible codes in place to allow the market to determine what is developed in any given location. For example, the City of Lynnwood made the decision that the southwest corner of 196th Street and Highway 99 would be a good place for TOD. Their zoning regulations indicated that mixed -use development, with multi -family residential units, was desirable, but the land owner decided to develop a shopping center instead. The developer had to convince the Lynnwood City Council that a shopping center was a better choice in that location. The City Council determined that the retail and property taxes generated by the proposal would have a significant benefit to the community, and they overturned the previous TOD plan to accommodate the new shopping center. Board Member Clarke said he has appraised several of the new buildings along the light rail route. He said it is amazing how much property values increase when a city changes zoning regulations to allow taller buildings and greater densities and to remove the requirement for commercial space on the ground floor. He summarized that having flexibility allows for maximum development, which is needed along Highway 99. He encouraged the Board to look at a bigger vision for Highway 99 and create zoning or districts that provide the maximum flexibility possible. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the Behar proposal is for a large-scale, mixed -use development with retail space, office space, transient lodging, etc. He commented that TOD includes a broader scale of uses than just multi -family residential, and providing as much flexibility as possible will encourage development and perhaps stop the sprawl of medical uses to inappropriate locations. Mr. Chave clarified that TOD does not mean that every project must be mixed -use with residential units, but it does usually require higher densities. Mr. Chave pointed out that the current zoning along Highway 99 is generally consistent with Board Member Clarke's comments, but perhaps it does not go far enough to provide flexibility and more options to developers and to encourage TOD development. Staff is hoping that is the direction the Board would like to go with Highway 99. He agreed with Board Member Clarke that mandating a certain type of TOD development would not be productive because it is impossible to Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 184 of 277 predict when the market will change in such a way that more transit -friendly development will occur. He commented that TOD is not a one -size -fits -all concept. It is more about whether or not an area supports transit opportunities, and it is possible to help populate an area or site by providing incentives to encourage the type of development desired for a particular area. Board Member Clarke said it may be necessary to redraw the natural boundaries of zoning along Highway 99. He pointed out that many of the commercial properties along Highway 99 are challenging to develop because of topography and because the east/west depth is shallow. He recalled that the expansion of Valley Hospital in Monroe required the City to realign the zoning to include a portion of a residential neighborhood in the hospital zone. He also recalled that zoning boundaries were changed to accommodate expansion of Overlake Hospital. He summarized that redevelopment started to occur once these cities started to look at the entire neighborhood as a medical campus. He suggested that the City should consider this approach, as well. It is important to plan long term for expansion and change. They are very fortunate to have a hospital located within Edmonds, and they need to support its changing needs. Vice Chair Stewart agreed with Board Members Lovell and Clarke. It is important to look forward and be somewhat flexible, particularly on Highway 99, to enable forward thinking ideas that embody TOD. She noted that Highway 99 is also a good location to target affordable housing, public amenities, green space, gathering places, etc. to make the area more attractive for people to live and work. Board Member Tibbott referred to an article he recently read in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL about how Seattle's light rail system has impacted the cost of housing in areas near the stations. Housing near the stations is no longer affordable. This article suggests that affordable housing is more likely to be in places like Five Corners and Westgate. As long as there are opportunities to access transit in these locations, they will be suitable for lower -cost housing. Chair Reed pointed out that the zoning along Highway 99 is all CG or CG2, and the Comprehensive Plan includes an extensive element about the Highway 99 Corridor. He suggested that Board Members review this information in preparation for future discussions. He further suggested that the best approach would be for the Board to appoint a subcommittee of members to discuss the issue further. Perhaps the subcommittee could meet with the EDC's Land Use Subcommittee and members of the Highway 99 Task Force. Board Member Tibbott questioned how the form -based code concept could be implemented in some areas of the Highway 99 Corridor without applying it to all the CG zones. Mr. Chave said the concept could be applied to areas within a'/2 mile radius of the SWIFT stations or the International District as an overlay or it could be applied to the entire CG zone. Board Member Lovell asked if the overlays would have to coincide with property lines. Mr. Chave said that would generally be wise, but would not be a requirement. Board Member Lovell pointed out that most of the current development on Highway 99 is single story. If the zoning is changed to encourage taller structures with more density, property owners may start to assemble properties to create larger developments that make economic sense. Board Member Lovell agreed it would be appropriate to form a subcommittee to study the issue further and put together a list of things the City could allow to provide greater flexibility and encourage redevelopment. The list could include taller buildings, lower parking requirements, maximum flexibility for uses, incentives for green elements, and reduced setbacks. Mr. Chave agreed that would be a good approach. Once the list has been created, the subcommittee could meet with members of the Highway 99 Task Force and perhaps the EDC's land -use subcommittee to solicit additional ideas and feedback. Mr. Clifton suggested it would be beneficial to start the process with a meeting with representatives from the three groups so they can reach a collective agreement on how to move forward. He noted that the Highway 99 Task Force has discussed this issue at length, and their input would be helpful. Board Member Clarke asked what process the City of Shoreline used to move their Highway 99 planning process forward. Mr. Chave answered that Shoreline had an extensive public process, but their project was much more substantial than what the City of Edmonds is currently considering. Board Member Cloutier asked if there are infrastructure limitations that would prevent more density on Highway 99. Mr. Chave said he does anticipate this would be a problem. He noted that greater density and taller buildings on Highway 99 Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 185 of 277 have been part of the Highway 99 zoning for quite some time. When various elements of the Comprehensive Plan are updated, they are supposed to look at capacity to accommodate the maximum development allowed under existing zoning. Board Member Duncan said he grew up in a small town in South Carolina that was located along a State highway. When development occurred along the highway, it became a barrier to the downtown area. He cautioned that the City should avoid a similar situation from happening on Highway 99. Board Member Lovell and Chair Reed agreed to serve on the Planning Board Subcommittee to study the Highway 99 issue further. They agreed to work with staff to set up a meeting with representatives from the Highway 99 Task Force and the EDC's land use subcommittee. Board Member Lovell said he would attend the next EDC meeting, where he would share the Board's proposed approach for moving the discussion forward. Once again, Board Member Reed encouraged Board Members to review the Comprehensive Plan elements related to the Highway 99 Corridor and CG zoning. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed reviewed the extended agenda as follows: • Three public hearings are scheduled for June 26th: a public hearing on a rezone application for properties located at 403 and 405 Third Avenue North, a public hearing on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Element Update, and a public hearing on the park naming for the SR-104 Mini Park. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the public hearing for the rezone application is quasi-judicial, so Board Members should avoid discussing the proposal with anyone outside of the hearing. • On June 251h, Vice Chair Stewart will present the Planning Board's quarterly report to the City Council. • The City Council has scheduled a mini retreat on June 17d', and the agenda has been published on the City's website. The meeting is open to the public. Mr. Chave advised that a representative from the Washington State Department of Transportation will speak to the City Council about potential corridor studies for SR-104 and how they might relate to the Westgate code. Chair Reed noted that after the retreat, the City Council may be ready to give the Board direction for moving forward with either the Westgate or Five Corners plans. • A public hearing on proposed amendments to the Commercial Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW) and Multi - Family Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) zones is scheduled for July 10`'. Continued work on either the Westgate Plan or the Five Corners Plan is also tentatively scheduled for that evening, pending direction from the City Council. The Board will also discussion implementation strategies for the Strategic Action Plan. • The Board will have a discussion regarding the telecommunication regulations on July 24d', and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director will present the quarterly Parks Report. • The August 28th meeting was cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed thanked Vice Chair Stewart for chairing the May 22nd meeting in his absence. He also thanked Board Member Tibbott for agreeing to judge the sandcastle contest. Chair Reed reported that he and Vice Chair Stewart met with Mayor Earling and Council President Petso to review the Board's extended agenda. He said the meetings are helpful to get insight from both the City Council and the Mayor. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Tibbott requested an update on the outcome of the meeting with representatives from the Planning Board, City Council and Port Commission regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan. Board Member Lovell explained that at the May 21" City Council meeting, Council President Petso recommended, and the majority of the City Council concurred, that Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 186 of 277 three members of the City Council should meet with representatives from the Planning Board and the Port. He said he was present to represent the Planning Board, and Council Members Petso, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson represented the City Council. The Port was represented by Commissioners Orvis and Faires. The substance of the discussion was that the Port was not interested in participating in a City plan or subarea plan being worked on by the City Council. There is some desire on the part of the City Council to keep the review process going, but the Port representatives reiterated that the Port has withdrawn the plan so there is no need for the City Council to spend more time on the matter. In the Port's mind, the entire proposal is dead and nothing more should be done. Board Member Lovell said Council Member Petso will report the outcome of the meeting to the City Council, and he assumes the City Council will table the issue with no further action. Board Member Tibbott advised that the Park Naming Committee will meet prior to the July 24th public hearing on the SR- 104 Mini Park name. Board Member Clarke recalled that throughout the Board's review of the Harbor Square Master Plan, he repeatedly raised the concern that the Port is allowing illegal parking to take place in the buffer setback area to the marsh. Since this was included in the public record, he asked why the City has not addressed the issue. Mr. Chave noted that code enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Chave to consider his comment as a complaint for the City to investigate. Board Member Clarke inquired regarding the status of the Shoreline Master Program Update. Mr. Chave said the City Council has conducted one public hearing on the plan. They will have one more work session and a final hearing before taking final action. Board Member Clarke asked if the multi -family residential component (Urban Mixed Use III Environment) that was identified for the Harbor Square property would be adopted as part of the plan. Mr. Chave said that would be a topic of the City Council's continued discussion. Vice Chair Stewart announced that the organization Imagine Edmonds has changed its name to Celebrate Edmonds. The group is intended to be a community enhancement organization, and its purpose is to enable the visioning that has been going on at the citizen level. The group has 12 members at this time, and they are currently pursuing 501 c3 status, as well as grant funding. They have partnered with Swedish Edmonds and the Edmonds Senior Center to create a wellness program. She concluded that the group is moving forward in a positive direction. She said it does not appear that another hotel will be constructed anytime soon in downtown Edmonds, and the group has asked the Harbor Inn to consider developing their facility into a boutique -type motel. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 187 of 277 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 21, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. I Kernen Lien, Senior Planner 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 PENDING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers 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, Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso relayed the following changes to the agenda: • Move Agenda Item 15, Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation, to 9b • Reschedule Agenda Item 10, Alternative Chart Format for Monthly Report, on a future agenda Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 188 of 277 • Reschedule Agenda Item 12, Direction to Planning Board and Economic Development Commission Regarding Council Priorities on Westgate and Five Corners, on a future agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item N be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE APRIL 16, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201948 THROUGH #202075 DATED MAY 9, 2013 FOR $164,517.44 AND CLAIM CHECKS #202076 THROUGH #202228 DATED MAY 16, 2013 FOR $530,404.60 (REISSUED CHECKS #202127 $215.00 AND #202128 $70.39). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60190 THROUGH #60205 FOR $438,176.54, BENEFIT CHECKS #60206 THROUGH #60213 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $188,318.09 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2013 THROUGH MAY 15, 2013. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF TWO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, ONE FROM BILL STAPLETON ($290.73) AND THE OTHER FROM ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR $15,438.00. F. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, MAY 2013. G. MARCH 2O13 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT. H. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH MIG FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROS PLAN. I. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A/E SERVICES FOR CITY PARK. J. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE 224TH STREET SW SEWER UPGRADE PROJECT TO LASER UNDERGROUND AND EARTHWORKS. K. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE A STORM UTILITY EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF INFILTRATION AND STORM PIPE THAT WILL BE PART OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE 238TH STORM DRAIN PROJECT. L. FINAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE, WWTP A -BASIN UPGRADE PROJECT. M. FINAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE, WWTP BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 189 of 277 ITEM N: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. Councilmember Bloom requested this be rescheduled for discussion on a future agenda. She questioned the Council's action, to send this back to staff to return with a draft ordinance, noting that was not the original motion but rather the second motion. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO RESCHEDULE THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Council President Petso offered to schedule this item on the June 4 agenda. Councilmember Peterson asked what additional information Councilmember Bloom was seeking. Councilmember Bloom responded several questions raised by citizens warrant further discussion. The Council meeting when this was discussed was not on camera and although citizens may have been able to listen to the recording, they were unable to watch the discussion as usual. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY Dale Hoggins, Cemetery Board Member, explained Chair Fred Apgar, Commander of Edmonds VFW Post 8870, is a key member of the Planning Committee for the Memorial Day Program. On behalf of the Cemetery Board and Chair Lisa Palmatier, he invited the public to the 31" annual Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium. The program remembers and honors the memory of those who died while serving our country and says thank you to all veterans, current, active and reserve personnel, many who have had numerous deployments. The event will also honor those who have been awarded the Purple Heart or MIA. Army Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl from Idaho has been a POW of the Taliban since 2009. July 7, 2013 will mark the 60`h anniversary of the signing of the Korean Peace Accord, ending three years of war. The Cemetery Board joins the VFW in its efforts to remember and honor Korean War Veterans and extend a special invitation to all Korean War Veterans and their families to join them on Memorial Day. The War Memorial located in front of the Edmonds Memorial Museum lists eight Snohomish County men who died or are MIAs in Korea. Two are buried in the Edmonds Cemetery and one is MIA and presumed dead. He invited anyone interested in loaning their Korean War Veteran burial flag for the ceremony to call him at 425-776-1543. Mr. Hoggins assured the ceremony is different than most; it does not have a political agenda and the emphasis is on remembering and features youth. The special guest this year is Tom Hallums, a south Snohomish County resident, who was stationed in Japan on June 25, 1950, a member of the first US Troops deployed to Korea. Mayor Earling will share his visit to the Korean War Memorial located in Washington DC and the impression the memorial made on him. 6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 19, 2013 THROUGH MAY 25, 2013. Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring the week of May 19, 2013 through May 25, 2013 as Edmonds Public Works Week. He presented the proclamation to Public Works and Utilities Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams thanked the Council for the proclamation on behalf of all the employees in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 190 of 277 department, noting the proclamation lists an impressive number of duties the department is proud to perform for the citizens. He invited the Council to a Public Works Employee Appreciation luncheon at 11:30 on Thursday, presented by the Public Works Department management team. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Denise Bossieux, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Arts Festival (EAF) Association, commented the EAF is an example of community pride and civic participation as it is one of the only festivals in the Northwest not sponsored by the city for which it is named. All proceeds from the Arts Festival go to the Edmonds Festival Foundation, the non-profit half of the organization, for disbursement to Edmonds School District and the City in the form of scholarships, grants and community art. Over 5,000 people attend the festival, many also visiting shops, galleries and restaurants which generate revenue for the City. She referred to the rewrite of the Edmonds City Code 4.12, specifically permitting and licensing of street vendors, motorized and non -motorized mobile vending units. The EAF has juried and contracted with 28 vendors for the Father's Day Arts Festival weekend, a process that was completed by April 5, 2013, prior to the completed rewrite of ECC 4.12. Only 3 of the vendors have home bases in Edmonds, many drive 3-4 hours and several are from different states. At least 17 of the vendors will not participate in the Festival if they are forced to pay the $235 fee. She requested the Council reconsider enforcement of the April rewrite of ECC 4.12; the consequences could be catastrophic to the Festival and ultimately the art students and programs of the Edmonds School District and to the community. Mayor Earling advised a Councilmember planned to bring this issue up during Council comments (Agenda Item 19). Don Hall, Edmonds, recalled a few years ago the City became a leader in the endeavor to clean up streams, lakes, Puget Sound and the ocean by passing a ban on plastic bags. More cities have also done so, including Shoreline. There was discussion in the past about banning Styrofoam containers; Shoreline indicated they plan to consider banning Styrofoam containers because it is an even bigger environmental issue. He urged Council to consider banning Styrofoam containers, noting Portland banned Styrofoam containers and over 40 cities in California, mainly coastal cities, have banned Styrofoam containers. He thanked the businesses and restaurants in Edmonds that have already switched to environmental friendly products. He noted Seattle has banned Styrofoam containers and most major corporations with cafeterias such as Boeing and Microsoft have banned Styrofoam containers. Edmonds could join the cities who have banned Styrofoam containers and return as a leader in environmental issues. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented he is awaiting a response from Mayor Earling to his question and planned to attend Council meetings until he heard an answer. His question was whether state law allowed city planning staff approval of a variance to the lot requirements as specified in ECDC 16, sub districts, without public notice and without a hearing. He indicated he had been contacted by Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies. He expressed concern that the City seemed to be using a different dictionary than the rest of the world; the dictionary definition of motel says a hotel that caters mostly to a drive -up business. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he had not had a response to his challenge a couple meetings ago to the legality of the hearing on step -backs in the BC/BD zone. Four Councilmembers voted to raise building heights, yet the public hearing notice did not mention building heights. The result will now be 30-foot box buildings with flat roofs with no requirement for an architectural feature. Next, he referred to the park levy, noting the exploratory committee had narrowed the levy to parks, but a close reading indicates there are funds for roads and funds are shuffled into the General Fund. Mr. Hertrich referred to the 2013 March Financial Report and REET projections, relaying the Finance Director's indication that those were five year projections. He relayed the Park & Recreation Director's indication that there was unlikely to be $1.3 million in REET in 2013 and reality was closer to $800,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 191 of 277 8. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2012 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2013 SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS Lois Rathvon, Chair, Edmonds Arts Commission, explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is a group of seven members who work with the Cultural Services Division on various projects. The commission has existed since 1975 with the ongoing mission to promote the arts as a part of the central identity of Edmonds and as an integral part of the quality of life and economy of the city. The EAC contributes to cultural tourism in a number of ways. For the past 27 years the EAC has presented the Write on the Sound Writers Conference. The 21/2 day event in October brings in local residents as well as attendees from all over the country. In 2012 the event sold out with 275 participants, which generated 74 hotel night stays. The City received a grant from the new Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area which helped fund development of a new website for the conference. The EAC facilitates Tourism Promotion awards. In 2012, $9,500 from the lodging tax fund was awarded to Olympic Ballet Theatre, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Arts Festival/ Studio Tour, Friends of Frank DeMeiro Jazz Fest, and Sno-King Community Chorale. Visual, performing and literary arts enhance the community's quality of life. An average of 400 people per week enjoy the free summer Concerts in the Park, drawing out-of-towners as well as local residents. The EAC handles rotating exhibits of Visual Arts in the Edmonds library and the Frances Anderson Center. The EAC was involved in implementing the Public Art elements at the Hazel Miller Plaza. Work continued on the SR99 enhancements with the new artist made lanterns installed at the end of the year, this project will be completed next month. As mandated by Council, the EAC oversees acquisition and upkeep of publically owned artwork. The City's art collection includes over 150 original pieces with 30 permanently sited —including the terrazzo floor in the lobby of the Public Safety Complex and sculptures outside. More art enhanced flower basket poles were added in 2012 and 8 more were added recently. The assistance of the Parks Maintenance and Public Works Crew to this project is invaluable. The flower basket poles are partially funded by donations and intended as an opportunity for commemoration. Of the 22 poles, 7 have been commemorated to date. In arts education, last year the EAC co -sponsored five literary workshop sessions at College Place Middle School. The EAC hosted a Best -Book Poster Contest for third grade students. The EAC supports arts education through scholarships to local students. The EAC works with a limited budget; however the community offers strong support for the arts through volunteers, grants, and community partnerships. Looking forward, the EAC is excited to present an Edmonds Arts Summit on June 29th at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. This gathering of the arts and culture community, initiated by the Mayor, is supported by a broad array of sponsors. She encouraged everyone to register and attend this free event; further information is available on the Edmonds Arts Commission website. Ms. Rathvon thanked the City Council and the Edmonds community for their continued support for arts and culture as an important component in the economic vitality and identity of Edmonds. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained the scholarship program was established by the Arts Commission in 1986 with the goal of encouraging students who have a serious commitment to a career in the performing or literary arts. The program has been supported for many years by proceeds from the Write on the Sound Writers' Conference presented annually by the Arts Commission and by donations. In the 2013 budget, the General Fund allocation to the EAC for programs was suspended and the proceeds for the conference will now be used to support EAC programs such as the summer concerts, the Best Book Poster Contest for Third graders, and other free events. This is the last year that the literary and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 192 of 277 performing arts scholarships will be awarded by the Arts Commission. Tonight is a celebration of the three final recipients of Arts Commission scholarships as well as the total of 60 students who have been awarded scholarships over the past 28 years. Many of the recipients have gone on to successful careers in the arts as performers, writers and music teachers. This year the Arts Commission is awarding scholarships to three talented students who aspire to a career in the arts. Each of these three students exhibit excellence in their art forms, but in addition, it is clear from the reference letters and their own statements that each has exceptional qualities of leadership, strong personal ethics, kindness, and a commitment to helping others. She introduced the three student scholarship recipients and described their background and educational goals: • Sydney Bennett — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and plans to attend the University of Washington. She has always had an interest in the arts, from dancing to cheerleading, and more recently in writing. Sydney is awarded a literary arts scholarship to pursue her goal of a career as a political columnist • Marco Voli — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and will be attending Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle. He has been involved in the jazz band and has been an active part of the play production program for three years, both acting and playwriting. Marco is awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue his goal of a career in theater. • Taylor Zickefoose - is graduating from Meadowdale High School and plans to attend Central Washington University. Studying music from an early age, Taylor is already an accomplished jazz vocalist and has received numerous honors and awards, including recognition as an outstanding high school performance as a vocal jazz soloist in Downbeat Magazine. Taylor is awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue her goal of a career in music. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SOUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso suggested the Council finally end this Comprehensive Plan amendment process, get to work over the next couple weeks to see if a new Comprehensive Plan amendment process can be started in June by motion of the Council. She favored ending this process and starting a new process because it would guarantee whatever the Council developed would be given a full public process, meaning it would be reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council with public hearings at both levels. It will also provide a clean Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Since the process began, questions and concerns have been raised about the legal process used. Starting over with a clean process would also allow the Council to put the threat of potential litigation behind them. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. She asked why the process needed to be stopped and started over again when the Council has begun and is moving through a process. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded the Council did not have to stop the process and start over, but it could. He relayed the three primary ways the Council could proceed were, 1) to do as Council President Petso suggested, 2) to do as Councilmember Buckshnis suggested, or 3) to end the process and not take any further action. The City's code allows the Council to amend a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is presented to the City Council. The City Council has not yet proceeded far enough along that route. Mr. Taraday explained he was asked to compare and contrast two drafts; however, the Council has not yet approved the staff revised draft. If a majority of the Council had stated they wanted to adopt the staff revised draft, an analysis would be done to determine whether it was within the scope of the alternatives considered by the Planning Board or whether it had been changed so significantly that legally it was better to start over to avoid any question whether there had been a sufficient public process. He explained what has been confusing to many is it is not yet known what the City Council's plan for Harbor Square would look like. Therefore the City Council's plan cannot be compared/contrasted to the Port's proposal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 193 of 277 Councilmember Buckshnis noted Exhibit 2, Harbor Square Subarea Plan — City Council Discussion Draft, contains some of the issues she raised and emailed to staff. There are other items in Exhibit 2 that she does not support. She asked how the City could be open to a lawsuit when the Council was still discussing Harbor Square. Mr. Taraday responded he has not suggested there was a significant legal risk. Because some citizens are confused by the process, in the interest of simplification and to avoid any further confusion, the City Council may opt to start over but the Council does not have to start over. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the process continued would the plan return to staff to incorporate the Council's ideas into a more succinct plan and then go through the Planning Board process. Mr. Taraday answered maybe, but it was as yet unknown what the plan will look like at the conclusion of the process. If at the conclusion of the process the amendments are minor enough to justify the GMA required public process had been conducted, there would be no reason to return it to the Planning Board. He reiterated that determination could not be made yet because the Council was not at that point in the process. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her opinion the plan would be significantly different because there was discussion of incentive zoning and incentivizing things such as bulk, height, parking. Once the Council process was concluded, she anticipated the plan would need to return to the Planning Board review process. Mr. Taraday commented Councilmember Buckshnis may have a better sense than he does regarding what the City Council approved plan will look like. If the plan is dramatically different, it would be prudent to send it back to the Planning Board for further public participation and public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT WE FORMALLY END THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. Council President Petso restated her rationale; if a new process is begun, it is guaranteed to be a full process including Planning Board review and public hearing and City Council review and public hearing and is more likely to be a clean process where a proposal is made and the citizens understand how the City Council is working through the process. Councilmember Yamamoto was uncertain what starting over would entail. He recognized starting over would be a lot of work, repeating a lot of information that was already gathered, holding numerous public hearings that have already been held, and ignoring the work done by Port, the Planning Board and staff. He did not see the advantage of starting the process over as the Council has received more than enough information. He agreed the plan needs to be tweaked and add to the current process. He preferred to continue the current process and make the necessary changes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the motion was to cancel the current process and start a new process. Council President Petso clarified the motion was to end the current Comprehensive Plan amendment process. If the motion was successful, her intent was to then initiate a new process. Councilmember Peterson stated he will vote against the motion. The implication that the process has been unclean is insulting to the Port, another elected body, insulting to the Planning Board who put an incredible number of hours into the plan, and insulting to the process. This process has been open and clean. He acknowledged it may be a confusing process but that is government. Because the process is confusing, it takes time. He expressed concern with the proposal to end the process that has been underway for years and to present a new City Council process that will be clean and easy to understand, pointing out it will be the same process. If the Council decides to reject the plan at the completion of the process, so be it. He reiterated it was insulting to everyone who has worked so many hours to reject the plan based on assertions the process had been unclean or muddy. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will vote against the motion. She echoed Councilmember Peterson's comments, pointing out some citizens like to make noise. She provided the example that the code allows Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 194 of 277 building heights of 25 + 5 feet, yet a member of the public has stated the height limit was increased. The City has done a good job moving this process forward. She urged the public to review Exhibit 2, noting there were items she agreed with and some she did not. She viewed the changes as significant and envisioned it would go through the Planning Board process. Councilmember Bloom noted she was baffled by Councilmembers Yamamoto and Peterson's comments; ending this process does not mean the information gathered has to be thrown out or the input from citizens ignored. All the information can be used to start a new process that focuses on what can be agreed on versus this process which has focused on what is disagreed on. She supported the motion, envisioning the Council could better move forward after saying no to the Port's process. She pointed out in addition the Port has withdrawn their proposal. The Council is no longer working off the Port's proposal as the Council previously voted 4-3 to work off staff's proposal, essentially denying the Port's proposal. Councilmember Bloom explained by working off staff's draft, the Council was formalizing their previous action and acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their application. She disagreed it was disrespectful, finding this the most respectful way to proceed, by acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their proposal, formally denying the Port's proposal and starting with what can be agreed on. Council President Petso assured she did not intend to insult anyone by saying the process would be cleaner if it started over. There has been confusion with the process; the Council recently received a letter signed by nine citizens stating they do not understand where the Council stands legally in the process. She relayed the Council can start its own Comprehensive Plan amendment by motion. That process would be distinct from this process, would have citizen input at the outset and guarantee a full public process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a simpler process was possible; the Council did not have to formally deny the Port's plan because the Port has withdrawn their plan. Mr. Taraday explained the Council had the option via President Petso's motion to acknowledge the Port's withdrawal of their application and terminate the process in light of that withdrawal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was no longer a Port plan to work from as the Port has withdrawn their plan. The Port does not have to accept what the Council does, it is their property. She viewed including the Port in the development of a Council plan as a first step. She concluded it would be simpler to move ahead. Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comments. She was willing to move ahead to discuss the substance of the plan, setting aside some of the process issues at this time. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the subarea plan for Westgate, asking whether the City Council was the ultimate decision -maker for a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council was. Councilmember Buckshnis supported proceeding with Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday responded it is up to the Council's discretion to adopt subarea plans and any other Comprehensive Plan amendments. It would be prudent at some point to ensure any subarea plan the Council is considering adopting will ultimately be feasible for development; otherwise the Council is wasting its time. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES. Council President Petso observed the Council was now back to considering the matrix in Exhibit 3. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council have a facilitated discussion at a work session on commonalities. Council President Petso suggested scheduling discussion at the Council's June 17 mini - retreat. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred a longer discussion that did not have time constraints. She preferred to devote an entire Council meeting to this topic. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council had started reviewing Exhibit 3, a matrix with Council comments and suggestions communicated to staff and how those were addressed in the revised Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 195 of 277 Harbor Square subarea plan. The minutes indicate there were decisions made on some items. Exhibit 3 incorporates incentive zoning, retains the base height and allows additional height for a parking structure. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out everything changed with the withdrawal of the Port's plan; there is no starting point for a matrix. She recommended the Council discuss commonalities and differences. She feared reviewing Exhibit 3 would result in the Council spinning its wheels. Council President Petso suggested an additional option would be for three Councilmembers with widely differing viewpoints to meet with representatives from the Port and staff. She asked whether the Council would be interested in hearing the recommendations of such a group. Councilmember Buckshnis read the comments she offered to staff and suggested Councilmembers reread the information in the packet: • Special district for incentive zoning — brewery, distillery, brew pub zone. Create distinct energy area using waste heat from the treatment plant • Campus for tech firms or other businesses • Tourist destinations • Year-round farmers market Councilmember Yamamoto suggested the Harbor Square subarea plan developed by staff dated March 19, 2013 was a good starting point. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Council President Petso's suggestion, noting regardless of the Port's withdrawal of their plan, the Port owns the property and should be at the table. He offered to participate and suggested inviting the Port to participate. Councilmember Johnson supported involving the Port, finding it a good compromise and a place to start. Council President Petso volunteered to participate; she suggested involving 1-2 Planning Board Members. Councilmember Peterson reminded parallel to this item is the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Discussions regarding the Master Plan will require discussion regarding the SMP. Councilmember Johnson agreed the SMP is supposed to be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan and the Harbor Square Master Plan is integral to both. She agreed with the suggestion to involve the Planning Board, noting the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations, which was one of the Port's criticisms when they withdrew their amendment. Mayor Earling asked to provide comment. There were no objections. Mayor Earling echoed the concern that the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations. He was glad to hear that the recommendations would be considered in the revised process. He stressed the importance of inviting the Port to participate, noting some pretty offensive things occurred during the process and the Port was justifiably smarting from some of the comments that were made. He also cautioned the Council about the Planning Department's workload. Beyond their normal workload, they are in the middle of rewriting the code, will receive Strategic Plan assignments, the permit process has dramatically increased in recent months, and the department is down one planner. 9B. PARK LEVY EXPLORATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (formerly Agenda Item 15) Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained in March 2012 the Council requested the formation of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) Exploratory Committee. Forty people were recruited to be on the committee; the first few meetings were well attended with robust discussion regarding an MPD. In July Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 196 of 277 2012, the committee recommended continued exploration of park revenue options via an MPD or a Park Levy but not to put it on a 2012 ballot. The Council agreed and directed the committee to continue its work. At the Council retreat, Councilmember Yamamoto and she presented information and the Council directed the committee to continue their exploration. Three committee meetings were held following the Council retreat. She referred to a list of all attendees at MPD Exploratory Committee meetings included in the Council packet, clarifying not everyone attended all meetings. The Council packet also includes material that informed the committee's decision. Phil Lovell, MPD Exploratory Committee Member, explained this report is being presented by a committee of volunteers hosted by Ms. Hite and Councilmembers Yamamoto and Buckshnis. The committee was formed in 2012 at the request of Council to study the feasibility of establishing a MPD for Edmonds. Last year's work did not reach a concluding recommendation and further study was undertaken this spring at Council's request during their 2013 retreat. He advised the presentation would not include all backup information; it is available to the public and key elements of the work product have been included in the Council's packet for reference. He thanked the Council, committee members and staff for their assistance in researching and supporting the committee's efforts. By way of background and to highlight the importance of this matter, Mr. Lovell referred to the April 2, 2013 Council approved Edmonds Strategic Action Plan, available on the City's website. The plan is organized around five major objective categories, the third, "Maintain and Enhance Edmonds Community Character and Quality of Life." Seven of the fifteen action plans associated with this objective are directly related to the facilities or programs led by the Parks & Recreation Department and rated as high or very high priority in the plan. The specific actions proposed cover everything from maintaining physical facilities to enhancing programs and activities for all ages. Based on the Strategic Action Plan, Parks & Recreation infrastructure can be considered the highest priority beyond public safety and quality of governance. Unfortunately the physical and management components of the park infrastructure have suffered necessary budget cutbacks. The committee recommends the Council take action now to remedy this situation and prevent further erosion of Edmonds Parks & Recreation programming. In partnership with such Council action, the committee is committed to continuing its feasibility study for a potential MPD in Edmonds as enabled by RCW 35.41. However at this time, in order to initiate high priority action toward addressing this major quality of life objective within the Strategic Plan, the committee unanimously agreed to recommend a 3- year Levy Lid Lift in the amount of $2 million per year on behalf of Parks & Recreation in Edmonds. A draft resolution is proposed for Council approval that would initiate further action necessary to place a Parks Levy measure on the November 2013 ballot. If passed by the voters, the ballot measure would ensure restoration of eroded parks funds plus establish a 3-year accrual of capital funds for long deferred physical needs within the system. Bruce Witenberg, MPD Exploratory Committee Member, explained the committee discussed the critical importance of a unified commitment from Council for a Parks Levy in order to rally citizen support for its passage. The committee also reviewed the "disaster" of multiple levies on the 2011 ballot, none of which received more than 42% voter approval. The committee discussed the importance of the Council's unanimously adopted Strategic Action Plan as it relates to parks as a high priority item to citizens and how to incorporate another high citizen priority in the plan into the parks levy, the long neglected street overlay program. A high priority action item in the Strategic Action Plan was to create a financing mechanism to generate approximately $1.4 million/year for annual street maintenance. In discussing these issues with the City Attorney, the committee understood him to say one ballot measure could contain funding for both parks and streets. Nonetheless the committee determined, based on past experience, voters were more likely to approve a single issue levy. Given these economic times, a levy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 197 of 277 asking for $1 million for streets and $2 million for parks was viewed as too expensive to garner voter support. In addition, the ballot title is limited to 25 words which would not be enough to sufficiently explain a dual subject levy. Mr. Witenberg explained a $2 million parks levy would cost a homeowner whose home was assessed at $350,000 approximately $10/month and $12/month for a home assessed at $400,000. The committee discussed a creative method of funding both parks and street overlays. The Parks Levy, if passed, would free up $750,000 in REET 2 funds which the committee felt could be reallocated by Council to street overlays. Currently only the amount in excess of $750,000 is allocated to street overlays. There has not been any substantial excess for street overlays in the last several years. Up to $150,000 in General Fund savings resulting from the passage of the parks levy could also be used for street overlays. The specific strategy and program for street overlays would need to be developed by the Public Works and Finance Departments but should not prevent the Council from approving the committee's recommended resolution. Some of the General Fund savings would undoubtedly have to be allocated for General Fund deficit based on current budget projections for the three years. The Parks Levy is designed to: • Restore $245,000 in cuts to the Parks budget in 2012 and 2013. • Retain $750,000 for capital improvements • Leverage funds for use in grant matching • Retain $150,000 for the flower program • Retain $85,000 for Yost Pool operations • Retain $62,000 for the Beach Ranger Program • Retain $35,000 for seasonal labor • Retain $218,000 for maintenance and operations • Provide $120,000 for Yost Pool capital improvements • Provide $35,000 for the cemetery • Provide $300,000 for deferred maintenance o Restroom improvements o Play structure upgrades o Pathways/trail upgrades o Citywide turf upgrades and drainage o Tree maintenance/pruning o Tennis and basketball courts upgrades o Park entrance signs Mr. Witenberg explained most of these non -essential programs and services would likely have to be cut in the next three years if there was not a levy or the levy failed. It is critical for the Council to pass the proposed resolution now. There are less than six months to educate voters prior to the November 5 vote and only 21/2 months before the measure is filed for placement on the ballot. Next steps include the City Attorney preparing and presenting ballot language to Council for approval and the formation of pro and con committees to prepare and submit statements for the voters' pamphlets. To increase the chances of success, funding support will likely need to be obtained by a campaign organization. Passing the committee's resolution as written, the Council will not only demonstrate its further commitment to the unanimously adopted Strategic Action Plan as well as to two very high citizen priorities in the Plan, parks and street overlays. The committee is reasonably confident by the end of the three year levy, enough will be known about the economy and its influence on the City's financial strategies required for long term sustainability for Parks & Recreation programs and street overlay programs. He urged the Council to support the resolution. Mayor Earling expressed his appreciation to the committee for the work they have done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 198 of 277 Councilmember Buckshnis also thanked the committee for their work. She clarified Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding BEET; it is a 1 year projection, not a 5-year projection. The projection simply adds the budget divided by 12. Council President Petso asked whether the proposed resolution was binding on City Council in any way. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered not in any legal way. Council President Petso asked if a levy could be placed on the ballot later without passing the resolution tonight. Ms. Hite advised to place a measure on the November ballot, it needs to be filed by August 6. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to explain when the funds from the levy would be received if it was passed in November. Ms. Hite explained if the levy passes in November 2013, the City would begin collecting in 2014. Preliminary budget projections indicate the 2014 budget deficit is $230,000, $878,000 in 2015 and $1.583 million in 2016. Councilmember Bloom referred to the committee vote on April 8, 2013, noting there were 10 committee members present but only 6 voted. Ms. Hite explained a few members left early and School District representatives who were present as levy experts abstained from the vote. Councilmember Bloom noted the vote on the original motion was 5-0 with one abstention. The vote on the amendment for the November ballot was 3-1 with two abstentions. Ms. Hite recalled members who voted against the park levy during the last three meetings did so because they preferred to pursue a MPD. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed. Mr. Lovell explained after spirited discussion, the committee agreed to consider pros and cons of a MPD and a Parks Levy Lid Lift. Attendance at meetings varied and at the conclusion of the comparative process, the quorum present voted on whether to proceed with a MPD or a levy. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Edmonds School District representatives indicated the amount of time necessary to educate the public. Ms. Hite answered their indication was 6-8 months to educate the public. The School District has a group of parents who call voters and the School District typically utilizes the special election so the levy is a single issue on the ballot. Councilmember Peterson recalled the Council retreat included discussion regarding the timing of the ballot measure and the Council concluded the November 2013 ballot was preferable so that the funds could be collected in 2014. The timing for the primary election would have required the ballot to be filed two weeks ago. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hite explained at the April 8 meeting, two committee members voted no on a Park Levy specifically because they wanted to pursue a MPD. In the end, they agreed to pursue a Park Levy, reflected in the 5-0 vote. Councilmember Peterson commented this has been a very well put together process and the committee did an incredible amount of work. He liked the end result and appreciated the straightforward and honest structure that would free up funds for street overlays, a huge deficit in the community. He acknowledged the resolution was not legally binding but felt it was binding politically. He recognized parks and street overlays were two of the most critical issues in the community, ensuring parks do not reach the level streets are at now. He also appreciated the funds the levy would provide for Yost Pool. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1290, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REGARDING SUBMISSION OF A PARK LEVY BALLOT PROPOSITION FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2013. Mayor Earling explained the resolution provides an indication of intent; another ordinance would be required for Council to take action to file the ballot measure. Mr. Taraday agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 199 of 277 Councilmember Yamamoto thanked the committee members and Ms. Hite for their hard work. He noted there was a good amount of information present in order to make a decision. Councilmember Peterson commented the intent of starting with a resolution was to determine whether the Council wanted to move forward and provide an opportunity for citizen input prior to the Council considering an ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had no problem supporting the resolution but preferred there be some clarity regarding the road overlays and the amount that would be allocated to overlays to ensure citizens were clear how the funds would be spent. Councilmember Bloom said she would vote against the motion. It was important to her that the permitting process and code be addressed and she did not feel in good conscience she could support a levy when the 2013 budget did not include dedicated funds for a Development Services Director to guide that process. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. ALTERNATIVE CHART FORMAT FOR MONTHLY REPORT This item was to be rescheduled via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 11. 2013 MAY BUDGET AMENDMENT Interim Finance Director Ron Cone reviewed the 2013 May budget amendment: • Reallocate funds from the Finance Director's salary to professional services to cover the costs of an Interim Finance Director • Reallocate funds from the Finance Director's salary to overtime to cover costs associated with additional staff time needed as the City searches for a new Finance Director • Transfer of funds to reinstate .5 FTE Parks Senior Office Specialist position (previously approved by Council) • Professional services covered by grants • Miscellaneous Street/Storm Public Works COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3920, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3913 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Accountant Deb Sharp for her efforts. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. DIRECTION TO PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGARDING COUNCIL PRIORITIES ON WESTGATE AND FIVE CORNERS This item was rescheduled via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 13. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WITH TETRA TECH TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained this project is in the 2013 budget. He referred to Agenda Item 14, a grant the City recently received to expand the scope of this project. He displayed a map, identifying Perrinville Creek and Perrinville Basin, noting all the rainfall in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 200 of 277 Perrinville Basin goes into Perrinville Creek. Approximately half the drainage basin is in the City of Lynnwood. Most of the open channel is in Edmonds and most of the problems are in Edmonds. Mr. Shuster displayed an aerial map, identifying the mouth of Perrinville Creek and the culvert under Talbot Road. He explained there was a project in the 2012 CIP to replace the culvert. He displayed a photograph of the existing hanging culvert which is a fish passage barrier. He reviewed a drawing of the existing 30-inch diameter culvert and the recommended 16-foot wide, 7-foot high culvert for fish passage according to Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines. That culvert will increase the amount of water flowing through the culvert because the smaller culvert acts as a dam. The problem with Perrinville Creek is there is too much stormwater. In order to replace the culvert with a fish passable culvert, flows must be reduced. If flows are not reduced and the culvert is replaced with a wider culvert, the remaining fish habitat will be destroyed as well as potentially flood five homes. Ms. Shuster reviewed the goals of the project: • Reduce peak flows and durations by reducing and controlling stormwater runoff, including the use of Low Impact Development Techniques. • The flow reduction will provide multiple hydrologic and biological benefits to both the Creek and Brown's Bay in the Sound such as: o Allow for the replacement of an anadromous fish barrier culvert o Reduce erosion and sedimentation that is impacting aquatic habitat and City infrastructure o Reduce the amount of pollutants in the aquatic environment. o Support base flows in Perrinville Creek He reviewed the scope of work: 1. Define the Current Watershed Hydrology 2. Define the Target Conditions in Perrinville Creek 3. Identify Flow Reduction Opportunities 4. Evaluate Candidate Flow Reduction Performance 5. Public Information and Engagement 6. Recommended Flow Reduction Plan 7. Project Management, Coordination and Reporting 8. Geologic/Geotechnical Characterization 9. Expanded Stream Flow Monitoring 10. Pre -Design and Report 11. Additional Project Management Mr. Shuster explained the first seven items are funded by the current City budget. Items 8 — 11 are funded by the grant. He described the grant: • Competitive grant from Department of Ecology's National Estuary Program, Watershed Protection & Restoration Program. • Goal: Conduct watershed -based stormwater retrofit planning and pre -design in target watersheds in the Puget Sound Basin. • Moves the project beyond the analysis stage into the predesign phase, thereby accelerating retrofit of the watershed. • $188,772 - No required match but leveraging of funds is encouraged He identified $200,000 in the 2013 budget for this project plus the $188,772 grant for a total of $388,772. He referred to a letter of support submitted with the grant from Lynnwood's City Engineer stating Lynnwood will work with Edmonds on the project. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she provided Mr. Shuster a baseline of 50 creeks WRIA 8 is studying; Perrinville Creek is one of them. Perrinville Creek does well in regard to wooded areas but not as well with regard to fish and insects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 201 of 277 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WITH TETRA TECH TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was an agreement with Lynnwood to partner on this project. Mr. Shuster responded it was not an agreement; Lynnwood submitted a letter of support with the grant. Once the project begins, City staff will discuss issues with Lynnwood. Councilmember Bloom asked if Lynnwood was allocating any funds to study Perrinville Creek or seeking any grants. Mr. Shuster answered Lynnwood did not have any funds allocated in their 2013 budget; he has been discussing an allocation in their 2014 budget. Councilmember Bloom asked if the LID techniques would be utilized in only areas that have public access. Mr. Shuster advised all options are being considered. Rich Schaefer, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, advised different techniques and best management practices will be considered regardless of their location. The areas where solutions that can be implemented most quickly are those where the City has control of the land such as rights -of -way. These could range from rain gardens on individual properties to something more significant such as intercepting a trunk line storm flow and infiltrating or significantly detaining it. Lynnwood is a partner because much of this will happen on their side of the watershed. Councilmember Bloom asked if the grant is for the studies and to make recommendations but not implementation. Mr. Schaefer answered the City had planned to fund the study itself; with the grant the rigor of the study can be enhanced via more soil exploration to better calibrate estimates of the amount of water that can be removed from the system as well as fund preliminary design of priority projects. Mr. Shuster explained DOE is providing these grants because the Legislature has asked DOE to provide a list of LID projects to fund. Pre -design studies need to be completed by October 2014. These studies will position the City for funding. Councilmember Johnson commented this is a tremendous step forward compared to the project a few years ago, a large pipe going into Browns Bay. This is a more natural approach and is the way the State Legislature wants these problems addressed. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR $188,772 TO CONDUCT PRE -DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR $188,772 TO CONDUCT PRE -DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. INTERIM ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC), BUSINESS DOWNTOWN (BD) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES - PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLES 16 AND 21 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC). ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 4.90 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) — LICENSING. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained there are two ordinances for Council review and potential action. The first is an interim ordinance amending Titles 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to allow public markets in the Business Commercial (BC), Business Downtown (BD) and General Commercial (CG) Zones. The second Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 202 of 277 ordinance would amend Title 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) related to licensing. The interim ordinance, if approved, would be effective for six months; a public hearing must be held on the ordinance within the six month timeframe. The interim ordinance is scheduled for Planning Board review in May and June and likely before the Council in June. The ordinance related to ECC 4.90 can be approved tonight and does not require a public hearing. The City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee recommended approval of both ordinances at their May 14, 2013 meeting. Mr. Clifton explained the agenda memo contains background information regarding how this issue came to the City Council in September 2012, what City staff's review of ECDC Titles 16 and 21 and ECC 4.90 revealed, goals of the proposed amendments, how the goals would be met if the amendments are approved by Council and how the proposed amendments relate to the recently approved Strategic Action Plan. He invited Council feedback on the narrative for use in preparing future agenda memos. Mr. Clifton explained in the summer of 2012, Edmonds Historical Museum representatives contacted City staff about a seasonal produce and food market in September 2012. The site they were considering at the time was the Salish Crossing property located at the intersection of SR 104 and Dayton Street. Staff determined that would be allowed but the use could not operate beyond the month of September. On September 18, 2012, the City Council passed an interim ordinance that would have allowed community oriented open-air and/or farmers' markets to operate within BD and BC zones throughout the year. Unfortunately, market sponsors were not able to move forward with this proposal and the interim ordinance has since expired. The Edmonds Historical Museum is now able to move forward with this proposal and would like to begin operations on June 12, 2013 on the Salish Crossing property. Although the initial request was simple, upon the review of existing regulations applicable to such a proposal, City staff found numerous issues in the existing code related to the proposal as well as the current market operation and plans for the future. Specifically, the current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and farmers market from operating Wednesday evenings any month of the year and existing regulations conflict with the current operation of the Edmonds Historical Museum Garden and Summer Market that take place each Saturday. The code allows a community oriented open-air market to operate only during the months of July, August and September of each year, the Garden and Summer Market operates from early May through early October. Existing regulations prohibit any other open air market to exist other than what exists today. Currently regulations preclude the ability to establish a year- round farmers market and many within the community, including the Council, have expressed a desire to create a year-round farmers market. Although Community Oriented Open -Air Markets are allowed within the BD and BC zones, it is not defined in Title 21. Instead, the definition is contained in ECC Section 4.90. Although it defines a Community Oriented Open -Air Markets, it states activities must take place on Saturday and/or Sunday and can only take place during the months of July, August and September. It also precludes the ability for any other Community Oriented Open -Air Market to exist. The code states Chapter 4.90 was established by the City Council to study the effects of Open -Air Markets, which occurred in 1994, and references a 1994 working test. A Farmers Market is not defined in the code. A Seasonal Farmers Market is defined in Title 21 but it states it can only operate during the months of May, June, July, August and September, limiting the timeframe to five months. The goals of amending ECDC Titles 16 and 21 in addition to ECC Chapter 4.90 are to: 1. Create one definition that would be located in ECDC Title 21 - Definitions and could apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets; the term Public Market is the preferred term included within the proposed attached draft 2. Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within buildings, or both 3. Allow public markets to operate in public rights of way, private property, and public property not located within public rights of way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 203 of 277 4. Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic, residential properties, etc. 5. Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time, e.g., four months, 8 months, or year- round 6. Remove provisions of ECC Chapter 4.90, Section 4.90.060, that are more land use oriented and move them to ECDC Sections 16.43 and 16.50 He described amendments to the code to meet the above goals: • Goals 1 and 2: The term Community Oriented Open -Air Market has been deleted from ECC Section 4.90.010 - Definitions. A new Section 21.80.103, entitled "Public Market," would be added to the Edmonds Community Development Code. The term Public Market would allow a stand-alone produce only farmers market, or a farmers market with produce, meats, cheeses, flowers and products produced from these (food), or the kind of spring and summer market that is currently operated by the Edmonds Historical Museum, i.e., produce, flowers, meats, bread, bakery items, arts and crafts, etc. The term also allows the use to take place indoors or outdoors. • Goals 3 and 4: To minimize disruption to roadways, activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within public rights of way. If the market takes place on private or public property not within public rights -of -way, hours can be extended up to 10 p.m. for any day of the week. • Goal 5: Amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21, and ECC Chapter 4.90, do not place restrictions on what months a public market can operate, thus allowing a market to operate year-round. • Goal 6: ECC Section 4.90.060 has been deleted and relocated to ECDC Title 16. This language relates more to land use which is why it has been moved to Sections 16.43.040 and 16.50.030 - Operating restrictions. Mr. Clifton noted the existing ECDC Section 16.60.010 - General Commercial (CG) zoning allows "All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this section", thus, a public market would be allowed in this zone as well, just as community oriented open-air and seasonal farmers' markets are today. A workshop is scheduled with the Planning Board at their May 22 meeting, a public hearing will be held in June, and the Planning Board's recommendation forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Clifton referred to how the proposed changes to ECDC Titles relate to the Strategic Action Plan. He planned wherever possible to mention how changes relate to the Strategic Action Plan to illustrate how the Plan is being implemented. The proposed ordinance relates to the following plan actions: • Plan Action 2a.2 (33) Farmers'/Public Market. "Expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out -of -area customers and tourists." The proposed amendment would implement that plan action. • Plan Action lb.5 (21) Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing. "Encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site." The Wednesday evening market is proposed for the Salish Crossing property. Mr. Clifton summarized the proposed ordinances, if approved, would allow for a year round public market that could take place indoors, outdoors and/or both. Additionally, approval would also allow a Wednesday evening produce and food farmers' market to take place on the Salish Crossing property. Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Mr. Clifton's references to the Strategic Action Plan. She referred to 4.90.020.0 that states the activities of the public market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within public rights of way and asked what was meant by Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 204 of 277 daylight hours. Mr. Clifton responded sunrise to sunset; the purpose was to minimize disruption within the public right-of-way, but could be extended. Council President Petso expressed appreciation for Mr. Clifton's agenda memo format. She asked if markets would be allowed in BC zones adjacent to single family zones. Mr. Clifton stated they would be allowed in any BD zone. The market hours were limited to 10 p.m. to limit disruption to neighbors. He noted it was unlikely a market would occur anywhere other than where it currently exists plus the Wednesday market. Council President Petso noted there were several BC zones immediately adjacent to single family residential. She suggested an amendment that markets would only be allowed in BC zones that were not adjacent to single family residential. Mr. Clifton noted there was one area where BD2 exists near residential. Council President Petso clarified her concern was BC zones along Highway 99 and other areas that were adjacent to single family residential. Mr. Clifton advised Council President Petso may be referring to the CG zone, BC zoning was limited to Salish Crossing, the WSDOT lot and the Vatika lot. Council President Petso asked whether a farmers market started in a BC zone could vest. Mr. Taraday answered the proposed amendment contemplates an annual license; the market would need to apply annually unless it specified the market was permanent. Council President Petso asked whether a farmers market in a BC zone such as behind the Safeway on Highway 99 that identified itself as permanent could not be discontinued. Mr. Taraday asked for an opportunity to research. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the first ordinance, when a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50. She assumed there was plenty of parking on the Salish Crossing property. Mr. Clifton explained prior to permitting, the owner must demonstrate they have enough parking for the current use and the proposed Wednesday evening market. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost for permitting. Mr. Clifton answered it was currently $50. The revisions to Title 4.90 increase the cost to $100. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Mr. Clifton on the narrative in the agenda memo. She referred to Council President Petso's concern with BC zones. Mr. Clifton advised there are two small areas near 224'h and near 78 h & 2251h. Council President Petso noted there is also an area near Westgate. In response to Council President Petso's earlier question, Mr. Taraday referred to language in the ordinance, unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premise license as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. That language would allow someone to apply on a business license as a year -year market and it would not be a temporary use. He concluded it would theoretically be possible for a market to vest on something other than a temporary basis. If that was not the Council's intent, he suggested making an amendment. Mr. Taraday noted language in an earlier draft may have been inadvertently deleted from this draft; Section 10 should have another sentence that reads, "This ordinance shall only be effective for six months from the effective date." Mr. Clifton relayed Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave's indication that BC zones have a 15-foot setback from residential property. If the Council wished, public markets or open air markets could be prohibited when adjacent to single family. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 205 of 277 If the intent was to allow the Wednesday evening market to proceed, Council President Petso asked if all markets could be temporary and the loose ends tied up as part of the Planning Board's review. Mr. Taraday replied yes, but it would require an amendment to the proposed ordinance. He suggested language such as "no market permitted under this interim ordinance shall have a duration that exceeds six months." Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3921, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Amendment #1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SPECIFY THAT NO PUBLIC MARKET PERMITTED UNDER THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE SHALL HAVE A DURATION LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A SENTENCE IN SECTION 10, "THIS ORDINANCE SHALL ONLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR 6 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vote on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3922, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 4.90 RELATED TO LICENSING AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MARKETS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 14, 2013. Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the items the Finance Committee discussed: 0 2013 COPS Hiring Grant Solicitation: A 4-year federal grant for a police officer, 75/25 cost share the first 3 years. Edmonds School District is considering paying all or part of the 25%. Committee members supported staff submitting the grant application 0 2013 May Budget Amendment — approved on tonight's agenda 0 2013 Quarterly Financial Report — approved on the Consent Agenda 0 Issuance of 2013 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds — presentation will be made to full Council in the future Alternative Chart Format for Monthly Report — will be scheduled for full Council review in the future Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation — discussed on tonight's agenda Public comment from Ron Wambolt and Roger Hertrich Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported on items the Committee discussed: • Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation — discussed on tonight's agenda Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 206 of 277 • Authorize Mayor to sign a contract with MIG for development of the PROS Plan — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorize Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with A/E services for City Park — approved on Consent Agenda • Interim Ordinance to allow Public Markets in the Business Commercial (BC), Business Downtown (BD) and General Commercial (CG) Zones — Proposed changes to 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) — Licensing — discussed and approved on tonight's agenda. • Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions — schedule on future Council agenda • Issuance of 2013 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds — presentation will be made to full Council in the future • Authorization for Mayor to sign a Grant Agreement with the Department of Ecology for $188,772 to conduct pre -design services for the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study — discussed and approved on tonight's agenda • Authorization to award construction services for the 224th Street SW Sewer Upgrade project to Laser Underground and Earthworks — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorization to approve a storm utility easement for installation of infiltration and storm that will be part of improvements to be done as part of the 238th Storm Drain Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real property interests needed for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project — scheduled for presentation to full Council on June 4, 2013 • Final Contract Acceptance, WWTP A -Basin Upgrade Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Final Contract Acceptance, WWTP Building Roof Replacement — approved on Consent Agenda • Title 19 Building Code Updates — schedule for presentation and public hearing at full Council Personnel and Public Safety Committee Councilmember Bloom reported on items the Committee discussed: • Proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance: o Allow up to two City Councilmembers to be appointed by the Council President as liaisons — committee recommended approval o Each commissioner serves at the pleasure of the applicable appointing official, who may remove and replace his or her appointee(s) at any time without cause — withdrawn due to lack of committee consensus • 2012 Fire Code Update — scheduled for public hearing on June 4 • Annual renewal of Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Interlocal Agreement (2013- 2014) — approval on future Consent Agenda • Interlocal Agreement — North Sound Metro SWAT — approval on future Consent Agenda • 2013 COPS Hiring Program Grant Solicitation — committee consensus to proceed with submitting the grant application Councilmember Peterson added the Personnel and Public Safety Committee also discussed and recommended approval of advertising vacancies on the Economic Development Commission. 18. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on a situation involving dogs on a property near 76th. The police have been pursuing the issue for some time and finally accumulated enough evidence to obtain a search warrant. The search found 20+ animals inside the house. Two residents of the home were arrested. A court date has been scheduled and the City plans to pursue the matter to the full extent of the law. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 207 of 277 Mayor Earling reported the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) was a participant on the Seattle Foundation's May 15 GiveBIG campaign and raised $164,000, the 4tn highest in the State. With matching grants, that amount totaled $180,000. He commended the Seattle Foundation, ECA and citizens for their accomplishment raising that amount. 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS In response to Councilmember Bloom's earlier question, Councilmember Buckshnis explained Lynnwood is not a participant in WRIA 8. Lake Forest Park Councilmember Fiene and she plan to encourage Lynnwood, Brier and Woodway to participate in WRIA 8. She noted Perrinville Creek has great wooded areas but the water flows negatively impact fish and insects. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she will be out of town next week. She encouraged the public to watch the presentation by Keely O'Connell and Jerry Shuster at next week's Council meeting regarding the Willow Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study. A walkabout of the Edmonds Marsh with WRIA 8 will take place on May 22. Councilmember Buckshnis invited the public to help at the annual Hutt Park clean-up from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday, May 25. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the May 18 SeaWolves game. She encouraged the public to visit www.SeaWolves.come for information regarding upcoming games. She congratulated Jim Underhill and the SeaWolves management for proceeding with this sports tourism. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the Health Food Fair at the Lynnwood Convention Center where PCC and organic farms provide information on healthy eating, cooking and growing. She encouraged the public to attend this free event next year. Council President Petso reported a mini Council retreat will be held on June 17, from 8:30 a.m. to noon. She invited Councilmembers to submit agenda items. The agenda will include public records retention training by the City Clerk Sandy Chase, City Attorney and other experts. Councilmember Johnson reported she and Mayor Earling attended the Edmonds Museum Guild Tea today that honors their volunteers. Councilmember Peterson referred to the comments made under Audience Comments about food vendors at the Edmonds Arts Festival. The Council's passage of the street vendor ordinance late last year had unintended consequences; he did not believe it was the Council's intent to charge food vendors at festivals the $235 fee to participate. He proposed language for Section 4.12.030.E, Exemptions: Annual events that are under contract with the City such as the Arts Festival, Summer Market, 4tn of July Parade and Fireworks, Taste of Edmonds, Classic Car Show and Edmonds Waterfront Festival. He suggested Mr. Taraday prepare the amendment for Council consideration at next week's meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether vendors at City events are currently charged a fee. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered there was specific language in the 4tn of July contract that related to vendors obtaining a license. The amendment made to the code regarding street vendors requires vendors at all events obtain a license. Mr. Taraday advised the street vendor definition only applies to vendors with wheels. Mayor Earling advised many do have wheels. Mr. Taraday was directed to prepare an ordinance and revise the language as necessary in consultation with Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Peterson reported he attended the Police Ceremony sponsored by the Edmonds Police Foundation, VFW and Rotary. The event included commendations for citizens who pulled a baby from a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 208 of 277 burning car and Officer Kenneth Crystal, a great officer and humanitarian, was awarded Officer of the Year. He encouraged the public to attend the event next year. He plans to work with the Police Foundation to better advertise the event. Councilmember Bloom reported she attended the Floretum Garden Club's final meeting of the year. She also expressed her excitement about the Council's passage of the ordinance related to a year-round market. She looked forward to the June 12 opening of the evening market at Salish Crossing from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. 20. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 10:07 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending 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 may 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. The executive session concluded at 10:23 p.m. 21. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:25 p.m. No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 22. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 209 of 277 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 22, 2013 Vice Chair Stewart called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed, Chair (excused) Kevin Clarke (excused) Ian Duncan READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 8, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Kathy Ledger, Edmonds, said she and her husband, Ira Shelton, live in the Woodway Meadows Development, which is directly adjacent to the Burnstead Development. She advised that questions have recently come up about the potential removal of a fence that separates the two developments. She asked that the Planning Board and the City planners not allow the fence to be removed. She explained that there is a four -inch dispute as to the location of the actual property line. The Burnstead developer has indicated he owns four inches of an adjacent neighbor's property where the fence is currently located. She noted that the fence has been in place for decades and there is little way to remove it without damaging the property. The neighbors have asked the Burnstead developer to allow a variance so the fence can remain in its current location. Vice Chair Stewart explained that it is not within the Board's purview to deal with this issue. She encouraged Ms. Ledger and Mr. Shelton to approach the City Council with their concern and/or seek direction from the City staff. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON EDMONDS WAY ZONING Mr. Clugston reviewed that in April, the Planning Board had a study session to discuss potential ideas for updating the Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW) and Multi -Residential — Edmonds Way (RM-EW) zones. The Board Packet Page 210 of 277 directed staff to come up with some code language that would reflect their discussion, including incentive zoning, presentation at the street, setbacks, etc. In addition to the draft language found in Attachment 1, Mr. Clugston said the City's Traffic Engineer provided a copy of a portion of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan that was adopted in 2009, including a table that outlines typical roadway cross sections. He recalled that the Board previously raised questions about the relative width of the landscape strips, sidewalks, etc., particularly noting the close proximity of the new Compass Development to Edmonds Way. The Board felt that a greater setback would be preferable. Mr. Clugston said the Board also discussed the concern that the code language, as currently written, allows a broad interpretation of what are considered incentives, particularly incentives related to low -impact development. The Board basically agreed that the code language should have more depth in regards to the incentives required to obtain the additional building height. The Board also agreed it would be appropriate to incorporate design standards into the language to make development more appealing. The Board expressed concern that while the Compass Development met all of the requirements of the code and the design guidelines, the concrete portions of the building are imposing and not aesthetically pleasing. To address this issue, staff reviewed the BD Design Guidelines and incorporated those that were applicable into the proposed amendments. Board Member Lovell questioned the process for adopting the proposed amendments. Mr. Clugston answered that Development Code amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a recommendation from the Board to the City Council. The City Council will conduct an additional public hearing prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. Mr. Chave noted that all property owners within the current BC-EW and RM-EW zones would be notified of the proposed changes and the public hearing dates. Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that the ADB did not adequately press the Compass developer to create a good design. Mr. Clugston said the purpose of the proposed amendments is to give the ADB more tools and guidelines when reviewing future projects in the BC-EW and RM-EW zones. Mr. Clugston explained that the existing BC-EW zone (ECDC 16.50) allows a base building height of 35 feet. An additional 5 feet in height is allowed if a developer incorporates low -impact development (LID) techniques where feasible. The developer can obtain another 5 feet in height (maximum of 45 feet) by incorporating certain architectural features. While the current code language requires step backs, the provisions are convoluted and difficult to implement consistently. He said the proposed amendment recommends a base height of 25 feet, which is consistent with the City's BC zone. A 5-foot setback from the street would also be required for all development in the BC-EW zone, regardless of its height. The current code language does not require a setback in the BC-EW zone for development at or below the base height of 35 feet. He clarified that the setback would be measured from the property line (typically the inside of the sidewalk). Mr. Clugston referred to Table 3-6 from the Transportation Comprehensive Plan, which outlines typical roadway cross sections. He advised that Edmonds Way is classified as a principal arterial, which requires a sidewalk width between 5 and 7 feet and a 5-foot landscaped strip. With the additional 5-foot setback, all development would be set back from the street a minimum distance of 15 to 17 feet. Board Member Tibbott asked if the distance between the street and the building could be even greater than 15 to 17 feet. Mr. Chave answered that, currently, there are a variety of situations in the rights -of -way along Edmonds Way. The distance will depend on location and how the existing right-of-way is developed. He noted that, currently, the BC-EW zone allows buildings to be located at the property line. The proposed amendment would require a 5- foot setback. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the standards for a typical principal arterial (see Table 3-6) calls for a 5-foot bike lane. Mr. Clugston clarified that bike lanes would only be provided when required. He said the street standards also identify the City's desire for medians or left -turn lanes when there is enough right-of-way. He noted that left -turn lanes are provided along portions of Edmonds Way. Mr. Chave pointed out that the street standards were adopted relatively recently. Full compliance with the standards depends on how recently a street was developed or redeveloped. Board Member Lovell observed that the proposed 5-foot setback requirement for the BC-EW zone would be closer to the setback proposed in the Westgate Plan. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Westgate Plan identifies a setback of 8 feet, and a base height limit that would accommodate 3 to 4-story development. The proposed amendment would establish a 5-foot setback in the BC-EW zone and a base height of 25 feet, which would accommodate 2-story development. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 211 of 277 Mr. Clugston explained that because of the significant topography changes on the properties zoned BC-EW, staff believes it would be reasonable to allow additional height. He noted that, as proposed, any new development in the BC-EW zone would be required to obtain a minimum LEED certification. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that developers are able to avoid many of the LEED categories and still obtain LEED certification. She suggested that the language be changed to require all development within the BC-EW zone to obtain a minimum LEED Silver certification, which would require an applicant to address all of the categories. Vice Chair Stewart also pointed out that there are numerous green building programs that are equivalent to LEED. She suggested the language be changed to require "LEED Silver certification or comparable green building program certification." She commented that while LEED is the most widely known program, there are other good programs available. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposal would allow an increase in the height limit up to a maximum of 40 feet. However, the building setback would be increased to 15 feet, and the developer would be required to incorporate at least three of the four techniques (LEED Gold certification, inclusion of affordable housing, and bicycle parking spaces and or storage areas) listed in the code to the building and/or site design. In addition, 75% of the building fagade facing a public right-of-way must be clad with preferred building materials. He asked if the City or state has standards to define "affordable housing." Mr. Chave answered that Snohomish County has affordable housing standards the City could reference. Board Member Ellis asked if figures for "affordable housing" would be specific to each municipality or based on a geographic area. Mr. Chave said Snohomish County's jurisdictional housing group has developed a standard definition that is specific to Snohomish County. In some cases, jurisdictions have also developed their own definitions for "affordable housing. The City would likely use the definition provided by Snohomish County. Vice Chair Stewart said she previously suggested that the Green Factor Score Sheet that is included in the draft Westgate Plan could also be incorporated into the BC-EW code. This approach would adequately address the issue of low -impact development. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that, within the next three years, the City will be updating its stormwater regulations to incorporate a requirement for low -impact development in all zones. He questioned if the City is ready to incorporate Green Factor scoring throughout all zones now, but he acknowledged that is the direction the City's stormwater regulations will be heading in the next few years. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that developers are familiar with and like the Green Factor Program, particularly as incentive for additional height. She reviewed the various components of the Green Factor Score Sheet, which is contained in the draft Westgate Plan. The components include landscaped areas with a soil depth of 24 inches or greater, bio-retention facilities, plantings, green roofs, vegetated walls, approved water features, permeable paving, etc. She commented that while it might not be appropriate to incorporate a full, Green Factor Program into the BC-EW zone right now, they should not simply ignore the need to promote sustainability through the use of LID techniques. At the very least, she suggested the language should include a list of LID techniques a developer could and should choose from. Requiring only the minimum LEED certification would allow developers to avoid most or all of these techniques. Mr. Clugston said the Public Works Director has indicated that the City encourages LID techniques, but the stormwater standards do not require them yet. When the Engineering Project Manager reviews applications, she tries to point out LID techniques that could be incorporated into the design. While it might be possible to incorporate some additional requirements for LID into the proposed language, he cautioned against requiring a comprehensive Green Factor Program for just this one zone. Again, he reminded the Board that the stormwater regulations will be updated in the next few years and will likely require LID techniques for every project, regardless of the zone. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that, at a minimum, development in the BC-EW zone should require LEED Silver certification. Mr. Clugston pointed out that no other zone in the City requires an applicant to meet LEED certification in order to develop at the base height allowed in the zone, so requiring the minimum LEED certification for all development in the BC-EW zone, as currently proposed, would be a step in the right direction. He said he believes it would be appropriate to require an applicant to meet LEED Silver or even LEED Gold certification in order to obtain the additional height allowed in the zone. Again, Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that all development in the BC-EW should be required to at least meet LEED Silver certification. Board Member Lovell questioned if the City Council would support this type of requirement. He said his sense is that the City Council is interested in other types of amenities that benefit the City. Because sustainability is so important, Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the Board at least recommend starting at a level that is deeper green. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 212 of 277 Mr. Chave said he does not believe it would be too much to ask an applicant to obtain LEED Gold in order to obtain the additional height allowed in the BC-EW zone. This would be considered a type of incentive zoning. However, requiring all development in the BC-EW zone to obtain LEED Silver certification regardless of height is a totally different matter. Board Member Ellis recalled that when the Board discussed this issue previously, they agreed that if the City is going to require LEED certification, it should be required across all zoning categories and not just a few. He felt it would be appropriate to include LEED Silver or Gold certification as an incentive for the additional height. However, making it a base requirement in the BC-EW zone would raise the question of why it is not be required in all zones. He suggested that the issue would be better addressed on a citywide basis rather than applying the concept to just one zone. Vice Chair Stewart agreed that there may be fairness issues if the requirement is applied only to the BC-EW zone. At the very least, she suggested that the previous language should be added back in to read, "Low -impact development techniques shall include, but not be limited to, the following where feasible." While she questioned the use of the words "where feasible," including a list of options would be appropriate. Mr. Chave explained that the current stormwater code encourages LID techniques, but it does not give any level of achievement or method for measurement. He recalled that the City Council was particularly concerned that while the Compass Development did incorporate LID features, they were difficult to find. Mr. Chave pointed that buildings up to 25 feet in height can be built in any zone along the Edmonds Way Corridor now. He questioned the fairness of inserting an LID requirement in just this one zone. He said it is likely that developers within the BC-EW zone will want the additional height. Rather than focusing on the base building, he suggested the Board should focus on specific requirements that would apply to development that punctures the 25-foot base height. Requiring LEED Gold or an equivalent certification would force developers to do something much higher than the normal. Again, Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the requirement state, "LEED Gold or comparable green building program certification." Mr. Chave suggested that, rather listing all of the different programs within the ordinance, staff could prepare a white paper to explain the equivalencies. Vice Chair Stewart said she understands the point of proceeding in ways that are agreeable to the decision makers, the developers and the public. It is important for the City to show they are being progressive, but not putting up a roadblock that is too high. Again, Board Member Ellis recommended that requiring LEED certification should be addressed on a citywide level rather than zone -by -zone. Board Member Lovell said he has heard the City Council discuss their desire to proceed with a universal LEED certification standard that would apply to all development in all zones. Board Member Lovell noted that, as proposed, the height limit could be increased up to 40 feet if an applicant meets the criteria outlined in the code (ECDC 16.50.020.A). He specifically requested clarification of Item d, which requires that 75% of a building fagade facing a public right-of-way must be clad with preferred building materials. Mr. Clugston said the intent is that 75% of the building fagade facing Edmond Way would have to use natural materials. He noted that concern was raised that the base of the Compass Development is constructed of poured concrete, which is not aesthetically pleasing. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the concrete was necessary in order to accommodate the structured parking. However, he expressed his belief that something could have been done to make the concrete look better. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that in order to promote sustainable materials, the language should include the following requirement from the International Green Construction Code, which is being adopted by municipalities across the nation: "At least 55% of building materials must be salvageable recyclable content, recyclable bio base or indigenous. While the Board did not feel it would be appropriate to add this requirement as a base standard for the BC-EW zone, they discussed that it could be added as an additional requirement for increased height. Board Member Ellis said he is a little concerned about adding a requirement that 55% of the building materials must be recycled materials without having more information about what that would mean in terms of construction. He said he does not have enough information to ensure the requirement would even be practical. He pointed out that Item d is aimed more at addressing appearance, which is a concern of the City Council. Rather than adding the new requirement as part of Item d, he suggested it should be a separate item in the list of things an applicant must do to obtain the additional height. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 213 of 277 Vice Chair Stewart agreed to provide additional information and examples to address Board Member Ellis' concerns. Board Member Ellis said he would like to know what the requirement would mean from a practical standpoint. He would also like more information about how available the recyclable materials are. He cautioned against imposing a requirement that turns out to be unrealistic. Board Member Tibbott concurred. He asked if the people who developed the International Green Construction Code are from the East or West Coast. He noted that there are more recyclable materials available on the east coast, as there are more old buildings. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that more recycled materials are being used on the West Coast than on the East Coast because they are more progressive. Buildings are considered old at 40 to 50 years, so there is more to recycle. Again, she agreed to provide more information about the concept. For public hearing purposes, Mr. Clugston agreed to include the additional language related to recyclable materials in both Item d and as a stand along requirement. After the public hearing the Board can decided where it fits best. Board Member Ellis suggested that the intent of ECDC 16.50.020.A.c.4, which would require one bicycle parking space or storage area per vehicular parking space provided on site, should be clarified. Mr. Clugston agreed. Board Member Tibbott asked if there is a standard for a "bike storage area." Mr. Clugston said the intent is that the storage area would have a door or at least a place to lock bikes up. Board Member Ellis said he used to work at 1 Union Square in Downtown Seattle, where the parking area was recently remodeled to include a bike storage area. It is a sandwiched -off area where bikes can be hung up. However, he doesn't know how they control the access. Vice Chair Stewart observed that there are various options for bicycle storage areas. Mr. Clugston said his intent, when drafting the proposed language, was that the bike storage areas would be enclosed features, but they do not necessarily have to be. A bike rack alongside a building could suffice. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the number of bicycle parking and/or storage spaces needed would vary depending on the use. For example, a retirement home would not need a large number of spaces. Mr. Clugston pointed out that bicycle parking and/or storage is just one of the techniques a developer could choose as an incentive for additional height. Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board requested that design standards, similar to those found in the BD zones, should be incorporated into the BC-EW zone, as well. He said the intent of the design standards is not to focus so much on the street front. While the street front might be somewhat pedestrian there will be cars moving through the corridor at high speeds. Board Member Lovell observed that the purpose of the proposed design standards is to "provide enough arrows in the Architectural Design Board's quiver" to ensure appropriate building design. Mr. Clugston agreed and explained that the Comprehensive Plan contains general design guidance and policy, but the proposed design standards would be specific to the BC-EW zone. Because the design standards provide a menu of options, they are flexible but would require developers to look at specific elements as part of their design. Next, Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the proposed amendments to the RM-EW zoning provisions contained in Chapter 16.30. He noted that the RM and RM-EW standards are fairly similar. The setbacks would be the same, and the base height for both would be 25 feet. However, the RM-EW zone allows an additional 10 feet of height if an applicant meets certain requirements (ECDC 16.30.030A). He explained that the intent is that the RM-EW zone would not have the same level of requirements for the additional height as the BC-EW zone because the maximum height would be less. However, a developer would still be required to meet two of the three incentives (LEED Gold certification, inclusion of affordable housing, bicycle parking spaces and or storage areas) listed in order to achieve the maximum 35-foot height. In addition, the proposed amendment would require that at least 75% of the building fagade facing a public right-of-way must be clad with preferred building materials regardless of the height (ECDC 16.3 0.030.13. 1). Board Member Lovell asked what height is currently allowed in the RM-EW zone. Mr. Clugston answered that the base height is 25 feet, with an additional 10 feet if certain requirements are met. The proposed language is more specific as to what a developer must do in order to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave observed that the differences between the RM and RM-EW zones are not as significant as the differences between the BC and BC-EW zones. While the idea of adding an incentive system for the additional height makes sense, staff is seeking direction from the Board as to whether requirement for building facades to be clad with preferred materials should apply to all development in the RM-EW zone regardless of height, or just to developments that go above the 25-foot height limit. Board Member Lovell pointed out that Edmonds Way is a gateway to the City, and development should be clad with decent materials. The remainder of the Board concurred that the requirement should apply to all development in the RM-EW zone, regardless of height. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 214 of 277 Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Puget Sound region is extremely active in recycling, recovery and emergency conservation, and using recyclable materials. He suggested that materials such as aluminum and vinyl siding could be avoided by forcing developers to use at least some natural materials. Board Member Tibbott asked what the average cost increase would be for natural materials. Board Member Lovell estimated the difference in cost would be between 5% and 15%, and the materials are readily available. Again, Vice Chair Stewart agreed to provide more information about recyclable materials. Board Member Ellis pointed out that concrete is listed as a type of preferred building material. Board Member Lovell said there are all kinds of things that can be done to make concrete more architectural. Board Member Ellis noted that the purpose of ECDC 16.30.030.B.1 is not necessarily to encourage the use of a particular material, but to encourage an architecturally attractive building. Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that the proposed amendments would give the Architectural Design Board additional tools when reviewing design proposals. Mr. Clugston agreed to update the draft amendments as per the Board's discussion. The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing for July loth. Board Member Tibbott said he would particularly like to hear from developers at the public hearing. Vice Chair Stewart agreed to contact the Master Builders Association of Snohomish County to get the word out. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODES TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES Mr. Clifton advised that two items are before the Board for consideration. The first is an interim ordinance to allow public markets in the Community Business (BC), Business Downtown (BD) and General Commercial (CG) zones. The proposed changes are to Titles 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The second item before the Board is an ordinance to amend Title 4, Chapter 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC), related to licensing. He reported that the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee met on May 14t'' and recommended the City Council approve both ordinances, which occurred last night. He noted that the amendment to ECC 4.90 did not require a review or public hearing by the Planning Board and was included in the Board's packet for reference purposes. The interim ordinance will be good for six months and requires that a hearing be conducted within that timeftame. This meeting begins the hearing process with a workshop discussion, which will be followed by a public hearing, a Planning Board recommendation, and a final City Council decision. Mr. Clifton explained that the narrative in the Staff Report was structured differently; and hopefully, the information will be clearer and easier to understand. The report provides background information, describes the findings of a review of the existing code language, outlines the goals of the proposed amendments, explains how the goals will be met if the amendments are approved, and describes how the proposed amendments relate to the recently approved Strategic Action Plan. Mr. Clifton reviewed that during the summer of 2012, representatives of the Edmonds Historical Museum contacted City staff with a request to start a Wednesday evening only produce and food market at the Salish Crossing property located at the corner of Dayton Street and SR 104. Upon review of the Museum's request, staff found that the code, as written, would not allow a seasonal market to operate within the timeframe proposed (into November). In September, 2012, the City Council passed an interim ordinance that would have allowed community -oriented open-air and/or farmers' markets to operate within the BD and BC zones throughout the year. Unfortunately, market sponsors were not able to move forward with the proposal and the interim ordinance has since expired. Mr. Clifton advised that the Museum is now ready to move forward with their proposal and would like to begin operations on June 12, 2013 on the Salish Crossing property. However, upon reviewing the proposal further, staff found that: • The current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and food farmers' market from operating each Wednesday evening during all months of the year. • Existing regulations conflict with the current operation of the Edmonds Historical Museum's Garden and Summer Markets that take place each Saturday. Specifically, while the current code allows a community -oriented, open-air Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 215 of 277 market to operate during the months of July, August and September each year, the Garden and Summer Markets operate from early May through early October. • Currently, regulations preclude the ability to establish a year-round farmers' or public market, something that has been expressed by City staff, City Council and community residences. Mr. Clifton explained that, depending on the type of market proposed, the current regulations limit where and when markets can take place and preclude the ability of markets to take place year round or for extended periods of time. For example: • ECDC 16 allows community -oriented, open-air markets within the BD, BC and CG zones, but the term is not expressly defined or listed within ECDC 21. The definition is contained in ECC 4.90, but the provision only allow a single open-air market to operate during daylight hours on Saturdays and Sundays during the months of July, August and September. No other open-air markets are permitted. As stated in ECC 4.90, ECDC 16 was established by the Edmonds City Council in order to study the effect of open-air markets on the community and determine appropriate limits and conditions for license issuance. Most in Edmonds would agree that they are well past the testing period and the current garden and summer markets are successful and well run. • Farmers' Market is not expressly defined or listed within ECDC 21 or ECC 4.90 as a permitted us within the BC and BD zones. • Seasonal Farmers' Market is expressly defined in ECDC 21.90009 and is an allowed use within the BC and BD zones. However, the activity is permitted only during the period between May and September. This would limit the Museum's proposal to operate a produce and food farmers' market in late fall. In addition, it is difficult to determine whether the provisions of ECC 4.90.010, which limits to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week during the months of July, August and September, would also apply to seasonal farmer's markets. Mr. Clifton highlighted the goals of the proposed amendments to ECDC 16, ECDC 21 and ECC 4.90 as follows: Create one definition that would be located in ECDC 21 (Definitions) and could apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets. The term "Public Market" is the preferred term used in the proposed amendments. Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within the building, or both. Allow public markets to operate in public rights -of -way, private property, and public property not located within the public rights -of -way. Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic and residential properties. Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time. Remove provisions of ECC 4.90.060 that are more land -use oriented and move them to ECDC 16.43 and 16.50. Mr. Clifton explained that Goals 1 and 2 can be met by deleting the term "Community -Oriented, Open -Air Market" from ECC 49.010 and adding a new section ECDC 21.80.103 entitled, "Public Market." The term "Public Market" would allow a stand-alone, produce -only farmers' market or a farmers' market with produce, meats, cheeses, flowers, etc., or the kind of spring and summer market that is currently operated by the Museum with produce, flowers, meats, bakery items, arts and crafts, etc. The term would also allow the use to take place either indoors or outdoors. Mr. Clifton said Goals 3 and 4 would be met by revising ECC 4.90.020(C), to allow operating hours to be extended up to 10 p.m. for any day of the week if the market takes place outdoors on private property or public property not located within public rights -of -way. It is important to minimize disruptions caused by activities in the roadway. Roadways should remain open as much as possible to avoid public safety issues. He noted that operational hours would not be so limited when the market takes place within a fully -enclosed building. Mr. Clifton advised that Goal 5 would be met by amending ECDC 16, ECDC 21 and ECC 4.90 to remove restrictions on what months a public market can operate. This would allow markets to operate year round. Goal 6 would be met by relocating ECC 4.90.060 to ECDC 16.43.040 and ECDC 16.50.030. This language is more related to land use. As proposed, if a business license does not specifically define a public market as permanent, it will be considered temporary and will not be subject to signage restrictions, etc. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 216 of 277 Mr. Clifton pointed out that ECDC 16.60.010 states that all permitted or conditional uses allowed in any other zone in ECDC 16 are permitted in the CG zones. That means that public markets would be allowed in the CG zones, as well, just as community -oriented, open-air and seasonal farmers' markets are today. Mr. Clifton explained that the Planning Board is not required to review and take action on the amendments to ECC 4.90. These amendments were approved by the City Council on May 2l't. However, the Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing on the interim zoning ordinances related to ECDC 16 and 21 and forward a recommendation to the City Council within the next six months. Mr. Clifton advised that, from this point forward, whenever staff provides a presentation or written narrative, they will outline how the proposal is consistent with the Strategic Action Plan that was recently adopted by the City Council. He suggested this is important to let the community know that the City is working to implement the plan. He reviewed that the proposed ordinance relates to the following action plan items: • Plan Action 2a.2 (33) Farmers//Public Market. "Expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out -of -area customers and tourists." • Plan Action lb.5 (21) Antique Mall (aka Salish Crossing). "Encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall (aka Salish Crossing) and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site." Mr. Clifton explained that the proposed ordinance would allow for a year-round public market that could take place indoors, outdoors and/or both. Additionally, the ordinance would allow a Wednesday evening produce and food farmers' market to take place on the Salish Crossing property. He provided the Board Members with a handout of proposed changes to the interim ordinance based on amendments approved by the City Council on May 21". The changes include the following: Section 9. Purpose. The purpose of the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is to establish the development regulations that will allow public markets to operate in the BC, BD and CG zones while the Planning Board holds a public hearing, gains public input on this issue, provides a recommendation to the City Council, and the Council considers the final version of the ordinance on this subject. Section 10. Duration of Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance within 60 days of adoption and shall adopt findings of fact justifying this Interim Zoning Ordinance no later than immediately after that hearing. This Ordinance shall be effective until six (6) months after the effective date. Section 11. Duration of Public Market. No market permitted under this interim ordinance shall have duration longer than six (6) months. Board Member Ellis asked if the proposed ordinance was written with the idea that the market would always have a food - based component. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Board Member Ellis asked if staff anticipates there could potentially be a market with no food vendors. Again, Mr. Clifton answered yes. Board Member Ellis noted that the ordinance was written to be effective for a six-month duration. He asked if any thought was given to having a permanent provision to allow public markets. Mr. Clifton explained that the proposed ordinance, and the ordinance related to ECC 4.90 would allow year-round markets, which is the City Council's expressed desire. Public markets have also been identified as desirable in the Comprehensive Plan, but they are currently only allowed on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer months. Over the past year, staff has worked with the Edmonds Historical Museum to expand the City code to allow public markets on Wednesday evenings, as well. The Museum is hoping to meld the Wednesday and weekend markets and eventually fill in the days in between. Mr. Chave explained that the City Council limited public markets to six months in the interim ordinance because at least one City Council Member was concerned about allowing the use in some of the smaller Community Business (BC) zones that are located throughout the City. She was particularly concerned about the impact a public market could have on adjacent single- family residential properties. The City Council would like the Planning Board to consider whether larger public markets are appropriate in BC zones that are located adjacent to single-family residential zones. Mr. Clifton added that, currently, the code allows seasonal farmers' markets to take place in the BC and BD zones, and this would continue to be allowed. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 217 of 277 Board Member Lovell recalled that Council Member Buckshnis particularly brought up the relative location of the BC zones to residential properties. Mr. Chave explained that there is currently a 15-foot setback requirement in commercial zones that are located adjacent to residential properties. In the BC zone, commercial uses are only allowed in enclosed buildings. He said he suspects her concern was that allowing outdoor markets on the smaller BC -zoned properties could create a problem for adjoining residential properties. If the Board agrees this could be a problem, there are number of ways to address the issue. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Museum sponsors the summer market and collects fees from all of the participating vendors. He suspects they would do the same with the public market that is proposed at Salish Crossing. Mr. Clifton concurred. He added that the City would also require an annual $100 Master License from the person operating the market, and each participating vendor would pay the City $5, as well. Board Member Lovell asked if the Salish Crossing property would be ready for the public market to open on June 12t'. Mr. Clifton said that is the Museum's goal. Board Member Tibbott asked why the Museum is involved in sponsoring an open-air market. He commented that there does not seem to be a natural connection. Mr. Clifton answered that the Museum started sponsoring the summer market before he arrived at the City. He said he believes it is used as a fundraiser for the Museum. He suggested they invite a representative from the Museum to address the Board during the public hearing. Board Member Tibbott said he would be interested in learning about other entities throughout the City that might like to make money in a similar fashion by sponsoring a public market. Board Member Tibbott asked Mr. Clifton to provide some examples of something that would not be considered a public market. For example, is the new IGA store a public market. Mr. Clifton answered that, as per the code, only non-profit organizations can sponsor public markets in Edmonds. The IGA is a private market. Board Member Tibbott clarified that any non-profit organization, such as a school group, could sponsor a public market as a fundraising event. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively. As an example, Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that the Portland School District has a program where the students grow produce and sell it at an open market. The proceeds are used to support school programs. Mr. Clifton said he recently forwarded an article to Planning Board, City Council and Economic Development Commission members regarding how some cities actually have multiple public markets throughout their neighborhoods. Smaller public markets are popping up in many neighborhoods because they serve the local need. Board Member Tibbott asked if a for - profit group would be allowed to have a public market. Mr. Clifton answered no. Mr. Clifton explained that while the City did not increase the fee it currently charges to individual vendors, it did increase the master license fee from $50 to $100. The City Clerk has indicated that even the $100 fee does not adequately cover the costs of processing each application. Board Member Tibbott asked staff to share more information about why the open-air markets were previously limited to July through September. Mr. Chave said the ordinance was created because the Museum wanted to try out a market. The ordinance was specifically tailored to that initial effort and cast as a trial. At the time, it was designed to fit around the parameters proposed by the Museum and it was not revised as the market expanded. Mr. Clifton added that many public markets operate year round and sell all types of products, depending on the season. Mr. Chave said the initial proposal was to allow year-round markets, but the City Council attached the six-month limit as an interim measure to allow the City to address potential negative impacts. Board Member Tibbott recalled that a number of months ago, the Board reviewed a proposal that would allow roadside produce stands. The proposal was brought forward by a couple who had a farming operation and wanted to sell their produce to residents in the neighborhood. He asked how this proposal would relate to the market concept. Mr. Chave said there is no relationship. Roadside stands are typically located in residential areas and public markets would be of a larger scale and located in commercial zones. Board Member Lovell noted that the roadside produce stand was proposed as a type of co-op exchange. Vice Chair Stewart asked if there are any commercial zones on the west side of the railroad tracks where a public market would be allowed to locate. Mr. Clifton answered no. Vice Chair Stewart said she hopes the public market proposed at the Salish Crossing site is a huge success. However, she expressed concern that this could result in a significant amount of traffic. She suggested that the public market also be advertised to people who visit Edmonds via water transportation. Mr. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 218 of 277 Clifton said a recent survey indicated that a lot of vendors are interested in participating in the public market, and there is a demand for a mid -week market that offers fresh produce. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the Board discuss the particular concern raised by members of the City Council about the potential impacts of allowing public markets to locate in BC zones that are adjacent to single-family residential development. She asked if it would be appropriate to place additional requirements on public markets that are located adjacent to residential zones. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the code already requires a 15-foot setback. Vice Chair Stewart said Council Member Petso specifically pointed out that people who live in residential areas have an expectation of a residential lifestyle, and allowing people to sell items next door could be problematic. Mr. Clifton suggested that an easy solution would be to allow public markets in BC zones, but require that the use must occur within an enclosed structure when located adjacent to single-family residential zones. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Board Member Ellis asked if vendors who sell strawberries and/or other produce on the street corner are required to obtain a permit or license. Mr. Clifton answered that State law exempts street vendors who sell produce only from having to obtain a license. This use is allowed on both private property and public property located within the rights -of -way. Board Member Lovell said it was mentioned several times at the City Council meeting that Mr. Clifton did an incredible job researching this issue and putting together a proposed ordinance for the Council and Board's consideration. Mr. Clifton pointed out that code amendments can be incredibly complex, particularly when they involve both the ECDC and ECC. A certain amount of cross referencing is required to make the language consistent. He thanked Mr. Chave and his staff for reviewing the proposed changes and providing good comments. Board Member Lovell said he appreciates that the Staff Report lists the goals of the proposed ordinances and why they are important. Identifying the goals makes it easier to understand why the changes are necessary. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the average citizen does not have time to review all of the information and read through the various code sections. Identifying the goals and explaining how the goals will be met allows citizens to learn a lot about what is being proposed. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Stewart reviewed that a public hearing regarding incentive zoning opportunities on Highway 99 and a public hearing on amendments to City codes to allow public markets in the BC, BD and CG zones are scheduled for June 12th Three public hearings are tentatively scheduled for the Board's June 26th agenda. The first is regarding updates to the Sanitary Sewer Plan, and background materials will be provided to the Board well in advance of the public hearing. The Board can relay their questions to staff so they can be prepared to answer them at the public hearing. The Board will also conduct a public hearing to rename the SR-104 Mini Park. In addition, the Board will conduct a public hearing on the Parker Rezone (403 — 3rd Avenue North). Vice Chair Stewart reminded the Board that their review of the proposed Westgate and Five Corners Plans has been postponed by the City Council. She reported that at their May 2l't meeting the City Council discussed the Harbor Square Master Plan and the appropriate next steps. There was a motion on the floor to end the process, but the motion failed. That means the process will essentially continue and the City Council will continue to work through their major revision of the plan. The suggestion was made by Council President Petso to form a committee made up of a few City Council Members, Planning Board Members, and Port representatives to actually talk to each other about what is common ground and try to get something pulled together that would be palatable to the City Council. With that in mind, she expects the City Council will eventually ask for volunteers from the Planning Board. Mention was also made that it would be a good idea to have some with opposing and/or minority opinions participate on the group. Board Member Tibbott indicated he would be interested in participating on the Harbor Square Master Plan review committee as a Board Representative. Vice Chair Stewart agreed to also invite Chair Reed to participate to represent his minority opinion. The remainder of the Board concurred. Vice Chair Stewart said she recently sent out a notice regarding an upcoming educational opportunity. Sustainable Seattle is currently working with the Highland Park Improvement Club to implement a Clean Blocks Blue Sound Program. They are currently doing a community design on green infrastructure which includes rain gardens, cisterns, etc. The effort is Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 219 of 277 specifically intended to address runoff along the lower Duwamish River. The event is scheduled for June 1" from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Highland Park Improvement Club. She agreed to forward the information to Board Members once again. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the May 15th Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where the following was discussed: • The Tourism Committee reported on meetings with the Port of Edmonds to discuss ways to enhance activities having to do with the marina and waterfront. The Port has indicated an interest in participating, and there was some discussion about providing a shuttle between the waterfront and Downtown Edmonds. • The Land Use Committee reported on their discussions related to coal trains through Edmonds. The committee reported that a University Professor has raised enough funding to do monitoring along the Columbia River to ascertain the environmental damage caused by coal trains. • The EDC is studying potential land -use incentives, tax incentives, permitting and impact fees. They are currently researching what other cities in the region do, and alternatives will be evaluated at future meetings. • Commissioner Stern provided a presentation on communication and community outreach. • The Commission also had a lengthy discussion about the Strategic Action Plan. They particularly discussed the best way to get information regarding the Strategic Action Plan to the public via the City's website, the Edmonds Beacon, myedmondsnews.com, etc.. They discussed the importance of informing the public when progress is made in the plan's implementation. • The EDC agreed that the City Council should be responsible for implementing the Strategic Action Plan, but they did not have a clear understanding of how this would be accomplished. Neither of the two City Council Members who participate on the EDC (Petso and Bloom) provided comment. • The EDC discussed comments made by Roger Brooks, the visionary planning person who has made presentations in Edmonds that were well -received. Mr. Brooks recently met with representatives of the EDC, Mr. Clifton and Stephanie Mayo, who represents downtown Edmonds property owners. The EDC is currently putting together a concept that would limit uses in the BD zone to retail centered largely on restaurants, drinking establishments, and retail shops (not service related retail). A lot of work has been done to create a matrix of potential uses allowed in the BD 1 zone. He said he suggested that before the EDC moves too far forward with this concept, they should meet with the property owners. He was advised that the property owners seem to generally be in favor of the proposal. This issue will likely come before the Board at some point in the future. Board Member Lovell agreed to attend the EDC's June 19th meeting as the Board's representative. Board Member Tibbott recalled that after the Board's last meeting, he proposed the idea of incorporating an interactive artistic element at the SR-104 Mini Park, and perhaps introducing the element as a theme that could be incorporated in a naming proposal. He said he has discussed the idea with artists, musicians, graphic designers, etc. He said at least two artists have indicated they are intrigued with the idea of adding interactive artistic elements in Edmonds parks, and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director has indicated that members of the public often ask how the parks can be made more artist friendly. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Stewart advised that the Parks Department has requested a volunteer from the Board to help judge the sandcastle contest on July 23rd. Board Member Lovell agreed to fulfill this responsibility. Vice Chair Stewart referred to information provided by staff regarding new City email accounts for each Planning Board Member. She urged the Board Members to use the new email accounts for any correspondence related to Planning Board business. Board Member Tibbott asked if this would include all email sent by one Board Member to another. Again, Vice Chair Stewart said the new email accounts should be used for all Planning Board business. Board Member Ellis explained that using the new email accounts will allow the City to archive all emails related to Planning Board matters. Mr. Chave said the intent is to protect Planning Board Members in the event of a public records request. If used religiously, the Planning Board Members can rely on the City to retain the records so they do not have to worry about having their personal computers searched. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 220 of 277 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no other Board comments during this portion of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 221 of 277 AM-5891 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Planning Board Quarterly Report Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Planning Board Member Val Stewart will give the quarterly report. Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/21/2013 Committee Action: Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/20/2013 07:38 PM Sandy Chase 06/21/2013 08:26 AM Started On: 06/20/2013 04:07 PM J, Packet Page 222 of 277 AM-5879 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfner"0finn Subject Title Sno-Isle Regional Library Presentation. Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Committee Action: 10. Carolyn LaFave Narrative Sno-Isle Libraries Executive Director Jonalyn Woolf -Ivory and Deputy Director Kendra Trachta will provide an update on library services, the Library district's upcoming strategic plan 2014-16, and the ongoing partnership between the City of Edmonds and Sno-Isle Libraries. Inbox Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 09:11 AM Started On: 06/19/2013 09:49 AM Packet Page 223 of 277 AM-5876 11. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Stephen Clifton Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board's Proposed Work Program/Budget for Year 2013 and Bylaws. Recommendation The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is requesting the City Council approve the attached proposed work program and budget for year 2013 and Edmonds Downtowi Business Improvement District bylaws. Previous Council Action November 13, 2012 - The City Council Finance Committee expressed support for, and recommended the City Council approve, a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. November 27, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds (see attached). December 18, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to establish a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds and setting the public hearing date for January 15, 2013 (see attached). January 15, 2013 - The City Council voted to approve Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. March 12, 2013 - The City Council confirmed the appointment of eleven Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board members. March 12, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3914 amending Edmonds City Code 3.75.120 relatin the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. June 11, 2013 - The City Council Finance Committee recommended that this item be placed on the City Coun agenda as a 30 minute item. During the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting, members of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board will present informati on proposed EDBID work program and budget for year 2013 in addition to bylaws. A question and answer session may follow. Packet Page 224 of 277 g to on Packet Page 225 of 277 Narrative Edmonds City Code Section 3.75.120, as amended by Ordinance 3914, requires the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board to recommend a work program at budget for year 2013, in addition to EDBID bylaws, to the City Council for review and consideration within 9 days after the City Council confirms the Mayor's appointment of an interim board. Providing such to the City Council Finance Committee, via Agenda Quick, to review during the June 11, 2013 Council Finance Commit met this timeline. As referenced under the Previous Council Action item above, the Interim Members Advisory Board was appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council on March 12, 2013. Since that time, the Interim Members Advisory Board has been meeting to draft bylaws in addition to a work program and budget for yea: 2013. Representatives of the EDBID will be presenting information on the following documents: 1. Proposed EDBID Bylaws 2. Proposed EDBID work program and related budget for year 2013 NOTE: Following discussion by the City's Finance Committee on June 11, 2013, a minor correction to the BYLAWS has been made to correct the typo in Article VI on page 7, i.e., EDD has been changed to ECC. Document pagination has also been slightly modified. While these are not substantive changes, I wante make sure an accurate version is available for City Council review. Background Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), also known as Business Improvement Areas (BIAS), are designed to general economic development and to facilitate merchant and service business cooperation. A BID is a local self-help funding mechanism that allows businesses and/or property owners within a defined area to establish special assessment district. In Washington State, BIDS are authorized by statute, i.e., the Revised Code Washington. More specifically, the above referenced funding mechanism is an assessment collected from businesses and/or properties within defined geographic boundaries where BID sponsored/supported activities are financed throu a special assessment. There are many reasons to create a BID. The most common motivations are that BIDS ai conceived, designed, and managed locally by those who are paying the assessments, and everyone in the distr. will contribute toward funding BID activities. In other words, business owners pool their money to do things 1 want to do and that are best done collectively. Funds collected are used to provide services for the mutual ben of businesses and/or properties being assessed and can be used to provide marketing, public area maintenance security, parking, streetscape improvements, and professional management/services. Each BID typically has a member advisory board made up of members within the BID boundary. The concept of business district management funded through business community supported assessments has been around for many years and gained wide popularity during the 1990s. Under one name or another, well of 1,000 such districts exist throughout the United States, with many more in Canada and throughout the world (Business Improvement Districts in the United States - Rutgers University, 2011). In Washington State, Parkii and/or Business Improvement Districts/Areas exist in Olympia, Poulsbo, Richland, Seattle (eight currently active), Spokane, Tacoma, Yakima, Auburn, Everett, Burien and Port Angeles; the City of Longview is currer in the process of collecting signatures. January 15, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #4): http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=l&get year-2013&dsp=ag&seq= March 12, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #5): http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=3&get year-2013&dsp=ag&seq= Packet Page 226 of 277 id 10 Lee d to aid gh re ict .hey efit ver ng fitly =767 =795 Packet Page 227 of 277 Proposed EDBID Bylaws Proposed EDBID Workplan for 2013 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/20/2013 09:04 AM 06/20/2013 09:08 AM 06/20/2013 09:11 AM Started On: 06/17/2013 03:54 PM Packet Page 228 of 277 Packet Page 229 of 277 BY-LAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD ARTICLE I Section 1.1 Definitions. As used in these Bylaws, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (a) "Board" means the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board (b) "RCW" means the Revised Code of Washington. (c) "ECC means the City of Edmonds Code. ARTICLE II PURPOSE OF THE BOARD Section 2.1 Advisory Capacity. The Board shall serve in advisory capacity regarding the uses of Business Improvement District assessments collected under ECC Chapter 3.75.020 and 3.75.040 which shall include recommending annual business plans pursuant to ECC 3.75.120 ARTICLE III NAME AND PURPOSE OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 3.1. Name of Business Improvement District. The name of the Business Improvement District is the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID). The board of the EDBID may decide, by majority vote, to utilize and file a "doing business as" name for business and operations purposes. Section 3.2. Purpose of Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. The purpose of the EDBID as an economic unit shall be to encourage, promote, and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of the EDBID by: 1 Packet Page 230 of 277 A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 4.1. Composition of EDBID. City of Edmonds Ordinance 3909, adopted on January 15, 2013, added a new Chapter to the Edmonds City Code Titled Chapter 3.75, Business Improvement District, thus establishing the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. The Business Improvement District consists of rate paying members of the business community within a defined EDBID boundary (see Attachment A). Governmental entities, public utilities, nonprofits operating under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) will not be assessed. ECC 3.75.120 calls for the establishment of a Board to direct the affairs of the EDBID. ARTICLE V OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERSHIP Section 5.1. EDBID Board a. Composition: The EDBID Board shall consist of seven to eleven EDBID members. To the best possible degree, members of the EDBID Board will be composed of both open door and by appointment EDBID members in rough proportion to the dollar value of assessments to be levied on each classification of businesses. Additionally, EDBID members strive for Board makeup that represents distribution by district location and types of service, retail, and size of business. Per ECC 3.75.120, the City of Edmonds Finance and Community Services/Economic Development Directors, shall serve as non -voting ex officio members of the Board.. b. Eligibility: All members, in good standing and having fulfilled the requirements of membership, of the EDBID shall be eligible to serve on the Board. Each Board member will serve a term of three (3) years. Approximately one-third (1/3) of the authorized number of board members shall be elected each year at an annual meeting of EDBID members for terms of three (3) years each, from and after election, by a majority vote of EDBID members in attendance at the annual meeting, 2 Packet Page 231 of 277 or by absentee ballot. After the completion of two (2) consecutive three (3) year terms, one (1) year must elapse before the member is again eligible for re-election to the Board. c. Annual Election: Members will be notified of the time and place of the Annual Meeting of Members in an announcement accompanying the solicitation of nominees to the Board for the following year. This notification shall also go to the City of Edmonds. This notification must be sent at least 30 days prior to the Annual Meeting and shall require that all board nominations be received at least 14 days prior to the date of the annual meeting. The membership committee of the EDBID Board shall compile all nominations received and shall provide nominations, as necessary, in addition to those received from EDBID members. A second notice of the Annual Meeting, along with a list of candidates, and an absentee ballot, will be sent to all members at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the Annual Meeting (see Article Vill, Section 8.1). The absentee ballot may be returned no later than the date of the Annual Meeting. An agenda of business to be conducted will also be included. This agenda must include the item of annual election of Board members. The Annual Meeting must be held in the month of April, or as determined by the EDBID Board. d. Vacancies: If for any reason a place on the EDBID Board becomes vacant before a term of membership expires, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the president of the EDBID Board with the majority approval of the EDBID Board at the time of the appointment. e. Attendance at Meetings. Attendance at all meetings is expected of Board members. Any member of the Board anticipating an absence from a scheduled meeting shall notify the President of the Board or Secretary in advance of the meeting. f. Removal of Members. (a) If a member of the Board is absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board without reasonable cause as determined by the Board, such member may be considered to have tendered his or her resignation to the Members Advisory Board, and may be notified in writing by the Secretary of that fact. The board has discretion to waive such resignation for reasons deemed valid. (b) Members of the Board may be removed by the Edmonds City Council for misfeasance pursuant to ECC 2.03.080 or for other reasons pursuant to general removal provisions enacted by the Edmonds City Council for boards and commissions. g. Conflicts of Interest. (a) No Board member shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of the Board, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or 3 Packet Page 232 of 277 reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein, except as provided by paragraph (b) below. (b) A Board member is not interested in a contract, within the meaning of paragraph (a) above and RCW 42.23.030, if (i) he or she has only a remote interest in the contract (as that term is defined in RCW 42.23.040), (ii) the extent of his or her interest is disclosed to the Board and noted in the official minutes of the Board prior to the formation of the contract, and (iii) thereafter the Board authorizes, approves or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote of the member having the remote interest. Section 5.2. Officers. The Officers of the EDBID Board shall be a President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. a. Election and Terms of Officers. The officers of the Board shall be elected from among its members at the first regular Annual Meeting following the Annual Meeting of Members held in each calendar year. Officers may be elected to successive terms, provided, however, that no person shall serve as an officer for more than two (2) consecutive terms. b. Powers and Duties. The officers of the Board shall have the following duties: a. President: The president shall preside over the Annual Meeting of the EDBID members and all Board meetings. The president shall prepare meeting agendas in consultation with the Secretary or EDBID administrator (if hired) as deemed appropriate by the president. The president shall appoint members to fill any unexpired term of the EDBID Board as described under Article V, Section 5.1 (d) Vacancies. The president shall be responsible for the overall governance and direction of the EDBID. b. Vice -President: The vice-president shall fulfill all the functions of the president in his/her absence. The vice-president shall ensure that either he/she or the EDBID administrator (if hired) maintains a current membership roster as set forth in Article VII, Section 4 and sends it, semi- annually, to the Program Coordinator of the City's Economic Development Department. c. Secretary: The secretary shall have the responsibility to record and verify all minutes of the Board meetings and prepare and send agendas for board meetings and annual meetings of members. d. Treasurer: The treasurer shall have the responsibility to oversee the finances of the EDBID and provide the Board and City of Edmonds with quarterly financial statements and the EDBID members with an annual financial statement. He/she shall serve as liaison to the City of Edmonds on all matters of mutual financial concern. He/she will work with the EDBID 4 Packet Page 233 of 277 administrator or board contracted agent on all employee, state and federal tax reporting. Section 5.3. EDBID Officer Nominations. The nomination and election of the officers of the EDBID shall be done at the start of the first Board meeting following the Annual Meeting [see Article Vill, Section 8.2(a)] with the nominating and electing process as follows. a. The floor shall be opened to nominations and closed when all nominations have been made. Nominees must be present, or have submitted a letter of intent. b. The nominees for each office shall be announced. c. An election by secret and written ballot shall be made by those members in attendance at the EDBID Board meeting. Each office will be voted on separately. d. The EDBID administrator (if hired) shall tally the votes and announce the winners. In the event of a tie, an election will be conducted between the two individuals and the process repeated until a winner is proclaimed. In the event of no EDBID administrator, the board shall appoint a board member to tally the votes and announce a winner. Section 5.4. Standing Committees. During the third quarter of each year, the EDBID Board shall develop an operational budget and form standing committees. At EDBID Board discretion, committees may be added or removed, but the following requirements will apply: (1) Each non -officer Board member will participate on a committee. (2) The president may be a non -voting ex-officio member of all committees. (3) Committee membership may include member volunteers and others with a tangible interest in the welfare of the EDBID as determined by the Board. (4) Committee members shall annually, during the 3rd quarter, recommend future action and activities for budgeting purposes. (5) Each committee shall recommend an adequate schedule to the EDBID Board and administrator. In the event of no EDBID administrator, schedules will be supervised by the EDBID Board President, Vice President, or designated Board Member or EDBID member. (6) Notification of meetings will appear on the EDBID website. (7) The EDBID Board members shall serve without compensation. Once the budget is approved by the EDBID Board and Edmonds City Council, each committee shall oversee the schedule of projects. 5 Packet Page 234 of 277 a. Marketing and Hospitality Committee The committee shall direct activities toward stimulation of general commerce, promotion and creation of the EDBID's image and creation of marketing strategies in order to attract targeted groups. b. Appearance and Capital Improvements (includes beautification and maintenance) Committee In coordination with other local efforts, the committee shall plan for possible capital, beautification and maintenance projects as appropriate within and extending to the boundaries of the EDBID. The committee shall recommend an adequate schedule for pedestrian amenities, street areas and EDBID parking enhancements, signage improvements, and any other beautification or maintenance projects as may be approved by the EDBID Board. In the event of no EDBID administrator, the schedule will be supervised by the EDBID Board President, Vice President, or designated Board Member or EDBID member. c. Business Education, Recruitment and Retention Committee The committee shall research and make recommendations for coordinating business education/training classes/seminars, helping recruit businesses, and market research. The committee may also develop a list of product categories and services currently available in the area.. The most desirable mix of products and services shall be reviewed and recommended by this committee based on market research. The committee shall make recommendations to the EDBID Board for how to best utilize information and research for the good of the EDBID. d. Membershia Committee The committee shall be responsible for overall communications with EDBID members and the nomination process for EDBID Board members. The committee shall be alert during the year to identify those members who have shown an interest and desire to serve on the EDBID Board and its committees, in order to provide assistance to the EDBID in selection of EDBID Board members. This committee will assure that officers carry out the requirements of the Annual Meeting (see Article V, Section 5.1(c) and Article VIII, Section 8.1) and shall be responsible for general communications with members (via mail, email, website or any other form of communication). [1 Packet Page 235 of 277 ARTICLE VI PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Pursuant to ECC.3.75.140, the EDBID Board will create a separate organization or entity, incorporated with the State of Washington, responsible for the management of EDBID administration and programs. This entity will enter into an agency agreement with the City of Edmonds. ARTICLE VI EDMONDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CONSULTANT SERVICES The EDBID Board may contract for consultant services under the direction of the president with the concurrence of the Board. Such consultants' remuneration and duties may be governed by a contract or employment and description of job duties. For services outside of the purchasing threshold, as identified in the purchasing policy adopted by the EDBID Board, a proposal process will be required. All eligible proposers, including BID members or associates, shall have the option to propose. To make the selection procedure as transparent as possible, the instructions to consultants shall specify the evaluation criteria and the period of validity of submittals. The EDBID Board will review and process all proposals based on pre -determined criteria and overall value (economic and otherwise) to the EDBID. ARTICLE VIII MEMBERSHIP Section 8.1. Membership shall consist of all business owners located within the boundaries of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District as detailed in Attachment A and Ordinance 3909. Section 8.2. In the case of corporations or partnerships, the business shall designate an individual and his/her alternate to represent it officially. There shall be no duplication or expansion of membership by reason of the internal organization of any member company. Section 8.3. No stock or shares in the EDBID will be issued, and the interest of each member in the EBID shall be equal. Membership shall be open to all persons, partnerships or business owners who maintain a place of business within the boundaries of the EDBID. Governmental entities, public utilities, nonprofits operating under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) shall not be assessed. However, voluntary payment of the appropriate assessment amount per ECC3.75.040 by an exempt entity, shall constitute membership in the EDBID. Section 8.4. The EDBID vice president shall be responsible for the preparation of a membership list setting forth the names and addresses of members and the official representative and alternate representative of each. A representative once designated shall be conclusively presumed to continue in the capacity until the receipt of written notice, from an officer of the member firm, naming a replacement. 7 Packet Page 236 of 277 ARTICLE IX MEETINGS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 9.1. Annual Meeting of Members. The Annual Meeting of Members of the EDBID shall be held in the month of April for the purpose of electing members of the EDBID Board of Directors. Other business shall include any appropriate items. Notice of the Annual Meeting shall accompany the solicitation of nominees sent at least thirty (30) days prior to the Annual Meeting. It is the responsibility of members to notify the EDBID and City of Edmonds of any change of address or ownership. Section 9.2. Meetings of EDBID Board. a. At the next regularly scheduled EDBID Board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Members, the Board will elect the officers of the EDBID Board. (See Article V, Section 5.3) b. The EDBID Board shall meet no less frequently than once a quarter, on the second Thursday of the first month of each quarter at 8:00 am, except that no meeting is required in December. Draft minutes of the previous EDBID Board meeting and any communications from standing committees will be delivered to each member of the EDBID Board five (5) days prior to the meeting. c. The EDBID's secretary, or designee, shall keep accurate minutes of the proceedings and decisions of the EDBID Board meetings. The EDBID's secretary verifies the Board minutes prior to them being delivered to the EDBID Board prior to the following meeting. d. Any member may attend any meeting of the EDBID Board and this policy shall be posted on the EDBID website. Upon request, a member may speak to an item before the EDBID Board for a period of time as determined by the Board. Upon request, a member may raise issues for discussion by the Board, but notification to Board members must precede the discussion. Non -Board member members may not vote at Board Meetings. e. For the purposes of conducting business, a majority gathering of EDBID Board Members will be considered a quorum of the EDBID. f. A majority of those voting, if quorum is present, shall constitute a deciding vote by the EDBID. g. The president or designee may declare emergency Board meetings and waive required notice; however, an effort must be made to meet all requirements if possible. h. Three (3) or more EDBID Board members can set special meetings of the EDBID Board, provided all requirements of notification are met. Section 9.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the EDBID may be held any time upon the request of the president who may desire to call such a meeting, providing that the president first notifies the secretary, who shall send notice to each EDBID member at least ten (10) days prior to the time fixed for such special meeting. W Packet Page 237 of 277 ARTICLE X SEAL The EDBID shall have no seal until such a time as the EDBID Board and president of the EDBID may adopt one as part of an appropriate resolution. ARTICLE XI AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS These by-laws may be altered, supplemented, amended or repealed at any regular or special meeting of the EDBID Board as designated in board quorum, Article Vill, section 2 (f), provided notice of the proposed change has been mailed to all members at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which such proposed change is to be considered. ARTICLE XII ASSESSMENT No member of the EDBID shall be personally liable for the debts or liabilities of the EDBID, except to the extent of any unpaid portion of dues or assessments or signed contracts with the EDBID. Dues or assessments shall be established per City of Edmonds Ordinance 3909. It is expressly provided that, without limiting the generality of this provision, no assessment, charge or levy shall ever be made by any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, assignee for the benefit of creditors, court or judgment creditor. ARTICLE XIII PROCEDURE The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, and more specifically, the modified rules for small boards and committees, shall govern the EDBID in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the EDBID may adopt. E] Packet Page 238 of 277 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED 2013 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN Edmonds, Washington Prepared pursuant to Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120 Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 239 of 277 The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District is to encourage, promote and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions for the mutual benefit of businesses in the district and the city of Edmonds. Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes: A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The following is the first year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds City Council through December 31, 2013, implementing the BID program for 2013. It includes a description of the District, proposed first year services, sources of funding, first year budget and allocations. I. MAP OF THE DISTRICT Geographically, the EDBID is located in downtown Edmonds, Washington as defined and delineated on the map in Ordinance 3909, Exhibit A. II. PROPOSED 2013 SERVICES The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and enhancement of the EDBID and to meet the needs identified by members of the District. The services are not intended to take the place of, but add to or supplement those services provided by the City. The services will be executed under the direction of the EDBID Members Advisory Board. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 240 of 277 A. Non-profit Organization The Members Advisory Board will form an association as a non-profit organization incorporated under Washington law. The association will be established for the purpose of contracting with the City of Edmonds and executing the responsibilities of the EDBID and will carry out the activities prescribed in the EDBID bylaws, pursuant to ECC 3909, section 3.175.140, and will promote and support the EDBID. The Members Advisory Board shall adopt an appropriate and relevant name for the organization, but for purposes of this work program the association will be referred to as the "District Association." Prior to the formation of a District Association, the work plan and associated programs will be administered by the Members Advisory Board, under the direction of the City of Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director and/or Finance Director as the Program Administrator. The District Association will be organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes as specified in Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Board of Directors of the District Association will be made up of the same members as the EDBID Members Advisory Board, as appointed and under the same terms, as proposed in the EDBID Bylaws. B. Administration There will be no paid administrative support staff for the EDBID in 2013. The District Association Board will be responsible for the administration of the District Association on a volunteer basis, inclusive of all infrastructure, operations and outreach. In addition, the District Association will be responsible for the research and implementation of the proposed professional services listed herein. Operating expenses will include supplies and insurance, post office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal, accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as -needed basis. When appropriate, pro-bono services will be used. C. Assessment and Evaluation The District Association recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to demonstrate effective and efficient use of EDBID resources. As such, the District Association will include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 241 of 277 D. Member Engagement and Outreach Creating a collaborative and effective business district is a high priority for the District Association. Communications to members will take place regularly and in a cost- effective manner. A member meeting will be held prior to September 2013 as a forum to seek input into the mission and activities of the EDBID. E. Business and Civic Collaboration and Outreach Partnering with existing organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of the EDBID. The District Association will create and maintain a comprehensive list of organizations and follow up with outreach to each. This list will include the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce, arts organizations, City of Edmonds, education partners, service clubs, business organizations and other community groups. F. Branding and Identity Development The District Association identifies comprehensive EDBID branding and identity development as an important priority for 2013. The District Association will seek, via a request for proposal and in accordance with the City of Edmonds purchasing policies, a qualified, creative communications entity to develop and implement an integrated brand and identity initiative. It is anticipated that the RFP publication, selection process, contracting and initial start-up of services will occur during 2013. G. Professional Business Resources Being mindful of by -appointment members' needs, the District Association will offer services as determined to be beneficial to the members. Examples include, but are not limited to, business directories, professional services, assistance with social media, search engine optimization, etc. H. Parking Parking has been highlighted as a priority for members of the EDBID. In 2013, the District Association will appoint a liaison to the City of Edmonds parking committee, in addition to researching private sector solutions to increase parking options within the downtown district. I. Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 242 of 277 In coordination with the City and stakeholders, research will be conducted to determine which, if any, properties should be added to the EDBID in future years. Per the Revised Code of Washington, the boundaries of the current EDBID can be increased by 10% of the total annual assessment each year. J. 2014 Planning The District Association will implement a 2014 work program, plan and annual budget to present to Edmonds City Council in September 2013. III. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING The District Association may enter into an agency agreement or contract with the City of Edmonds for the purpose of having the City levy and collect, and then disburse to the District Association, assessments with respect to the EDBID businesses subject to such assessment pursuant to Ordinance 3909. A. Assessments Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909. B. Grants and Donations The District Association may pursue and accept grants and donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and other non-profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law. IV. ANNUAL BUDGET A. Estimated Revenue The primary focus is to set the groundwork and build community relationships before any long-term projects can be implemented. The projected assessments collected for 2013 will be approximately $66,000. B. Estimated Expenses In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated that the budget of proposed expenditures to be made during the first operating year of the EDBID will be as follows: Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 243 of 277 District Association Administration $ 5,000 Branding and Identity Development $ 26,000 Member Engagement and Outreach $ 5,000 Professional Business Resources $ 4,000 TOTAL FIRST YEAR BUDGET $ 40,000 C. Unallocated Funds Considering potential delays in introductory member assessment collection efforts, an unallocated fund balance of $26,000 at the end of fiscal year 2013 is projected. The District Association reserves the right to utilize these funds as necessary if the budget needed for the approved work exceeds the budgeted amount. D. Subsequent Budgets The District Association shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which monies are proposed to be expended by the EDBID; and (ii) set forth the total amount proposed to be expended. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for subsequent years, shall be referred to as the "Budget." E. General Provisions i. The District Association shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been approved by the City and the District Association. ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount, the District Association may choose to eliminate some expenditures in order to balance the budget. iii. The District Association, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial report in accordance with Ordinance 3909. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 244 of 277 AM-5875 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: 10 Minutes Stephen Clifton Community Services Action Information Submitted By: 12. Stephen Clifton Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060 - 100 Relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board. Recommendation June 11, 2013 - The City Council Finance Committee recommended this item be placed on the City Council agenda for review and potential action. Previous Council Action November 13, 2012 - The City Council Finance Committee expressed support for, and recommended the City Council approve, a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. November 27, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds (see attached). December 18, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to establish a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds and setting the public hearing date for January 15, 2013 (see attached). January 15, 2013 - The City Council voted to approve Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. March 12, 2013 - The City Council confirmed the appointment of eleven Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board members. March 12, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3914 amending Edmonds City Code 3.75.120 relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. June 11, 2013 - The City Council Finance Committee recommend this item be placed on the City Council agend for review and potential action. Packet Page 245 of 277 Narrative Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 relate to the deposit and collection of revenue, delinquent payments and notification of such. Upon review by the City's Interim Finance Director serving as an ex-officio EDBID Boardmember, he has requested minor changes in terminology to more accurately reflect what is to take place related to unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments. The changes do not change the intent of the Ordinance, just provides clarification. The attached ordinance serves as the second amendment to Ordinance 3909. Ordinance 3914 (Amendment #1) was approved by the City Council on March 12, 2013. Attachments Draft Ordinance - Amendment #2 to Ordinance 3909 Attachment A to Amendment #2 to Ordinance 3909 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 06/18/2013 Form Review Date 06/17/2013 04:07 PM 06/18/2013 10:51 AM 06/18/2013 02:06 PM Started On: 06/17/2013 03:40 PM Packet Page 246 of 277 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement D i s t r i c t ( B I D ) was established by Ordinance No. 3909 resulting in the establishment of Edmonds City Code Section 3.75; and WHEREAS, Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 relate to the deposit and collection of revenue, delinquent payments and notification of such; and, WHEREAS, the City's Interim Finance Director has requested a change in terminology used to more accurately reflect what is to take place related unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments and the City Council now deems it appropriate to modify the terminology; and WHEREAS, on , 2 0 13, the City Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to make further revisions to sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 ECC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through): Packet Page 247 of 277 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: i• Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Approved: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING -2 Packet Page 248 of 277 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ? ? day of June, 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, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 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 March, 2013. CITY CLERK: SANDRA S. CHASE 4852-3031-9887, v 1 Packet Page 249 of 277 Attachment A ECC 3.75.060. Deposit of Revenues. The City of Edmonds will create a Business Improvement District Fund within the City of Edmonds budget; a separate subaccount designated as the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Account (called "the Account"). The following monies shall be deposited in the Account: (a) All revenues from assessments levied under this ordinance; (b) Gifts, grants and donations; (c) Interest and all other income from the investment of Account deposits; (d) Reimbursements due to the Account; (e) interest analer penalties fFemP linquency charges from delinquent accounts; and (f) Transfers from other city funds, PROVIDED THAT liabilities of the EDBID shall not be an obligation of the general fund or any other special fund of the City. ECC 3.75.070. Collection Schedule. Assessments shall be paid and collected on a quarterly basis, PROVIDED THAT Members may opt to pay the full yearly assessment at the time of the billing for the first quarter. ECC 3.75.080. Delinquent Payments. If the assessment is not paid within sixty (60) days after its due date, a delinquency charge shall be added atand calculated at anthe interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the due amount. The Finance Director is authorized to use a City of Edmonds approved collection agency to collect any unpaid assessments. Use of a collection agency will result in a business paying the agency's fee on top of the amount of the BID assessment plus delinquency chnarjZesifitefest and penalties. ECC 3.75.090. Notices. Notices of assessment, installment payments, or delinquency, and all other notices contemplated by this ordinance shall be sent to the EDBID Packet Page 250 of 277 Member by ordinary mail to the mailing address shown on the Business License as maintained by the City Clerk. Failure of the Member to receive any mailed notice shall not release the Member from the duty to pay the assessment and any interest and delinquency charges on the due date. ECC 3.75.100. Disputes. Any Member seeking to challenge the amount of an assessment or delinquency charge may submit additional information concerning the classification and/or square footage of the business to the Finance Director or designee, who may adjust the assessment based on Table 1 if he determines that the original classification and/or square footage was erroneous. The Finance Director shall provide a written determination to the Member, which may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner within ten days of the Finance Director's determination by paying an appeal fee in the amount of $250.00 and filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk that sets forth the alleged error in the Finance Director's determination. The Member has the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner to show that the assessment or delinquency char efee is incorrect. Packet Page 251 of 277 AM-5853 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Finance Subject Title Revenue bond financing presentation. Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Information Information 13. On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works and the Finance committees reviewed this item and recommended it be presented to full Council at the June 25, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative City staff along with Alan Dashen and Associates will present on the sale of revenue bonds and its use by the water, sewer and storm utilities. Repayment period of the bond will be discussed along with current bond market rates. The bond will be wrapped with the City's existing 2011 revenue bond. A copy of the draft ordinance will be available at the council meeting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/20/2013 12:14 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/20/2013 04:06 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 04:09 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/20/2013 07:37 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/21/2013 08:26 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/12/2013 03:56 PM Final Approval Date: 06/21/2013 Packet Page 252 of 277 AM-5881 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 45 Minutes Submitted For: Jerry Shuster Department: Engineering Review Committee: Type: Information Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 14. Megan Luttrell Subject Title Presentation on Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) - Using Rain Gardens for Stormwater Management. Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater management are a key part of the Department of Ecology's new municipal stormwater permit. This permit becomes effective on August 1, 2013. Edmonds and 79 other permittees must review and revise their local development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate and require LID principles and LID stormwater best management practices on or before December 31, 2016. This item provides an introduction to LID stormwater techniques and highlights the use of rain gardens. Rain gardens are planted depressions that allow rainwater runoff from impervious areas, like roofs, driveways, walkways, parking lots, and compacted lawn areas, the opportunity to be absorbed into the soil and taken up by plants rather than becoming surface runoff. The presentation will include a rain garden class/seminar by David Hymel of Rain Dog Designs, LLC, who has worked with several municipalities in the Puget Sound Region on promoting residential rain gardens. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Attachments LID Rain Garden Presentation Form Review Packet Page 253 of 277 Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/20/2013 12:04 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/20/2013 04:06 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/20/2013 04:09 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/20/2013 07:40 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/21/2013 08:26 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/19/2013 04:01 PM Final Approval Date: 06/21/2013 Packet Page 254 of 277 Stormwater Low Impact e lopment (LID) - Using Rain Gardens for Stormwater Management June 25, 2013 1 Outline w impact Development? .ID such as a Rain Gardens? ins in Edmonds Rain Dog Designs — David Hymel What is Low Impact Ft strives to mimic pre-aisturDance rocesses of infiltration, filtration, vaporation and transpiration bv emphasizing conservation, use of on -site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design."' Dept. of Ecology, 2012 O 3 constantly roving strea 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Where does the Rain Go? 52% 47°/ 100% Forested 35% 50% Impervious 50% Forested Groundwater ■ Suface Runoff Evapotranspiration Why Use LID such as a Rain Gardens? Aw f k 0* Where does the Rain Go? ,7 Al a 100 70 a _ 90% � 9 o 1� - 50% — 40% - — 30% 20% 10% 0% G a Limitations? Steep Slopes or landslide hazard area Hard pan or Till soil Space Limitations Underground Utilities 7 ME- ,...,. ..air �. jU ' ) r— O N 00 O d Qo t5 �, ���"�. I •� i it 'i I I I� M I � I �1 I I / •1 .�, II - G •I r I � ..a I ��•ji l i _ tj i4•- T A�kr I I ,r �■ y tit f r lift d . no 9 SR 104 & Ioolh Ave W w _..-me- 03-18-2013 10 Kr- I Ara kCm SR 104 : 01 A� - t y ! re *Ibl.46. '1 y . -. - S -• Y..�L - - ITT... -. � .1 .� l i'C!' , *It, !r�-79 . � ' `.. � . . ��- ,.. '•mot. .. .. - 11 I I I 4-) (n _0 c- 06 41- -C) ry 4-J C- Q) co T- 4 �7 '77 ec�a'iar, ;�r a LO \ . ' . ,fir• � �� .. � cy 'co + r � � EOY °F 71. dv f OR 00 r: t •� � 1. b'� \1�y �y\�°A ��`� Aye • V''L+k L ' 1• � Y kr _` l �` rlug.. .VI�!'. iiiYYY V yl � d, w�'L t ih l�, �Yl �})���'..4 �•� p� a iY1 h1 t iJ\I t'� its 5�1� t � ��� ,k�• � 4 fi,f •rt +t�, t4 i i.�SY� �S i) � l�. tGj Y,i �Y. �i,Y iir ; v�� . J Y Y - � � q� yy Y "t u� t •� � 1.� Hjrj-rtRICLP--IC: L� W � • _ - .� .. a ,��- - 1� $ ■ it - 1 03, 18 , 0 1I 3 -104t" A & 237t" St SW. k t r Rain Dogs Design " wl�-" '.. - - -":)FPIO" David Hymel AM-5809 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 06/25/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Committee: Submitted By: Jana Spellman Type: Information Information Subiect Title Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions. 15. Recommendation Review the latest draft revisions to certain chapter 2.10 ECC, deliberate, and give additional direction to the City Attorney. Previous Council Action In 2012, during the confirmation of Rob Chave as acting Development Services Director, it became clear that chapter 2.10 ECC did not adequately address the confirmation of acting directors and whether the City Council sought to confirm such acting appointments. On March 6, 2012, the City Council requested that an amendment to chapter 2.10 ECC be sent to committee for review and discussion. The City Council did not give clear direction about the amendments it wanted to see in chapter 2.10 ECC. On March 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee considered proposed revisions to chapter 2.10 ECC. The committee requested that the scope of the code update be extended beyond chapter 2.10 ECC. Additional revisions to a large portion of Title 2 were brought to the committee for review during the April and May 2012 committee meetings. The City Attorney is recommending that the revisions to Title 2 be considered in smaller chunks, perhaps one chapter at a time. Hence, only revisions to chapter 2.10 ECC has been included in the council packet. Narrative The attached revisions to chapter 2.10 ECC are intended as a guide to discussion of possible revisions to this chapter. One issue addressed in these revisions is the one that was initially in mind when the City Council referred this matter to committee: the acting director issue. The attached revisions represent one possible approach to the confirmation of acting directors, but the City Council has the authority to require confirmation even of acting directors if it chooses to do so. Attachments ECC Chapter 2.10 Revisions Form Review Packet Page 273 of 277 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 06/20/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Date 06/20/2013 10:55 AM 06/20/2013 02:49 PM 06/20/2013 03:29 PM Started On: 05/29/2013 02:27 PM Packet Page 274 of 277 2.10.010 Chapter 2.10 CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS Sections: 2.10.010 Confirmation process. 2.10.020 Assignment of duties. 2.10.030 Police chief. 2.10.040 Repealed. 2.10.050 References to director of community development. 2.10.060 Executive council assistant. Xae5 10 2.10.070 Mayor's executive assistant. 2.10.010 Confirmation process. A. Whenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions listed in this section, the city council w447Day review the specifications of that position and revise it as needed before the vaeaney is acting to confirm a permanent appointment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the city council from reviewingsuch uch specifications at other times, but doing so will not have any effect on previously confirmed permanent appointments. B. The mayor or his/her designee will review all applications and determine the persons with the highest qualifications. Any city council member, upon request to the mayor, may review the applications received for the vacant position. C. The mayor shall appoint, subject to city council confirmation, the positions of judge shearing examiner. The hearing examiner may be removed from his/her position for cause, as determined by the mayor. The judge may be removed fr-ofn his/her- offie . D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the department director positions. The city shall have the following department director positions: of -police chief, ire—ehief,—community services and economic development director, .,,a,Rifl s*,..,tive sey-vicesfinance director, development services director, parks, recreation, and cultural services director, and public works director, and human dir-eeto The city council shall interview the top three candidates for each position prior to the mayor's final selection, PROVIDED that the city council may waive the three -interview requirement by motion and may opt to interview as few as one candidate for any vacant position. The mayor's appointments to all other employee positions shall not be subject to city council confirmation.��279--� , '�° % E. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the mayor shall have the authority to qppoint, without city council confirmation, an acting director to any of the positions set forth in subsection D, above, PROVIDED that any such acting directorship shall expire and be deemed vacant six months after the date of the appointment. The city council shall be ,given written notice about any such acting appointments including the effective date of the appointment. If the mayor finds it necessary to reappoint an acting director after the first six month appointment has expired, any subsequent appointment shall be subject to city council (Revised ) 2- Packet Page 275 of 277 confirmation. Acting directors shall be compensation pursuant to applicable ordinances and personnel policies regarding acting pU. 2.10.020 Assignment of duties. The city council shall define the functions, powers and duties of the city's directors and employees.The mayor shall direct, supervise, and be in charge of all directors and employees in the performance of their functions, powers, and duties. Ddepartment directors shall be responsible for carrying out all directives as assigned by the mayor, including, but not limited to, planning and directing the activities and staff in their respective assigned departments, supervising and evaluating the work processes and assigned staff, controlling the financial integrity of the assigned -departmental budget, and insuring the delivery of quality public services. All department directors shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor. [Or-d. 3279 § 1, i�r 2.10.030 Police chief. Pursuant to the authority of RCW 41.12.050(2), the position of police chief has been removed exempted from civil service. The policechZef shall be appointed by mayor- 2.10.040 Fire chief-. Repealed by 04 3762. . _ reserved 2.10.050 References to director of community development. Wherever references are made in the Edmonds City Code, the Edmonds Community Development Code or any ordinance of the city to the dir-eeter- of community development director, said reference shall hereafter be construed to mean the development services ao�_director or his/her designee. rn�279—§ 'TT°O°TWherever references are made in the Edmonds City Code, the Edmonds Community Development Code, or any ordinance of the city to the administrative services director, said reference shall hereafter be construed to mean the finance director or his/her designee. 2.10.060 Executive council assistant to council. The executive eouneil assistant to council shall be a contract employee hired on an annual basis by the city council. The terms and conditions of employment for the executive eexneil assistant to council as well as all benefits shall be governed by the provisions of the contract. Depending on the experience level of the particular Berson servina in this role. the prefix of "senior" may be added to the title. The contract shall provide for the delegation by the mayor of the direction of this individual to the city council president. In the event that the mayor elects in his or her discretion not to delegate that function, the ciycouncil reserves the right to immediately eliminate the position. rnr.z79 § 1 19991. Packet Page 276 of 277 2.10.070 2.10.070 Mayor's executive assistant. The position of mayor's executive assistant shall be an at -will position with the executive assistant serving at the pleasure of the mayor. the annual sa4ar-y or-dinanee. The terms and conditions of employment as well as job duties being set forth in a job description developed by the mayor with the concurrence of the city council. [Or-d. 3279 § 1 1999]. (Revised ) 2- Packet Page 277 of 277