Loading...
2013-07-16 City Council - Public Agenda-1504'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JULY 16, 2013 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (60 Minutes) Executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), areal estate matter per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(c), and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 4. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5952 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 2, 2013. B. AM-5954 Approval of claim checks #202962 through #203073 dated July 3, 2013 for $1,842,629.96, and claim checks #203074 through #203229 dated July 11, 2013 for $678,334.68. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60277 through #60303 for $481,103.22, benefit checks #60304 through #60315 and wire payments of $213,330.98 for the period June 16, 2013 through June 30, 2013. C. AM-5931 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Gary Reynolds (amount undetermined), and Steve Grooters (amount undetermined). D. AM-5934 Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, June and July 2013. E. AM-5938 Reinstate Judicial Clerk Position F. AM-5943 Quarterly Public Works Project Report G. AM-5944 Authorization to advertise a Request for Bids for construction services for the 224th Street SW Waterline Replacement Project. Packet Page 1 of 660 H. AM-5947 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of easements from the Franklin property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. 1. AM-5948 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Hochberg property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. J. AM-5949 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Yunis property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements project K. AM-5946 Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the easement documents for the Public Storage property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. L. AM-5962 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. M. AM-5956 Interlocal with Snohomish County regarding City Park project funding. N. AM-5960 Appointment of two new members to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. O. AM-5951 Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Zoning Regulations to Allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones. 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 honoring Terry Vehrs & John McGibbon for their service on the Public AM-5935 Facilities District Board. 7. (20 Minutes) Closed record review of File # PLN20130030 and the Planning Board's AM-5941 recommendation to approve a proposal to rezone one parcel (403 & 405 3rd Ave. N.) from contract Residential Multifamily (RM-3.0) to Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4). 8. (30 Minutes) Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer AM-5852 utility rate increases. 9. (10 Minutes) Requesting approval of bond ordinance authorizing City sale of $16.2 Million for the AM-5963 purpose of paying for water and sewer system improvements, a deposit to the debt service reserve account and costs of sale and issuance. 10. (20 Minutes) Quarterly Report - Edmonds Center for the Arts AM-5961 11. (15 Minutes) Update on budget forecast. AM-5936 12. AM-5958 SR 104 Mini Park Naming, recommendation from Planning Board. 13. (15 Minutes) Potential Action: Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's AM-5900 new rules of Procedure. 14. (15 Minutes) Restoration of the Parks irrigation budget. AM-5957 Packet Page 2 of 660 15. (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 9, 2013. AM-5953 16. (5 Minutes) Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. 17. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 18. (15 Minutes) Council Comments ADJOURN Packet Page 3 of 660 AM-5952 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 2, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 07-02-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/10/2013 04:59 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 04:56 PM 4. A. Packet Page 4 of 660 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 2, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. 1 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 MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Peterson requested Item F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINI RETREAT MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202857 THROUGH #202961 DATED JUNE 27, 2013 FOR $634,507.11. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #60276 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2013 FOR $145.68. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GLENN A. SALMI (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 5 of 660 ITEM E: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE JULY 18, 2013 CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE HILLMAN VARIANCE APPEAL (APL20130001). Council President Petso relayed Special Land Use Attorney Carol Morris had an option to present and a clarification regarding the takings language in the Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Morris explained the draft Findings and Conclusions present an option to examine the zoning variances. She referred to the setback variances as zoning variances as they were approved by the Hearing Examiner under the zoning code. The Council did not discuss them during their last deliberation; if the Council wished to discuss and include the zoning variances, the language has been included and will require an additional vote. If the Council chooses not to discuss the zoning variances, the language could be eliminated. With regard to the takings language, Ms. Morris explained draft Findings and Conclusions can include more language than was discussed during Council deliberations. The draft Findings and Conclusions elaborate somewhat on the takings issue. The Council could choose to eliminate that language if they chose. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1294, ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, STRIKING THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE ZONING VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM F: ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN PENALTY PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.48 ("PARKING"); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilmember Peterson explained this matter was discussed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. The Committee approved changing the 24 hour reduction for various reasons, most notably because the State Auditor was not comfortable with that provision in the parking code and Judge Fair indicated the late fee penalty of $100 was not only onerous but in fact probably illegal. On page 2 of the ordinance, Section C, in one draft of the ordinance the late fee was $100; it should be $20. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3930, AMENDING SECTION 3, TO REPLACE $100 WITH $20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, announced the July 13 Classic Car Show at Top Foods and Dick's Drive In from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The car show and raffle benefit those in need in the community. Next, he referred to the City's long range planning, pointing out there will be no space downtown for new construction in the next 10-12 years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the Council's recent split decision on building heights in downtown Edmonds, explaining three Councilmembers running for election this year, Councilmembers Johnson, Buckshnis and Peterson, voted to raise building heights by replacing the 25+5 building height to a 30-foot building height with no architectural requirements. He observed building heights are on everyone's mind tonight and there are a lot of citizens concerned about those issues. Mayor Earling noted Councilmember Buckshnis is not up for reelection. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - "WALK BACK IN TIME" GUIDED TOUR BY THE EDMONDS CEMETERY BOARD. Dale Hoggins, Edmonds Cemetery Board Member, on behalf of the Cemetery Board and Board Chair Lisa Palmatier, invited the public to the 23rd annual open house, Walk Back In Time, a guided tour of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 6 of 660 Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, on Thursday, July 18 at 1:00 p.m. The City's cemetery was established in 1831 by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Edmonds Cemetery Board Members and friends dressed in period costumes acting as ghosts will give first person accounts, tell tales and stories regarding historic figures. Every tombstone, grave, niche and marker has a story to tell. He identified several people who will portray and tell stories about those buried at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. Mr. Hoggins explained the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium is an active cemetery; sites are available and burials are not restricted to Edmonds residents. Prices are based on lot size, site location and services rendered. Further information is available by contacting the Cemetery Sexton Cliff Edwards or the City's website. The Edmonds Cemetery Board is seeking an alternate board member as well as volunteers. He invited anyone interest in serving to contact the Mayor's office, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, or the City's website. Mr. Hoggins provided a self -guided tour of the cemetery brochure, a map of approximately 25 sites and a brief biography of the person buried in each site. 6. SOUND TRANSIT PRESENTATION Mayor Earling introduced Patrice Hardy, Government Relations for Snohomish County, Sound Transit, and Michelle Ginder, Project Manager, Lynnwood North Link, Sound Transit. Ms. Ginder explained the Lynnwood Link Extension is part of the ST2 package of transit improvements that were approved by voters in 2008. She displayed a map of the Lynnwood Link Extension, extending light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood. Ms. Ginder explained the project began in 2008 with an alternatives analysis that did the following: • Developed bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail alternatives in multiple corridors • Shared alternatives analysis at 3 public meetings in October 2011 • Public and agency comments o Strong preference for light rail over bus o Strong support for more work on I-5 light rail alternatives o Limited support for more work on SR 99 alternatives She reviewed EIS alternatives development: • December 2011 o ST Board narrowed range of alternatives to I-5 light rail • Winter 2012 o ST analyzed multiple I-5 light rail alternatives • April2012 o Board identified alternatives to advance in Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) • 2012-2013 o DEIS analysis and conceptual design of alternatives She displayed a map identifying the alignment between Northgate and Lynnwood and described the three DEIS segments alternatives: • Segment A (Northgate to Shoreline) 0 6 alternatives, all on east side of I-5, vary by: ■ Amount of elevated guideway ■ Stations o Station combinations Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 7 of 660 ■ 145th + 185th ■ 130th + 155th + 185th ■ 130th + 145th + 185th Segment B (Shoreline to Mountlake Terrace) o 4 alternatives, all on east side of I-5, vary by: ■ Mountlake Terrace (MLT) station location — MLT TC on east side of I-5 — Reuse existing MLT freeway station in the center of the freeway ■ Alignment north of MLT Transit Center (TC) — Up freeway median — West side of 1-5 (option for additional station at 220th Street SW) Segment C (Lynnwood) o 3 alternatives, all elevated with station options at: ■ 200`" Street SW ■ Next to Lynnwood TC ■ South edge of Lynnwood Park & Ride Ms. Ginder described anticipated ridership: • 60,000-70,000 daily riders in 2035 • Up to 23,000 new riders (people switch from driving to riding light rail) • Station tradeoffs: o Adding 3rd Segment A station = 400 more daily boardings o Moving 145th station to 155th = 200 fewer o Reusing MLT freeway station = 1,000 fewer v. station at transit center o Adding 220th station = 200 more Ms. Ginder reviewed costs: 2008 Estimate Change Since 2013 TIP Lowest Cost Alt Highest Cost Alt Difference from TIP Difference from TIP $1,552 M ($230 M) $1,322 M $1,230 M $1,510 M ($92 M) $188 M • Findings: o Segment A at -grade cheaper than elevating 0 3rd Segment A station adds—$30-$50 M o Retrofitting MLT freeway station saves—$20-$30 M v. new TC station o Segment B west side —$50 M > median; 220th station adds—$30-50 M • Vehicles, O&M facilities budgeted separately, system -wide • All alternatives add —$15 M annual O&M • Financial plan assumes $600 M YOE FTA New Starts grant Ms. Ginder provided a summary of the impact findings: • Acquisitions and displacements o Designs place as much infrastructure in WSDOT rights -of -way as possible o Still numerous property impacts along I-5 and Lynnwood o Have sent letters to all potentially impact properties Visual and Aesthetics o Elevated guideways & stations will be high visual change o Scale of station & garage structures in residential neighborhoods o Noise walls — many WSDOT walls to be relocated or added o Mature trees removed along I-5 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 8 of 660 o Mitigation includes guideway placement & design, landscaping, screening • Transportation o I-5 bridge rebuilds, local road relocations, hide & ride, MLT freeway station, construction impacts • Noise & vibration o Many impacts but all can be mitigated o New & relocated I-5 sound walls; guideway barriers, RSIP • Parks o Minor impacts to Ridgecrest Park & Shoreline Stadium in Shoreline o Lynnwood considering Scriber Creek Park impacts Ms. Ginder described the Lynnwood Link schedule: • July: Publish DEIS, 45-day public comment period begins • Late July/early August: DEIS public open houses and hearings • Fall 2013: ST Board identifies preferred alternative • 2014: Prepare and issue Final EIS • Early 2015: FIFA issues record of decision (ROD), completing environmental review • Mid-2015: ST Board selects project to be built • 2015-2018: Final design, property acquisition • 2018 — 2023: Construction, testing • 2023: Light rail service to Lynnwood begins Ms. Ginder explained another project that may impact Snohomish County is the siting of the Light Rail Operations & Maintenance Satellite Facility (OMSF). To the question of why a second OMSF is needed, she explained: • System expansion to Lynnwood Transit Center, Bellevue/Overlake and Kent/Des Moines requires more storage area and greater maintenance capacity • The OMSF must be located to support efficient and reliable operations and deployment of vehicles to serve the entire Link system • Augments existing facility in Seattle She described OMSF site alternatives • Alternative 1: Site located in Lynnwood southwest of Lynnwood TC on existing Edmonds School District and other property plus storage track for 32 light rail vehicles (8 trains) in Bellevue • Alternative 2: Site located between the former BNSF right-of-way and 120'h Avenue NE • Alternative 3: Site spans the former BNSF right-of-way • Alternative 4: Site located between SR520 and NE 20th St. between 130th Ave NE and 136th Ave NE Ms. Ginder provided the OMSF schedule: • Late 2013: Publish DEIS; comment period • Early 2014: Comment period ends and Capital Committee recommends preferred site to ST Board • Ist quarter 2014: ST Board identifies preferred alternative • Spring 2014: Begin FEIS & preliminary engineering • Early 2015: Publish FEIS; Record of Decision; ST Board selects preferred site • 2015-2020: Final design, property acquisition, construction, commissioning • 2020-21: OMSF in use Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 9 of 660 Councilmember Buckshnis advised she grew up in Portland where light rail is king and she is looking forward to light rail in this area. She anticipated once it is built, ridership will increase. Mayor Earling explained the Sound Transit Board is beginning to look at ST3 which would extend light rail from Lynnwood to Everett. The planning process is just beginning; ST3 would be part of a ballot measure in 2016-2020. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DESIGN APPROVAL OF POINT EDWARDS' BUILDING 10 TO BE LOCATED AT 50 PINE STREET UNDER FILE PLN20130022. APPEAL NUMBERS APL20130002 - APL20130004. Mayor Earling explained this is a closed record review; the purpose of the closed record review is for the City Council to address three appeals of the Architectural Design Board's (ADB) decision to conditionally approve revisions to Building 10 of the Pt. Edwards Development which includes a multi- family residential building and associated parking located at 50 Pine Street in Edmonds. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling described the procedures, explaining the City Clerk will make a recording of the proceedings. This is a hearing on the appeals of Christy Cufley, Town of Woodway, and David Inadomi. 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 appellants 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. The City Clerk has a list of people who meet the definition of a party of record. 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 has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the appeal outside of the public hearing process. Councilmembers Bloom, Yamamoto, and Buckshnis said they had not. Council President Petso said she had not had communication with proponents or opponents but had some other contacts. Ms. Morris advised the disclosures that needed to be made were with proponents or opponents of the project; staff members were not proponents or opponents. Council President Petso said she had not had communication with proponents or opponents. Councilmember Peterson stated he had not had any communication. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas disclosed she has received a number of emails during the past six months that are stored on her computer. She has not spoken to anyone connected with the project. Councilmember Johnson disclosed that she has received email petitions regarding the Pt. Edwards land use appeal. She has received 197 separate emails to her City Council email account that contained the 682 individuals who signed the petition. The emails were sent via an online petition at change.org. Some of the messages were sent one at a time; other messages were sent in batches of 25. Most of the batches were captured in the email quarantine and deleted from there without identifying the names of the senders. At first she opened and read the messages. She was then advised to delete the messages without reading them, which she did. However, she did recognize the names of some of the senders. She did not recall responding to any of the emails. She explained Ms. Morris advised her to make this disclosure and notify the Planning Department, which she did. Mayor Earling disclosed he received 1900-2000 petitions; in each case he quickly forwarded them to the City Clerk and did not read, study or react to any of them. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 10 of 660 Council President Petso stated she also received written correspondence and emails on this topic. She provided the City Clerk the written correspondence and the emails are in a file on her iPad titled "Do Not Read." Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council has a conflict of interest or believes he/she cannot consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Bloom and Yamamoto answered no. Councilmember Buckshnis answered no, noting she knows the attorney for the appellant, Christy Cufley, who is a fellow Rotarian and she knows Doug Purcell. Council President Petso stated she had no conflict but was acquainted with Mr. Purcell. Councilmember Peterson had no conflicts but was acquainted with Mr. Purcell. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had no conflict but was acquainted with Mr. Purcell. Councilmember Johnson stated she had no conflict but was acquainted with Mr. Purcell. Mayor Earling stated he had no conflicts and also knew Mr. Purcell but has not talked to him about this matter. 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. Special Land Use Attorney Carol Morris pointed out at least two appeals have raised the issue about whether the ADB should have entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions. There are no Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the record. The City Council is required by the code to make a decision in a closed record appeal as to whether or not those Findings of Fact and Conclusions are clearly erroneous. Without Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Council has an impossible task. There are also legal requirements for the entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions by a decision -maker after an open record hearing. She recommended the Council vote to remand this back to the ADB for the entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, consistent with their vote. She recommended the Council take this step before they hear any testimony because the Council cannot give the ADB direction as far as what the Findings of Fact and Conclusions should say. This is basically trying to bring the City back to the point in time where it would have been after the open record hearing and the ADB vote so the ADB can enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions. All the members of the public can attend that hearing, and the appellants and parties of record can submit draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions to the ADB for their consideration. Appeals can then be filed of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions entered by the ADB. Ms. Morris explained if there is an appeal, the Council would then schedule another closed record hearing, bringing the Council to the same position it is in today. If the Council agrees with the procedure, the Council needs to ask the applicant if they will agree to this procedure. The applicant must be willing to sign a written statement stating they waive the deadline for issuance of a final decision in the code which is 120 days after a complete application is submitted. The applicant must also sign a written waiver of the one open record hearing and one closed record appeal proceeding. Mayor Earling asked whether the applicant would be willing to do that. Rick Gifford, attorney for the applicant, Edmonds Pine Street LLC, asked clarifying questions. He referred to Ms. Morris' statement that if the Council made a determination to remand this matter to the ADB for entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions in support of their decision, anyone can present proposed findings at that hearing. It was his understanding the remand would not be to a public hearing but a meeting at which the ADB would consider and enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Ms. Morris answered that is correct; there would not be an opportunity for any additional public testimony, only for entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. The ADB has voted and the open record hearing is closed. Mr. Gifford stated with that clarification, the applicant would not oppose Ms. Morris' recommendation and would be willing to execute the necessary agreement regarding waiver of the timeline and multiple open and closed record hearings. He hoped the remand could proceed at the earliest possible time, recognizing that was subject to the ADB's availability. He was hopeful the ADB could proceed by early August and that the Council would issue clear direction to the ADB so that the ADB understands what it is being asked to do. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 11 of 660 Council President Petso explained she has had extensive discussion with Ms. Morris about this suggestion and she urged the Council not to do it. She felt she was being asked to make a decision on one issue in the appeal prior to having heard from the appellants which she considered it a violation of due process. The code states this hearing review shall commence with the resolution of Appearance of Fairness issues, if any, followed by the opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of record including the appellants. She pointed out the Council has not yet heard from the appellants or parties of record but is already being asked to remand, merely on the consent of one party. She did not find this appropriate or a good process for the City on a due process basis. Council President Petso pointed out one of the appeal items is whether the Findings and Conclusions are adequate. The applicant has consistently argued that the Findings and Conclusions, while not in a detailed and formula -like outline, do exist and can be determined from the record. The attorney has advised they are not in a sufficient legal form and although the Council has not yet heard from the appellants, they argue the Findings and Conclusions are not adequate. The Council is supposed to make this decision without prejudgment and based on what they hear at the hearing, not just make a decision before the hearing has commenced. The code states the appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate the decision is clearly erroneous given the record, not the Findings and Conclusions. Council President Petso recalled a comment in one brief that the purpose of Findings of Fact is to ensure the decision -maker has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before it decides the case. However, she is being asked tonight to remand this for Findings of Fact that support a decision that has already been made. She was not comfortable with that because it defeats the purpose. If the matter is remanded and an ADB member agrees the ADB should have considered massing, she questioned how the ADB could enter that finding of fact now. She noted the ADB could not enter a finding that it was too massive because that would not be consistent with the ADB's prior vote. She concluded the process Ms. Morris suggested makes no sense and she encouraged the Council to proceed with the hearing. Ms. Morris responded at least two appellants have raised this as an issue in their appeal, that the ADB did not enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Therefore, they cannot complain if the Council remands for entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions and correction of that error. This is a legal issue, not a factual issue. The Council does not need to take oral argument regarding whether Findings of Fact and Conclusions are required because as a matter of law, they are. In her experience working with cities on land use appeals for the past 20 years and working for an insurance pool doing nothing but land use damage actions, the Council needs to remand this to the ADB so they can enter Findings of Fact so the Council can proceed with the closed record hearing. Once those Findings of Fact and Conclusions have been entered, the Council can review them and determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Councilmember Peterson commented it pained him to go through this process again and send it back to the ADB but did not see any other choice. If the Council were to proceed with the closed record review and hear oral testimony tonight without the opportunity to compare it to Findings of Fact and Conclusions would create a bias for any Councilmember. He summarized the issue was the process had not been completed from the previous level, the ADB, and that must be fixed before the Council can proceed. He understood the frustration visible on the faces of the audience and implored the audience members not to contact the Council to talk about this issue because the Council cannot talk about it. He supported Ms. Morris' advice; she is one of the top land use attorneys in the state and ignoring her advice puts the City, the City Council and the entire process at risk. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Peterson's comments. She asked Ms. Morris if the City was vulnerable if the Council proceeded as Council President Petso proposed. Ms. Morris answered yes; there is a legal requirement that there be Findings of Fact and Conclusions from the decision -maker after an open record hearing. If the Council proceeded, it would be trying to make sense of a record that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 12 of 660 does not have entry of Findings and Conclusions. Councilmember Buckshnis said staff suggested the Council could review the ADB minutes. Ms. Morris recalled the draft Findings of Fact she prepared on the Hillman matter quoted a case, Weyerhaeuser v. King County, that described the court's description of what Findings of Fact and Conclusions need to include. The courts have stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions drawn up by an administrative body after the open record public hearing have to meet the same requirements as a trial court and it cannot be entry of minutes; it must be actual Findings of Fact that reveal the decision -maker's thought process and why the final decision was arrived at. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Findings of Fact and Conclusions would be based on the specifics of the ADB's decision or could it include issues such as mass and bulk that have been raised by the appellants. Ms. Morris answered the ADB needed to enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions that are consistent with their decision. This is the only direction the Council can give the ADB. If those issues were considered by the ADB, they could be included in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Councilmember Bloom relayed in her reading of the May 15, 2013 minutes, at least one member of the ADB felt the ADB was not to address the height and bulk/mass issue, as that had already been settled. She asked if that would be left out of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Ms. Morris suggested the Council not be concerned with that because whatever the ADB develops as their Findings of Fact and Conclusions, anyone with standing has an opportunity to raise that issue in an appeal. No one is prejudice at all by this procedure. She referred to the Invited Error Doctrine that would prevent any of the appellants who have alleged there was an error in not having Findings of Fact and Conclusions from claiming their due process rights were violated because this is an error they have claimed has occurred and the City is going back and correcting that error. Once the Findings of Fact and Conclusions are drafted and signed by the ADB, everyone can read them and decide what to base their appeals on; it may be different than the current appeals. Councilmember Bloom asked if there would then be new appeals filed. Ms. Morris answered there could be new appeals because they are currently appealing the basis for the ADB's vote which is unknown because the only thing in the record is the ADB's vote and the minutes. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that would give the Council a broader view rather than a narrower view. Ms. Morris responded it may also provide additional detail and explain the ADB's vote which may make it easier to resolve appeals at the closed record review. She assured this procedure does not prejudice anyone; the only party that it could possibly be prejudiced is the applicant and they have agreed to waive the codes and state laws that provide an impediment to the procedure. She relayed Council President Petso's indication today that perhaps the appellant would be prejudice in that they would have to pay an additional appeal fee. She suggested the Council could state anyone who has filed an appeal does not have to pay another appeal fee. Councilmember Bloom asked when the Council would state that. Ms. Morris answered that could be done tonight; the Council could state that after the ADB enters its Findings of Fact and Conclusions if any of the three appellants choose to file an additional appeal, they do not have to pay another appeal fee. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the current appellants would have to re -appeal if the Council remanded to the ADB. Ms. Morris answered yes. Council President Petso asked whether the appeal fees that have been paid could be refunded. Ms. Morris answered she did not see a problem with that. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the remand effectively grants relief to the appellants by providing for findings that previously were lacking. He was uncertain it made sense to refund the appeal fee but certainly it would be fair to waive a second appeal fee. Mayor Earling commented he had no problem with waiving a second appeal fee but he was not interested in refunding fees for appeals that staff has already been working on. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 13 of 660 Council President Petso commented no relief whatsoever had been provided to the appellants; the Council has refused to hear their appeal. That was the basis for her suggestion to refund the appeal fees. Councilmember Yamamoto commented it is a fairly simple process; the applicant and appellant have both agreed to sign the necessary waivers to remand to the ADB. He expressed support for remanding to the ADB for entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO REMAND TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ENTRY OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR VOTE AND TO WAIVE THE APPEAL FEE FOR CURRENT APPELLANTS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern that neither Councilmember Johnson nor she was allowed to comment before the motion was made. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for remanding to the ADB for preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She wanted to be cautious with proceeding, noting many lives are being affected as evidenced by the stress in the audience members' faces. She wanted to proceed in a proper manner and according to the attorney, the best legal way. Council President Petso explained her concern with engaging in this process was it was not conveyed in writing until the last set of paperwork submitted by the applicant, not the appellants. She heard of it on Sunday afternoon in a telephone conversation with the lawyer. She was not allowed to contact the appellants to ask if this was acceptable to them; the appellants have not been allowed to speak and in fact have not had an opportunity to reply and none of them requested a limited remand in their appeal documents. The appellants requested relief via many solutions such as adopting the staff findings, deny, etc., but remand was not one of them. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO REMAND THIS BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ENTRY OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S PREVIOUS VOTE AND THAT IF AN APPELLANT NEEDS TO RE -APPEAL, THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY AN APPEAL FEE. Councilmember Bloom wanted to ensure this action would not limit what could be brought up in an appeal to whatever the Findings of Fact and Conclusions include. Ms. Morris answered this action would not limit anything. There is no prejudice to the appellants by this action. All that will occur is this matter will go back to the ADB, the ADB will enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions consistent with the decision they have already reached and everyone with standing to file an appeal, can file an appeal. Those appeals will come back to the Council. Councilmember Johnson stated her belief that this is a procedural issue and the correct action for the Council to take would be to remand it back to the ADB. She hoped the Council had learned from this experience and would not have the same problem in the future. Mr. Taraday suggested the Council give clear direction to the ADB regarding the schedule for the hearing and the submission of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions. He relayed staff's proposed schedule: City staff prepare the first draft of Findings of Fact and Conclusions and submit them to the applicant and all parties of record on July 23. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 14 of 660 The applicant and all parties of record have an opportunity to make red -line revisions to the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Red -line revisions would be submitted by July 30. All the red -line revisions would be provided to the ADB in a packet on July 31. The ADB would review red -line revisions and make a decision on August 7. Mr. Taraday explained the reason he proposed the above process was beginning with proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions and red -line revisions would make it easier for the ADB to review and make a decision rather than attempt to synthesize several draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Mayor Earling suggested posting the above schedule on the City's website. Council President Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's proposal was instead of asking the ADB the basis of their decision, everyone would submit to the ADB what they thought the basis of their decision might have been and the ADB will select one. Mr. Taraday answered that was his proposal, noting that was what was done in court when there was a trial to the bench. Council President Petso disagreed, commenting in court the judge gets to decide which way to rule. In this case the Council is telling the ADB to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions but to rule the same way they did before. Mr. Taraday disagreed with Council President Petso, explaining in his experience, when a trial is tried by the bench and the judge has rendered his decision, he will tell counsel for the parties to draft proposed Findings and Conclusions; typically the prevailing party will draft the first set of Findings and Conclusions, which are then reviewed and potentially revised by the non -prevailing party. The judge will then typically adopt some combination of the two based on his determination about which findings are the most reasonable and the most in tune with the judge's oral decision. He explained that was consistent with this situation; the ADB made an oral decision and the Council is now requesting they memorialize their oral decision in writing after giving everyone who participated in the hearing an opportunity to draft proposed Findings and Conclusions that are consistent with the vote that was already taken. Council President Petso commented if a judge is dissatisfied with what the parties submit, the judge simply red -lines and revises the order to state what he wants it to say regardless of what the parties submit. She asked whether the ADB would be given that opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered of course; this is only a starting point. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Ms. Morris to comment on Mr. Taraday's suggestion, noting she also found it unusual for staff to prepare draft Findings and Conclusions when it was remanded to the ADB. Ms. Morris responded she was 100% supportive of what Mr. Taraday described including his description of what courts do. It may be more difficult for the ADB to synthesize a bunch of different Findings of Fact and Conclusions; starting with one draft that everyone suggests revisions to would be easier. Councilmember Bloom asked whether in other cities that have ADBs staff typically drafts Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She recognized the ADB is a volunteer board. Ms. Morris responded in her experience, planning staff drafts Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Sometimes when a matter is complicated, staff will ask that it be done by the City Attorney. THE VOTEON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Petso asked whether the Council's action ended the appeal and the Council was free to discuss the matter with the public or should the Council still refrain from conversation with proponents or opponents. Mr. Taraday answered there is still an application pending; there is still a proposed project and potentially proponents and opponents of the project. He recommended the Council continue not to have Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 15 of 660 contact with proponents or opponents of the project to ensure they could participate in the event the matter returned to the Council on a subsequent appeal. 8. ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained he was asked to prepare this ordinance. There are two versions of the ordinance, one in the packet and a version that was emailed to Councilmembers late this afternoon. The difference between the two is the version that was emailed is an emergency ordinance and takes effect immediately; the version in the packet is not an emergency ordinance although both are interim zoning ordinances. If the Council adopts the emergency version of the ordinance, it goes into effect tonight and prevents an application from being submitted tomorrow and thereafter that can utilize the current reasonable use exception, in particular the definition that has been determined to be outside the norm. If the Council wanted to allow for a small window of opportunity to allow property owners and applicants to submit applications under the current reasonable use exception, the Council would adopt the version of the ordinance in the packet. Council President Petso stated once discussion is finished, she is ready to move to adopt the emergency ordinance. At Councilmember Buckshnis' request, Mr. Taraday described how the emergency ordinance differs from the ordinance in the packet: • The title adds the language, "and declaring an emergency necessitating immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance." • In the third whereas clause, the word "urgent" is changed to "immediate." • A fourth whereas clause was added that reads, "WHEREAS, the city council has determined that the "reasonable economic use" regulations should be addressed and considered while the interim critical areas regulations below are in place, to prevent any property owners from submitting applications for development or re -development under the existing codes, which may not provide adequate protection to critical areas; and" • Section 4, Emergency Declaration was added. • Section 6, Effective Date, has been revised to state the ordinance takes effect immediately and to state approval requires a vote of a majority plus one. Councilmember Peterson expressed support for the interim zoning ordinance but was very uncomfortable with the emergency zoning ordinance, primarily because there was no mention of an emergency ordinance on the agenda. In fact, the Council did not receive the ordinance until late this afternoon. In the past the Council has been interested in properly notifying the public before taking certain votes. He recognized there were some emergency ordinances where notification would not be possible but did not think this ordinance was one of those. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the emergency was. Mr. Taraday assured he was not placing a judgment on the Council's decision to adopt the ordinance in one form or the other. The reason he did not include the emergency ordinance in the packet was that would have defeated the purpose. The purpose of an emergency ordinance is to ensure applications do not vest prior to adoption of the new regulations. If the public is informed the Council is planning to adopt an emergency ordinance, it does not work. While he was not prejudging or placing a value judgment on the Council whether they should or should not adopt the emergency ordinance, it was done that way purposefully to give the Council the option of adopting the regulation without public notice. This is an exception to the general rule of having public notice; interim zoning ordinances and moratoriums are the two exceptions to the GMA where the Council can take immediate action. The reason that immediate action would be taken was to prevent Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 16 of 660 applications from vesting. He reiterated the emergency ordinance was presented in this manner by design, to preserve the ability of the Council to choose. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the reason for the urgency. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council wanted to make it impossible for property owners to submit applications after tonight that utilize the critical areas variance language that the Council found problematic, that was a reason to adopt the emergency ordinance. If the Council wants to make it difficult but "leave the window open a crack" the Council would not adopt the emergency ordinance. If the Council wanted to give property owners six months to use the current regulations, the Council did not need to adopt an interim zoning ordinance and could just refer it to the Planning Board for consideration. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the emergency ordinance because she felt strongly the confusion generated by the phrase in the code has been damaging and problematic for many people. This needs to be addressed immediately and a public hearing held afterward. She did not want there to be any more situations where a property owner believed they could apply for something they should not be offered. Councilmember Peterson commented Mr. Taraday's explanation furthered his resolve. He commented it sounds shifty, doing it at the last minute so nobody knows. He was supportive of the interim zoning ordinance but not with adopting it in a sketchy way that was not transparent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council could hold a public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered regardless of whether the ordinance was adopted as an emergency or not, interim zoning ordinances require a public hearing be held within 60 days of adoption. In the meantime, he expected the Council or staff would ask the Planning Board to consider a permanent ordinance. The interim zoning ordinance only lasts six months. Councilmember Johnson asked if there have been any circumstances that precipitated the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday responded he was asked to prepare an emergency version of the ordinance by certain Councilmembers. He provided both an emergency and non -emergency version to give the Council the option to choose between them. Completely independent and not precipitating his drafting of the ordinance, the City has received an application for a critical areas variance since the Council voted on the Hillman variance. As far as he knew, that was completely coincidental. Councilmember Johnson asked if that application would be vested. Mr. Taraday answered assuming the application is a complete application it likely would have vested to the current regulations. He noted that was the reason for an emergency ordinance, to prevent vesting. Councilmember Johnson asked if a determination had been made that the application was complete. Mr. Taraday answered a determination has not been made. Council President Petso assured this is not an attempt to be sneaky but the language in the current ordinance is a problem. Mr. Taraday responded it is certainly an outlier and creates additional potential loss and degradation of critical areas in that it appears to grant the ability for property owners to seek something to which they are not constitutionally entitled. It arguably goes further than the constitution requires and to avoid that, he recommended the City's code conform to a more normal critical areas ordinance that leaves determinations about reasonable economic use to be made on a case by case basis without presuming that a single family lot is entitled to have a single family home on it regardless of the critical areas that may be present. Council President Petso concluded adoption of the ordinance better protects critical areas. Mr. Taraday answered that was his opinion. Council President Petso commented adoption of the emergency ordinance Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 17 of 660 starts that protection tonight instead of when? Mr. Taraday answered instead of five days after publication. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Taraday's statements that the "for example" language in the reasonable economic definition in 23.40.320 changed the reasonable use definition. She referred to an email she received from Mr. Schroeder in which he suggests removing the "for example" language and retain the remainder of the definition. She noted the ordinance proposes completely removing that language. She asked what would happen to the current definition. Mr. Taraday answered this is what the Planning Board could consider, whether on a permanent basis there should be a definition. Many jurisdictions do not have a definition of reasonable economic use because reasonable economic use is a concept defined by state and federal constitutional law. In his opinion, those definitions were problematic. In many of the jurisdictions that have a definition of reasonable economic use, it simply states something like reasonable economic use is a use that is entitled by the Constitution of the United States. He concluded a reasonable economic use variance is necessarily a case by case legal analysis that is not subject to definition. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. Councilmember Peterson stated he is 100% in favor of the change proposed in the ordinance. However, he is not in favor of behavior unbecoming of this Council. The Council must balance critical areas with open government. If the emergency ordinance had been included in the packet that is available on Friday, he doubted there would have been a flood of applications to get vested. By adopting the emergency ordinance the Council was sacrificing the importance of open governance and the importance of transparency. He noted at least a couple Councilmembers knew an emergency ordinance would be proposed but he and the public received the emergency ordinance at the last hour. It pained him to vote against the ordinance because he felt the interim zoning ordinance was appropriate. If the Council adopted the emergency ordinance, he felt the Council could forget about transparency. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification whether a public hearing was required if the Council adopted the emergency ordinance tonight. Mr. Taraday answered either way, whether the Council adopted the emergency version or the version in the packet, the GMA requires a public hearing be held within 60 days of adoption of an interim zoning ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between adopting the ordinance as an emergency ordinance and adopting it as an interim ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained the difference in the effective date is a 10 day period. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained she publishes ordinances on the Sunday following the Tuesday meeting and the ordinance is effective the following Friday (5 days after publication); a total of ten days. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support pursuing the ordinance as an emergency rather than an interim and will vote against the motion. Councilmember Bloom indicated she would support the motion. She disagreed with Councilmember Peterson's argument about transparency. Although she would have liked to have had both ordinances presented at once, this discussion is about the transparency. There were no plans to have a public hearing in advance anyway. The difference is ten days, during that period of time, applications could vest which would create confusion and a very difficult situation such as occurred in the prior hearing. The clause in the code does not exist in other cities and the safeguard of 10 days is worth it. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from Mr. Taraday dated December 27, 2012 in which he discusses the ordinance and offers to prepare an emergency version of the ordinance. She recognized the need for an emergency ordinance and would support the motion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 18 of 660 Councilmember Yamamoto did not support the motion. He cited the importance of transparency and not doing things in a hurry. He feared this would set precedence for doing things spur of the moment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY PLUS ONE; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3931, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. Councilmember Peterson suggested the Planning Board review this in an expedited manner. Mr. Taraday answered the ordinance would be in effect for 180 days. During that period of time he recommended the Planning Board return to the Council with a recommendation regarding a permanent ordinance. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported approximately 240-250 people attended the Arts Summit. The event was very successful and included a speaker about the interconnection and importance of arts and business. Following several breakout sessions, the group provided direction that will be included in the Cultural Plan. He thanked staff for organizing and putting on the event. Mayor Earling encouraged the public to attend the Walk Back in Time at the Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. on July 18. Mayor Earling wished everyone a happy 4`h of July. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom reported she attended the Arts Summit and found it very enjoyable and productive. She thanked Mayor Earling for organizing the event, staff for their assistance and the donors for providing food and refreshments. Councilmember Yamamoto provided a reminder of the 4th of July 5K Fun Run/Walk. It starts at 10:00 a.m. at City Park and goes through Woodway and along the parade route. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she also attended the Arts Summit. She commended Mayor Earling and staff for their efforts. She wished everyone a happy 41h of July and encouraged everyone to keep their pets indoors on the 4th of July. Council President Petso referred to the alleged conspiracy regarding the ordinance. She did not have any contact with anyone on the Council or staff regarding the ordinance that was not an email that included everyone. She recalled Mr. Taraday asked the Council to get back to him because he recommended the change. A number of Councilmembers responded to her and she communicated that information to Mr. Taraday. Mr. Taraday then sent an email stating it could be done via an emergency ordinance and apparently that was not done until late afternoon today. That was when she first learned the emergency ordinance would be on the agenda. She supported the emergency ordinance as she felt it was a good idea Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 19 of 660 but she was not aware that a group of Councilmembers had information that other Councilmembers did not. Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a happy and safe 41' of July. He announced the Alderwood Rotary's Concours D'Elegance Car Show on Saturday, July 13 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. on the 18th hole of the Lynnwood Municipal Golf Course. The show will include Italian sports cars as well as muscle cars. Proceeds benefit Clothes for Kids, Pathways for Women and other local charities. Councilmember Peterson asked everyone to keep the firefighters and families in Arizona in their hearts and to remember the first responders in Edmonds, in Snohomish County and throughout the country who put their lives on the line daily. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas congratulated the legislature for finally finishing the session. The Snohomish Health Board's emergency meeting regarding funding was canceled when the legislature passed the budget. Time will tell how the legislature's decisions will affect the City. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 8:58 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 10 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 and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 9:09 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional five minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 9:14 p.m. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:15 p.m. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 20 of 660 AM-5954 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 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 #202962 through #203073 dated July 3, 2013 for $1,842,629.96, and claim checks #203074 through #203229 dated July 11, 2013 for $678,334.68. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60277 through #60303 for $481,103.22, benefit checks #60304 through #60315 and wire payments of $213,330.98 for the period June 16, 2013 through June 30, 2013. Recommendation Approval of claims, 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 Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue• Expenditure• 2013 3,215,398.84 Fiscal Impact: Claims $2,520,964.64 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $481,103.22 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $213,330.98 Total Payroll $694,434.20 Attachments Claim checks 07-03-13 Packet Page 21 of 660 Claims checks 07-11-13 Project Numbers 07-11-13 Payroll Summary 07-05-13a Payroll Summary 07-05-13b Payroll Benefit 07-05-13 Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Roger Neumaier 07/11/2013 11:31 AM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:12 PM Dave Earling 07/11/2013 04:52 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 10:21 AM Packet Page 22 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202962 7/3/2013 072627 911 ETC INC 23943 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 202963 7/3/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 320854 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE PEST MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE PEST 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 7.12 Total: 82.12 202964 7/3/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 613381 SHIRTS FOR BEACHCAMP DOCEN' SHIRTS FOR BEACHCAMP DOCEN' 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 97.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 9.22 613394 DAYCAMP SHIRTS DAYCAMP SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 63.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 6.02 Total: 175.68 202965 7/3/2013 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 13-0329 WWTP - MONTHLY JANITORIAL SEI WWTP - MONTHLY JANITORIAL SEI 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total: 334.00 202966 7/3/2013 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 16793 PLAQUES FOR FLOWER POLES PLAQUES FOR FLOWER POLES 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 360.00 Freight 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 8.29 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 1 Packet Page 23 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202966 7/3/2013 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING (Continued) 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 34.99 16941 LOVEGREN BENCH PLAQUE LOVEGREN BENCH PLAQUE 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 148.40 Freight 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 7.79 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 14.84 Total: 574.31 202967 7/3/2013 067736 AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS COHEN 6/29/2013 KEYNOTE PRESENTAION AT ARTS KEYNOTE PRESENTAION AT ARTS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00 Total: 1,000.00 202968 7/3/2013 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC WT01 WWTP - EXTRA NPDES SAMPLING WWTP - EXTRA NPDES SAMPLING 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total: 165.00 202969 7/3/2013 001634 AQUA QUIP 748711-1 WWTP - 3" SILK TABS, 25 LB WWTP - 3" SILK TABS, 25 LB 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 299.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 28.50 Total: 328.47 202970 7/3/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0448422-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,011.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 476.11 Total: 5,487.85 202971 7/3/2013 073481 ATMAJIAN, RITA GRACE ATMAJIAN 7/01 INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION -REF Page: 2 Packet Page 24 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202971 7/3/2013 073481 ATMAJIAN, RITA GRACE (Continued) INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION -REF 001.000.239.200 125.00 Total: 125.00 202972 7/3/2013 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 79085 City Hall Finance - Signage Installatic City Hall Finance - Signage Installatic 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 7.13 Total: 82.13 202973 7/3/2013 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0613 Pre -employment background investig Pre -employment background investig 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 475.00 Total: 475.00 202974 7/3/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 8208 INV 8208 EDMONDS PD - LEATHER DOUBLE HANDCUFF CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.90 CUFF CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 127.80 SIDEBREAK ASP BATON CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 40.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 11.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.57 8208-80 CUFF CASES CREDIT 8208-80 EDMONDS PD CUI Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -11.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -1.09 9726 INV 9726 EDMONDS PD - MCCLURI SERGEANT CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.90 Page: 3 Packet Page 25 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202974 7/3/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) SEW ON TWO PAIRS SGT. CHEVR( 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.04 9952 INV 9952 EDMONDS PD - COMPTOI STRIKER II BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 159.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.20 Total: 469.27 202975 7/3/2013 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBOCHON 16989 SILVERSMITHING 16989 SILVERSMITHING 16989 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 137.50 Total: 137.50 202976 7/3/2013 074477 CALVARY CHAPEL E7AA.Calvary Chapel E7AA.CALVARY CHAPEL ROW ACQ E7AA.Calvary Chapel ROW Acquisitic 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 33,534.00 Total: 33,534.00 202977 7/3/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12847433 WWTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 WWTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total: 85.80 202978 7/3/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12848097 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES C50 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 7.92 Page: 4 Packet Page 26 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202978 7/3/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Tota I : 273.74 202979 7/3/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 38336374 INV 38336374 ACCT 7898305185 EC FUEL FOR NARC UNIT 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 489.42 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 4.89 Total: 494.31 202980 7/3/2013 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 394 INV 394 EDMONDS PD - CHILD INT CHILD INTERVIEW SPECIALIST - 21' 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 944.35 Total: 944.35 202981 7/3/2013 071480 CLEAR CUT PLASTICS INC 32205 POLYCARBONATE POLYCARBONATE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 344.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 32.74 Total: 377.38 202982 7/3/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2564139-1 Fac Maint - Liners Fac Maint - Liners 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 68.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.49 Total: 74.80 202983 7/3/2013 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 119.70 Page: 5 Packet Page 27 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202983 7/3/2013 070323 070323 COMCAST (Continued) Total: 119.70 202984 7/3/2013 072189 DATASITE 35175 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 90.00 Doc Shred Services Finance 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 25.00 Total: 115.00 202985 7/3/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 332003 E1CA.SERVICES THRU 5/18/13 E1CA.Services thru 5/18/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 14,840.88 Total: 14,840.88 202986 7/3/2013 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS June 2013 DRS JUNE 2013 DRS CONTRIBUTIONS June 2013 DRS contributions 811.000.231.540 160,189.12 Total: 160,189.12 202987 7/3/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3371 MINUTE TAKING 6/17 & 6/25 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 501.00 Total: 501.00 202988 7/3/2013 073512 DKS ASSOCIATES 52320 E2AC.SERVICES THRU 5/3/13 E2AC.Services thru 5/3/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,196.71 Total: 2,196.71 202989 7/3/2013 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 06302013 STATE LOBBYIST FOR JUNE 2013 State lobbyist charges for June 2013 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 2,391.25 Total: 2,391.25 202990 7/3/2013 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 6/27 THERMOMETER THERMOMETER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.49 Page: 6 Packet Page 28 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202990 7/3/2013 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.24 Total: 2.73 202991 7/3/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 23947 MOTORMITE MOTORMITE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.56 Total: 6.50 202992 7/3/2013 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 2nd Qtr 2013 FAC Solar Elect System Production FAC Solar Elect System Production 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 435.35 Total: 435.35 202993 7/3/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP REFUND TUFF REFUND TUFF CLASS CANCELLEE REFUND TUFF CLASS CANCELLEE 001.000.239.200 75.00 Total: 75.00 202994 7/3/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 7-05276 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 133.70 Total: 133.70 202995 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0886421 C1030 C1030 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 32.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 3.09 0889601 METER READING A7027 METER READING A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 133.94 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 7 Packet Page 29 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202995 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 12.72 Total: 182.27 202996 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088426 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 4.77 088728 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 97.50 Total: 102.27 202997 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088961 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 C Meter charges 05/30/13 - 06/30/13 B! 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 43.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 4.09 088968 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN Maintenance excess for printers 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 121.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 11.51 Total: 179.84 202998 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088962 COPIER CHARGES FOR C5051 Copier charges C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 40.68 Copier charges C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 40.68 Copier charges C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 40.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 3.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 3.86 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 8 Packet Page 30 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202998 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.87 Total: 133.60 202999 7/3/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088966 METER READING Meter Reading 6/30 to 7/30 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 364.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 34.62 Total: 399.02 203000 7/3/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28753 Sewer - Parts Sewer - Parts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 215.31 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 20.45 WAMOU28762 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.19 Tota I : 249.43 203001 7/3/2013 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 433 12399 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 0.53 433 12494 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 22.00 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 2.09 443 12373 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 11.00 Page: 9 Packet Page 31 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203001 7/3/2013 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1.05 443 12387 CORNER TAGS CORNER TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 27.50 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 2.62 443 12394 CORNER PARK TAG CORNER PARK TAG 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 0.53 443 12426 CORNER PARK TAG CORNER PARK TAG 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 0.53 443 12457 CORNER PARK TAG CORNER PARK TAG 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 0.53 443 12542 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 11.00 FLOWER BASKET TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 11.00 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 2.09 Total : 114.47 203002 7/3/2013 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 63013 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 9,450.00 Page: 10 Packet Page 32 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203002 7/3/2013 009895 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A (Continued) Total: 9,450.00 203003 7/3/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0380760 Water Supplies Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 168.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.96 0380769 Water Supplies Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 234.30 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 22.26 Total: 440.52 203004 7/3/2013 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 219985 June Flex -Plan 125 processing month June Flex -Plan 125 processing montl 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total: 75.00 203005 7/3/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.65 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 70.30 Total: 111.95 203006 7/3/2013 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA 16881 TAEKWON-DO 16881 TAEKWON-DO 16881 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 157.50 Total: 157.50 203007 7/3/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9173171183 EYEWASH STATION AND CLEANIN( EYEWASH STATION AND CLEANIN( 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 221.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.41 Page: 11 Packet Page 33 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203007 7/3/2013 012199 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) Total: 242.30 203008 7/3/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00084723-B WWTP - HDR REVIEW OF CONTRA WWTP - HDR REVIEW OF CONTRA 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 4,773.35 Total: 4,773.35 203009 7/3/2013 074443 HEADWORKS INC 13-0625EDM1 WWTP - BOLT ON BRUSH CLIPS WWTP - BOLT ON BRUSH CLIPS 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 220.08 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 12.00 Total: 232.08 203010 7/3/2013 063558 IDDINGS INC 1002 INFIELD SOIL INFIELD SOIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,000.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.00 Total: 1,095.00 203011 7/3/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2296069 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 98.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 9.38 Total: 108.13 203012 7/3/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2297890 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 171.99 Total: 171.99 203013 7/3/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 723200 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Parkas (2 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Parkas (2 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 34.95 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Parkas (2 Page: 12 Packet Page 34 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203013 7/3/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 34.95 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 3.32 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 3.32 724195 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jacket Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jacket 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 17.48 Water Sewer - Yellow Work Jacket 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 17.47 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 1.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 1.66 Total: 114.81 203014 7/3/2013 074486 JAN G ELLIOTT-GLANISTER WATCH THE SKY 062913 MUSIC PERFORMANCE ARTS SUM MUSIC PERFORMANCE ARTS SUM 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203015 7/3/2013 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 585074 WWTP - CHLORINE WWTP - CHLORINE 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,714.42 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 256.08 Total: 2,970.50 203016 7/3/2013 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS 16889 TAEKWON-DO 16889 TAEKWON-DO 16889 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 93.00 TAEKWON- DO 16885 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 43.50 Total: 136.50 Page: 13 Packet Page 35 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203017 7/3/2013 074326 KIMBALL MIDWEST 203018 7/3/2013 074330 KING, BEN 203019 7/3/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 203020 7/3/2013 072059 LEE, NICOLE Invoice 2953656 6/15/13 - 6/30/13 06042013-03 781 203021 7/3/2013 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 12864 12865 12867 PO # Description/Account WWTP - COTTER PIN, ALUM BLIND WWTP - COTTER PIN, ALUM BLIND 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 Total GEOSPATIAL DATA COLLECTION & Geospatial Data Collection Mapping 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Total Unit 12 - Car Wash Unit 12 - Car Wash 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total INV 12864 EDMONDS PD REPAIR RADIO 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 LCD DISPLAY 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 INV 12865 EDMONDS PD REPAIR RADIO 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 SWITCH FOR RADIO 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 INV 12867 EDMONDS PD REPAIR RADIO 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CIRCUIT Amount 376.09 35.73 411.82 1,090.98 1,090.98 5.03 5.03 144.75 144.75 90.00 125.00 135.00 65.50 135.00 Page: 14 Packet Page 36 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203021 7/3/2013 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 25.20 SWITCH 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 8.00 12868 INV 12868 EDMONDS PD REPAIR RADIO 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 108.00 SWITCH 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 8.00 Total: 699.70 203022 7/3/2013 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 001552-00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 456.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.40 Total: 500.25 203023 7/3/2013 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS SVC043274 YOST POOL BOILER SERVICE CALI YOST POOL BOILER SERVICE CALI 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 357.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 33.97 Total: 391.58 203024 7/3/2013 074181 MADSEN, DAWN IRISH DANCE 17006 IRISH DANCE 17006 IRISH DANCE 17006 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 17.50 IRISH 17001 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 17.00 Tota I : 34.50 203025 7/3/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1231 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 1232 INTERPRETER FEE Page: 15 Packet Page 37 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203025 7/3/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1295 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1297 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total: 353.28 203026 7/3/2013 071600 MAWBEY, CAROLYN REFUND 06/28 CREDIT ONE MISSED CLASS CREDIT ONE MISSED CLASS 001.000.239.200 13.60 Total: 13.60 203027 7/3/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 54070902 WWTP - STEEL TANK, 2.1. GAL WWTP - STEEL TANK, 2.1. GAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 45.85 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.14 54227052 WWTP - IRON BUTTERFLY VALVE WWTP - IRON BUTTERFLY VALVE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 113.89 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.80 Total: 174.68 203028 7/3/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 170475 PARKS REPLACEMNET POWERHE, PARKS REPLACEMNET POWERHE, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 501.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.64 170476 PRUNER PRUNER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 296.92 Page: 16 Packet Page 38 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203028 7/3/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.21 170765 BALLINGER PARK POST DIGGER BALLINGER PARK POST DIGGER 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 60.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 5.75 Total: 940.46 203029 7/3/2013 074479 MULVIHILL, KRISTIE MULVIHILL 06282013 TRANSFER, REFUND BALANCE TRANSFER, REFUND BALANCE 001.000.239.200 120.00 Total: 120.00 203030 7/3/2013 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 13-1427-2 E1GA.SERVICES THRU 5/31/13 E1 GA.Services thru 5/31/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,655.73 E1 GA.Services thru 5/31/13 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 815.51 Total: 2,471.24 203031 7/3/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0347926-IN Water Sewer - Yellow Coverall Bib we Water Sewer - Yellow Coverall Bib we 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 53.63 Water Sewer - Yellow Coverall Bib we 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 53.62 Freight 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 5.90 Freight 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 5.90 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 5.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 5.65 0348226-IN Water Sewer - Jackets, Coveralls Page: 17 Packet Page 39 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203031 7/3/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) Water Sewer - Jackets, Coveralls 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 193.35 Water Sewer - Jackets, Coveralls 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 193.35 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 18.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 18.37 0349702-IN Water Sewer - Workwear Jacket, Ove Water Sewer - Workwear Jacket, Ove 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 37.60 Water Sewer - Workwear Jacket, Ove 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 37.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 3.58 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 3.57 Total: 636.15 203032 7/3/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0499149-IN WWTP - OIL ANALYSIS KIT WWTP - OIL ANALYSIS KIT 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 432.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 41.04 Tota I : 473.04 203033 7/3/2013 074480 NERPIOL, EUGENE NERPIOL 07012013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total: 500.00 203034 7/3/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-683938 HAINES WHARF PARK HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 1-686096 HICKMAN PARK Page: 18 Packet Page 40 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203034 7/3/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.88 1-686113 YOST PARK RENTALS YOST PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 Total: 1,119.64 203035 7/3/2013 074481 OKOLOKO, LARA OKOLOKO 07012013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 104.00 Total: 104.00 203036 7/3/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 000130 220TH ST SW 84TH AVE W 220TH ST SW 84TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 14.06 0001520 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 36.52 0001530 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 65.15 0002930 5TH AND ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER 5TH AND ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57 0005060 9803 EDMONDS WAY 9803 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57 0026390 SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL SIDEWALK NEAR 10415 226TH PL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57 Tota I : 162.44 203037 7/3/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 3618 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 524.30 Page: 19 Packet Page 41 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203037 7/3/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 49.81 Total: 574.11 203038 7/3/2013 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMP PETTY CASH WASHERS WASHERS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.94 OTTERPOPS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 7.54 PAILS AND SANDPAPER 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 7.60 CARDBOARD TUBS AND WOOD PIE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 30.20 CONSTRUCTION PAPER 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 29.08 CARDBOARD CONTAINERS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 13.70 FOAM CUPS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 2.18 FABRIC BALLS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 30.50 SPRING BOTTLES AND CLOTHES F 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 36.04 DUCKTAPE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 16.11 PLASTIC CUPS AND DUCKTAPE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 24.55 Total : 202.44 203039 7/3/2013 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-22 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 6/2/13 E7AC.Services thru 6/2/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 7,072.17 Total : 7,072.17 203040 7/3/2013 008400 PETTY CASH 6-30-13 ADMIN PC 6/30/13 POLICE ADMIN PETTY CAST Page: 20 Packet Page 42 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203040 7/3/2013 008400 PETTY CASH (Continued) MEAL FOR SUSPECT 13-1738 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.98 CORRECT UNDERPAYMENT 4/9 PE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 4.00 CREAMER FOR AWARDS & RETIRE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.29 PRESSURE TEST FOR VEHICLE LE 104.000.41.521.21.48.00 10.00 RE -ENGRAVE PLATES FOR FOSTEI 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 27.38 ICE, DRINKS FOR RANGE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 13.13 COOKIES FOR 5/28 POLICE FOUNC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.99 WATER AND ICE FOR RANGE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 4.68 FUEL FOR CITY MOTORCYCLES - 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 52.29 FOOD FOR SUSPECT/WITNESS 13 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 10.40 FOOD FOR VICTIMS 13-2334 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.26 WATER, COOKIES FOR COMMUNIT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 22.97 Total: 169.37 203041 7/3/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 9535 BOWDOIN WAY GAS CHARGE 9535 BOWDOIN WAY GAS CHARGE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,013.26 Total: 2,013.26 203042 7/3/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES 21420 WWTP - SECURITY SYSTEM FOR E WWTP - SECURITY SYSTEM FOR E 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 3,547.11 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 21 Packet Page 43 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203042 7/3/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 336.98 Total: 3,884.09 203043 7/3/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5026550905 Additional Images Dev Sery MP171& Additional Images Dev Sery MP171& 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 6.68 Total: 6.68 203044 7/3/2013 065701 SEVERT, LINDA SEVERT 06292013 PERFORMANCE AT THE ARTS SUM PERFORMANCE AT THE ARTS SUM 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203045 7/3/2013 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA 0000126348 Unit 98 - Supplies Unit 98 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 123.34 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.09 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.29 0000126402 Unit 98 - Hydraulic Filter Element Unit 98 - Hydraulic Filter Element 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 75.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.18 Total: 247.43 203046 7/3/2013 071602 SME SOLUTIONS LLC 138180 Gas Island Repairs Gas Island Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 982.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 93.36 Total: 1,075.85 203047 7/3/2013 074484 SNEDDON, SHARON SNEDDON 06212013 INSUFFICENT REGISTRATION Page: 22 Packet Page 44 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203047 7/3/2013 074484 SNEDDON, SHARON (Continued) INSUFFICENT REGISTRATION 001.000.239.200 5.00 Total: 5.00 203048 7/3/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q3-2013 Q3-2013 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA( Q3-2013 Fire Services Contract Payn 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 1,555,694.75 Total: 1,555,694.75 203049 7/3/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 131 SUNSETAVE 131 SUNSETAVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 168.25 2009-4334-8 23202 EDMONDS WAY 23202 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 119.28 2010-5432-7 50 RAILROAD AVE 50 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 83.03 2021-3965-5 100 RAILROAD AVE 100 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 39.39 2026-2041-5 24000 78TH AVE W 24000 78TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 Total : 442.28 203050 7/3/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2019-2991-6 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH F WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.27 Total : 31.27 203051 7/3/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DUMPING FEES DUMPING FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 670.49 Total : 670.49 Page: 23 Packet Page 45 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203052 7/3/2013 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE Invoice 35515 203053 7/3/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3258111 3259431 3259432 PO # Description/Account Amount FS 17 - Preventative Maint. on 5 Dooi FS 17 - Preventative Maint. on 5 Dooi 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 350.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 33.25 Total : 383.25 Water Sewer - Upside Down Green P Water Sewer - Upside Down Green P 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 95.10 Water Sewer - Upside Down Green P 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 95.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.04 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.03 Water Sewer - Upside down Blue Paii Water Sewer - Upside down Blue Paii 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 76.08 Water Sewer - Upside down Blue Paii 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 76.08 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.23 Water Sewer - Upside down white pai Water Sewer - Upside down white pai 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 38.04 Water Sewer - Upside down white pai 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 38.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.62 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.61 Total : 458.20 Page: 24 Packet Page 46 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203054 7/3/2013 072562 STUD1O3MUSIC LLC STUDIO 16905 KINDERMUSIK 16905 KINDERMUSIK 16905 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 201.44 KINDERMUSIK 16901 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 181.50 KINDERMUSIC 16897 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 327.25 Total: 710.19 203055 7/3/2013 040300 SWEDISH EDMONDS SWEDISH 05042013 LUNCH SPONSOR FOR HEALTH AN LUNCH SPONSOR FOR HEALTH AN 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 1,500.00 Total: 1,500.00 203056 7/3/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN 6/25 51.5 HOURS OF SOFTBALLATTEN1 51.5 HOURS OF SOFTBALLATTENC 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 515.00 Total: 515.00 203057 7/3/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 63787 Water Sewer - Work T's Water Sewer - Work T's 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 127.30 Water Sewer - Work T's 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 127.30 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 12.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 12.09 63826 Water Sewer - Work Shirts Water Sewer - Work Shirts 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 224.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 21.34 Total: 524.73 203058 7/3/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1824760 NEWSPAPER ADS Page: 25 Packet Page 47 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203058 7/3/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) Ordinance 3927 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 25.80 1824762 NEWSPAPER ADS ordinance 3926 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 25.80 Total: 51.60 203059 7/3/2013 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 323299 E7AC.ADVERTISING FOR PUBLIC h E7AC.Advertising for Public Hearing 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 736.40 Total: 736.40 203060 7/3/2013 074482 TRIERWEILER, JAN TRIERWEILER 07012013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 515.00 Total: 515.00 203061 7/3/2013 074485 TSENG, JOE TSENG 06262013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total: 200.00 203062 7/3/2013 062693 US BANK 3439 Automotive Workwear - Water Sewer Automotive Workwear - Water Sewer 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 84.06 Automotive Workwear - Water Sewer 423.000.75.535.20.24.00 84.05 Total: 168.11 203063 7/3/2013 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0485644-WA Street - DOT Street - DOT 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 70.00 Total: 70.00 203064 7/3/2013 074483 VASQUEZ, JOSE VASQUEZ 07012013 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND Page: 26 Packet Page 48 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203064 7/3/2013 074483 VASQUEZ, JOSE (Continued) 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total: 500.00 203065 7/3/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9707041250 C/A571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bid Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 205.02 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 56.00 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 260.14 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ Devlpi 001.000.61.519.70.42.00 74.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 357.02 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 90.95 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IT 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 300.91 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Offi 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 84.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 54.97 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 796.61 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.33 Page: 27 Packet Page 49 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203065 7/3/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 130.96 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW St Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 75.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 38.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 37.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 134.99 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 80.02 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 255.01 9707147766 C/A 742016114-00001 WWTP flow test modem 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 66.61 9707150272 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access - testing 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 15.02 Total: 4,413.06 203066 7/3/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29421534 WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 531.25 Total: 531.25 203067 7/3/2013 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20-1-12466 INV 20-1-12466 EDMONDS PD - TR) HOMICIDE INVEST. CLASS 6/10-13/ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203068 7/3/2013 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 9000182280 WEF 2013 Dues J Waite #1713436 Page: 28 Packet Page 50 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203068 7/3/2013 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION (Continued) WEF 2013 Dues J Waite #1713436 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 123.00 Total: 123.00 203069 7/3/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5933 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 260.61 Total: 260.61 203070 7/3/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5939 BUSINESS CARDS ORDER FOR FIP 250-00304 Business Cards-Nori Jacobson 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 20.60 250-00304 Lori Palmer 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 20.60 250-00304 Denise Burke 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.60 250-00304 Roger Neumaier 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 20.60 250-00304 Patty Steel Smith 001.000.64.575.55.49.00 20.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.92 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.49.00 1.95 Total: 112.79 203071 7/3/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5951 City of Edmonds application forms City of Edmonds application forms 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 168.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 15.96 Page: 29 Packet Page 51 of 660 vchlist 07/03/2013 2:39:15PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203071 7/3/2013 073552 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) Total: 183.96 203072 7/3/2013 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 55 LEOFF 1 reimbursement LEOFF 1 reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 133.20 Total: 133.20 203073 7/3/2013 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 56 LEOFF I Reimbursement LEOFF I Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 35.10 Total: 35.10 112 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 1,842,629.96 112 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,842,629.96 Page: 30 Packet Page 52 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203074 7/11/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 320892 RODENT SERVICE SENIOR CENTE RODENT SERVICE SENIOR CENTE 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 105.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 9.98 Total: 114.98 203075 7/11/2013 074261 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES 37346449 E7AA.SERVICES THRU 5/24/13 E7AA.Services thru 5/24/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 914.32 Total: 914.32 203076 7/11/2013 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 5059 BACKFLOW TESTING BACKFLOW TESTING 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,530.00 Total: 1,530.00 203077 7/11/2013 065568 ALLWATER INC 070113064 WWTP - WATER COOLER, RENTAL WWTP - WATER COOLER, RENTAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 19.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 0.67 Total: 20.07 203078 7/11/2013 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC F193EX111 WWTP - COURIER SERVICE FOR L WWTP - COURIER SERVICE FOR L 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 66.04 Tota I : 66.04 203079 7/11/2013 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 16982 PLATES FOR HAZEL MILLER PLAZ/ PLATES FOR HAZEL MILLER PLAZ/ 125.000.64.575.50.31.00 173.00 Freight 125.000.64.575.50.31.00 7.79 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 1 Packet Page 53 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203079 7/11/2013 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING (Continued) 125.000.64.575.50.31.00 17.18 Total: 197.97 203080 7/11/2013 001634 AQUAQUIP 755729-1/JMH TELESCPOIC ALUM. POOL TELESCPOIC ALUM. POOL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 278.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.43 Total: 304.61 203081 7/11/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6892513 UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.88 Total: 33.15 203082 7/11/2013 072576 ART ACCESS 12929 ART ACCESS AD ART ACCESS AD 123.000.64.573.20.44.00 52.50 Total : 52.50 203083 7/11/2013 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 28444 POULSEN ROUGH BOX POULSEN ROUGH BOX 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 732.00 28448 ROUGH BOX SWINDLE ROUGH BOX SWINDLE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 417.00 Total : 1,149.00 203084 7/11/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0706885-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory -460 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 460 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 710.00 Total : 710.00 203085 7/11/2013 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 7167 E3JA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 Page: 2 Packet Page 54 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203085 7/11/2013 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) E3JA.Services thru June 2013 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 18,998.25 Total: 18,998.25 203086 7/11/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 8060 INV#8060 - EDMONDS PD - SCHEEI WOMEN'S PANTS SIZE 8 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 49.99 WOMEN'S PANTS SIZE 10 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 49.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 9.50 8060-80 CREDIT RETURN SAMPLE PANTS-,' WOMENS PANTS SIZE 8 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 -49.99 WOMEN'S PANTS SIZE 10 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 -49.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 -9.50 9611 INV#9611 - EDMONDS PD - PLOEG[ TACLITE BLACK BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.99 SHIPPING/HANDLING 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.39 9611-80 INV#9611-80 CR SHIPPING/HANDLI SHIPPING/HAND CHG FOR BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -1.14 Total: 164.24 203087 7/11/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 057220 Storm - Dump Concrete Storm - Dump Concrete 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 189.00 Page: 3 Packet Page 55 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203087 7/11/2013 065739 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & (Continued) Total: 189.00 203088 7/11/2013 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 91852384 Street - Cement Street - Cement 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 294.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 27.93 Total: 321.93 203089 7/11/2013 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC DB82754 WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEMS UPGI WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEMS UPGI 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,266.38 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 119.71 Total: 1,386.09 203090 7/11/2013 068484 CEMEX LLC 9426368715 Street - Asphalt and Concrete Street - Asphalt and Concrete 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 377.75 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 35.89 9426400545 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 177.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 16.82 9426469128 Roadway - Asphalt, Liquid Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt, Liquid Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 570.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 54.16 Total: 1,231.72 203091 7/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN06130988 HELIUM HELIUM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.75 Page: 4 Packet Page 56 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203091 7/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.12 Total: 12.87 203092 7/11/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 195219 Fleet - Thermal Dynamics Supplies Fleet - Thermal Dynamics Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 31.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.01 Total: 34.75 203093 7/11/2013 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 17165 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17165 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17165 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 25.48 Total: 25.48 203094 7/11/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10162 WWTP - M&O - SEWER WWTP - M&O - SEWER 423.000.76.535.80.47.00 27,602.00 Total: 27,602.00 203095 7/11/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10170 INV#10170 CUST#1430 - EDMONDE VERIZON PHONE NARCS 06/2013 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 91.52 Total: 91.52 203096 7/11/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE85005401 Sewer - Lift Station Padlocks (40) Sewer - Lift Station Padlocks (40) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 197.10 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.91 Total: 229.48 203097 7/11/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2567513 WWTP - PAPER PRODUCTS, PAPEI Page: 5 Packet Page 57 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203097 7/11/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS (Continued) WWTP - PAPER PRODUCTS, PAPEI 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 266.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 25.34 Total: 292.06 203098 7/11/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2567883 Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels, Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 571.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.30 Total: 625.91 203099 7/11/2013 074448 COBURN, DOUG COBURN JULY 2013 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 8 HOUR; VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 8 HOUR; 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 80.00 Total: 80.00 203100 7/11/2013 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JULY-13 C/ACITYOFED00001 July-13 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 407.20 Total: 407.20 203101 7/11/2013 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC Unit 28 Repairs Unit 28 Deductables Unit 28 Deductables 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,000.00 Unit 29 Repairs Unit 29 Deductables Unit 29 Deductables 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,000.00 Total: 2,000.00 203102 7/11/2013 062891 COOK PAGING WA 9107794 WATER WATCH PAGERS WATER WATCH PAGERS 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.25 Total: 4.25 Page: 6 Packet Page 58 of 660 vchlist 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203103 7/11/2013 072848 COPIERS NW INV888755 INV#INV888755 ACCT#HMH636 - E[ MO COPIER RENTAL 06/05-07/04/1 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 INV888756 INV#INV888756 ACCT#HMH636 - E[ BLACK COPIES 06/05 - 07/04/13 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.20 COLOR COPIES 06/05 - 07/04/13 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 112.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 15.75 Total: 429.87 203104 7/11/2013 070344 CORNERSTONE ROOFING BLD20130706 Online permit outside City limits. Online permit outside City limits. 001.000.257.620 80.00 Total: 80.00 203105 7/11/2013 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JUNE 2013 DRY CLEANING MAY/JUNE - EDMO CLEANING/LAUNDRY MAY/JUNE'1: 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 962.33 Total: 962.33 203106 7/11/2013 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER 17450 LEAPING LIZARDS LEAPING LIZARDS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 35.20 Total: 35.20 203107 7/11/2013 072189 DATASITE 35325 INV#35325 ACCT#61515 - EDMOND SHREDDING 2 TOTES 06/13/13 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00 Total: 80.00 203108 7/11/2013 070121 DESTINATION MARKETING 16350 VIDEO PROJECT TOURISM/ECONC Video project for tourism and econom Page: 7 Packet Page 59 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203108 7/11/2013 070121 DESTINATION MARKETING (Continued) 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,520.00 Total: 2,520.00 203109 7/11/2013 070324 DESTINY SOFTWARE 3348 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE Agenda Mgmmnt Software Maint. 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 2,722.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 193.38 Total: 2,915.88 203110 7/11/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3372 INV#13-3372 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-1846 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 114.00 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-0897 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 51.00 TRANSCRIPTION SMART #WP1 3-0( 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 186.00 TRANSCRIPTION SMART #WP1 3-0( 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 63.00 Total: 414.00 203111 7/11/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3373 MINUTE TAKING 7/2 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 201.00 Total: 201.00 203112 7/11/2013 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 482641 FS 17 - Pump Motor FS 17 - Pump Motor 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 495.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.00 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 47.38 Total: 562.38 Page: 8 Packet Page 60 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203113 7/11/2013 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2162.2 CITY TOPO SURVEY CITY TOPO SURVEY 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 3,172.95 13-2176.1 PIONEER WAY MONITORING SURV PIONEER WAY MONITORING SURV 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 2,089.95 Total: 5,262.90 203114 7/11/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1920475 BALLINGER PARK PLAY TOY RETAI BALLINGER PARK PLAY TOY RETAI 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 4,652.62 Freight 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 443.90 Total: 5,116.52 203115 7/11/2013 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2013-07-01 07/13 RECREATION SERVICES COf 07/13 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 203116 7/11/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 23823 76TH AVE W 23823 76TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 39.98 Total: 39.98 203117 7/11/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.70 2-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 50.90 2-29119 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.70 Page: 9 Packet Page 61 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203117 7/11/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.55 Total: 244.85 203118 7/11/2013 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 115487 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total: 152.00 203119 7/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089057 COPIES MAINT COPIES MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 2.39 Total: 2.39 203120 7/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0886431 Meter charges for Planning Div. mode Meter charges for Planning Div. mode 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 37.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.55 088644 1 Meter charges for Building Div. C103( Meter charges for Building Div. C103( 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 37.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.61 Total: 82.44 203121 7/11/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0886451 Images - Council Office copier/printer Images - Council Office copier/printer 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 10.86 Total: 10.86 203122 7/11/2013 064013 EMERGENCY SERVICES 848-48-013-022 2013 DISASTER COORDINATOR SA 2013 Disaster Coordinator Salary 001.000.39.525.60.51.00 8,797.00 Page: 10 Packet Page 62 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203122 7/11/2013 064013 064013 EMERGENCY SERVICES (Continued) Total: 8,797.00 203123 7/11/2013 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO 73996 WWTP - SOFTWARE SUPPORT SEI WWTP - SOFTWARE SUPPORT SEI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 995.00 Total: 995.00 203124 7/11/2013 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 12568 SERVICE ANIMAL DECALS FOR FA( SERVICE ANIMAL DECALS FOR FA( 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 64.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 6.16 Total: 70.93 203125 7/11/2013 065427 FCS GROUP 2141-21306107 E1GB.SERVICES THRU 6/21/13 E1 GB.Services thru 6/21/13 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 2,880.00 E1 GB.Services thru 6/21/13 422.000.72.531.40.41.00 2,880.00 E1 GB.Services thru 6/21/13 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 2,880.00 Total: 8,640.00 203126 7/11/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0382873 2013 WaterMain CIP - OVD Sewer 2013 WaterMain CIP - OVD Sewer 421.000.74.594.34.65.00 15,250.56 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.594.34.65.00 1,448.81 0383493 Water Meter Inventory - Water Meter Inventory - 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,537.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 336.02 Total: 20,572.39 203127 7/11/2013 074487 FIVES NORTH AMER COMBUSTION 3221601 WWTP - BUTTERFLY VALVE Page: 11 Packet Page 63 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203127 7/11/2013 074487 FIVES NORTH AMER COMBUSTION (Continued) W WTP - BUTTERFLY VALVE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 489.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 39.02 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 50.17 Total: 578.19 203128 7/11/2013 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 158683 HANDICAP SYMBOLS FOR PARKS I HANDICAP SYMBOLS FOR PARKS 1 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 601.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.18 Total: 659.10 203129 7/11/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 41.65 425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 40.99 425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MO 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 110.65 Total: 193.29 203130 7/11/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 VOICE GR WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 VOICE GR 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 253-017-7256 W WTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI W WTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 BUSINESS WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 BUSINESS 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 97.83 Page: 12 Packet Page 64 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203130 7/11/2013 011900 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Total: 356.09 203131 7/11/2013 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 243.26 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 243.26 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRti SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 253-020-6656 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIALACCI LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 21.95 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 26.98 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.97 Page: 13 Packet Page 65 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203131 7/11/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 14.21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 71.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 59.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 59.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 79.56 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 55.28 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 165.84 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 46.84 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 50.80 425-776-1281 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 26.02 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALA FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.22 425-776-6829 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION AI 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.22 Page: 14 Packet Page 66 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203131 7/11/2013 011900 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Total: 2,137.88 203132 7/11/2013 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 28254 E9GA.SERVICES THRU 5/26/13 E9GA.Services thru 5/26/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 652.50 28255 E9GA.SERVICES THRU 5/26/13 E9GA.Services thru 5/26/133 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 332.50 Total: 985.00 203133 7/11/2013 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 112261 Unit 123 - 4 Tires Unit 123 - 4 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 455.76 State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 43.30 Total: 503.06 203134 7/11/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9175691261 SUMP PUMP HAZEL MILLER PLAZA SUMP PUMP HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 307.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.17 Total: 336.17 203135 7/11/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9174116989 Fac Maint - Work goggles Fac Maint - Work goggles 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.46 9178519410 Fac Maint - Suspension Trauma Strar Fac Maint - Suspension Trauma Strar 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 115.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 10.94 Page: 15 Packet Page 67 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203135 7/11/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 9180138258 Fleet - Shop - Ratchet Fleet - Shop - Ratchet 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 65.07 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 6.19 Total: 214.18 203136 7/11/2013 012560 HACH COMPANY 8351059 Water Quality - Chlorine Free Reager Water Quality - Chlorine Free Reager 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 589.08 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 37.95 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 59.57 Total: 686.60 203137 7/11/2013 074390 HARSHMAN, GARY HARSHMAN 0513 MILEAGE REIM MAY 2013 MILEAGE REIM MAY 2013 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 92.10 Total: 92.10 203138 7/11/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13397888 WWTP - 4" FLANGE LEVER W WTP - 4" FLANGE LEVER 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,092.15 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 103.75 13404729 Freight Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 228.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 21.73 Total: 1,446.35 203139 7/11/2013 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD B106982 Storm - PVC Storm - PVC Page: 16 Packet Page 68 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203139 7/11/2013 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD (Continued) 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 199.50 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 18.96 Total: 218.46 203140 7/11/2013 067099 HOLLEMAN, JOHN 59 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 76.34 Total: 76.34 203141 7/11/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1030413 WWTP - CULTIVATOR, WASP SPRA WWTP - CULTIVATOR, WASP SPRA 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 161.86 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 15.38 4262443 WWTP - HDMI CABLE, SUPPLIES F WWTP - HDMI CABLE, SUPPLIES F 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 212.05 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 20.14 Tota I : 409.43 203142 7/11/2013 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 538344-1 Fleet Shop Supplies - Cleaner, Suppl Fleet Shop Supplies - Cleaner, Suppl 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 148.51 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 15.20 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.56 Total: 175.27 203143 7/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2296100 CHAIR FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR HON 7800 Series Chair for R Neumai 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 368.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 17 Packet Page 69 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203143 7/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 34.96 2296144 CHAIR FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR-R Chair for Finance Director - returned 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 450.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 42.80 2296730 LYSOL WIPES & SPRAY, LIQUID HA Lysol wipes, Lysol spray and liquid 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 63.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.07 2297184 CHAIR FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR-R Chair for Finance Director - see 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 -450.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 -42.80 Total: 472.93 203144 7/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2299341 Misc. office supplies including AA 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 28.43 Misc. office supplies including AA 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 299.22 Total: 327.65 203145 7/11/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2302198 Office supplies - toner Office supplies - toner 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 350.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 33.28 Tota I : 383.55 203146 7/11/2013 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3064485 PRESCHOOL INTERNET PRESCHOOL INTERNET 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 15.00 Page: 18 Packet Page 70 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203146 7/11/2013 068952 068952 INFINITY INTERNET (Continued) Total: 15.00 203147 7/11/2013 070192 JA SEXALIER 290263631 Fac Maint - Flushmate Kits, Instant Fac Maint - Flushmate Kits, Instant 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.72 FS 17 -Flush Mate Cartridge 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.18 290615277 Fac Maint - Starter Kits Fac Maint - Starter Kits 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.01 Total: 128.99 203148 7/11/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER SOCCER 16949 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16949 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16949 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 247.80 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16950 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16951 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16952 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16953 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 141.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 16976 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 672.60 Total: 2,548.80 203149 7/11/2013 074330 KING, BEN 7/1/13 - 7/8/13 GEOSPATIAL DATA COLLECTION & Geospatial Data Collection Mapping 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 310.14 Total: 310.14 Page: 19 Packet Page 71 of 660 vchlist 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 20 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203150 7/11/2013 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1130631473 PROMOTIONAL RADIO ADS 5/27-6/( Radio promotional ads for week of 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 930.00 Total: 930.00 203151 7/11/2013 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3246084MB Storm - EZ Street Asphalt Storm - EZ Street Asphalt 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 984.30 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 93.51 Total: 1,077.81 203152 7/11/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1257 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1258 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total: 176.64 203153 7/11/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 54296336 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLY - Al WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLY - Al 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 277.76 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.03 54505544 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 81.98 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 18.93 54643696 WWTP - WEB SLING, PVC THREAD WWTP - WEB SLING, PVC THREAD 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 128.12 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.75 Page: 20 Packet Page 72 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203153 7/11/2013 020039 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) Total: 523.57 203154 7/11/2013 074491 MERIDIAN GEOGRAPHICS LLC 27 MAY 2013 PAYMENT #1 TO PRODUCE EDMOI` PAYMENT #1 TO PRODUCE EDMOI` 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,685.00 Total: 1,685.00 203155 7/11/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 171077 BRUSH DEFENDER BRUSH DEFENDER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.35 Total: 119.26 203156 7/11/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 168458 Street - Control Handle Street - Control Handle 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 74.05 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 7.03 Total: 81.08 203157 7/11/2013 074414 MOELLER, MATTHEW 5788006 HMP CONCERT JUL 11, 2013 HMP CONCERT JUL 11, 2013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 400.00 Total: 400.00 203158 7/11/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0349838-IN Water - Work Jacket Water - Work Jacket 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.20.24.00 4.75 Total: 54.75 203159 7/11/2013 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO SECS0562682 Unit 9 - Oils and Filter Unit 9 - Oils and Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 645.38 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 21 Packet Page 73 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203159 7/11/2013 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.31 Total: 706.69 203160 7/11/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0499078-IN Fleet - Tank Cleaner Fleet - Tank Cleaner 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 171.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.29 0499079-IN Units PS 17, PS 16, G20-FIR Units PS 17, PS 16, G20-FIR 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 187.35 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.80 0499150-IN Fleet - Filter Inventory Fleet - Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 35.94 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 3.42 0499640-IN Unit 106 - Filters Unit 106 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 52.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.98 Total: 489.69 203161 7/11/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-691945 RENTALS MATHAY PARK RENTALS MATHAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 184.77 1-694819 CIVIC FIELD RENTALS CIVIC FIELD RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 Tota I : 297.12 203162 7/11/2013 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 1570 Traffic Control - Hydrostripping Traffic Control - Hydrostripping Page: 22 Packet Page 74 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203162 7/11/2013 073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING (Continued) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 688.79 Total: 688.79 203163 7/11/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 397 Planning Board minutes on 6/26/13. Planning Board minutes on 6/26/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 416.00 Total: 416.00 203164 7/11/2013 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 42249 Fleet - Tanks Testing and Certification Fleet - Tanks Testing and Certification 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 880.00 Total: 880.00 203165 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 252176 LAMINATE PAPER LAMINATE PAPER 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 64.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 6.14 274978 HANGING BADGES AND PAPER AR HANGING BADGES AND PAPER AR 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 94.55 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 8.99 277561 INK FOR DAY CAMP PRINTER INK FOR DAY CAMP PRINTER 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 52.38 STICKY NOTES FOR ARTS SUMMIT 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 16.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.98 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1.53 Total: 249.37 203166 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 309122 INV#309122 ACCT#520437 250POL Page: 23 Packet Page 75 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203166 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) FLEXIGRIP BLUE PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 46.75 FLEXIGRIP BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 59.10 STENO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.89 YELLOW LEGAL PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.08 LARGE BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.00 MEDIUM BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.88 314147 INV#314147 ACCT#520437 250POL DYMO FOLDER LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 21.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.05 314149 INV#314149 ACCT#520437 250POL DYMO ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.34 Total: 199.03 203167 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 314281 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 68.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.52 Total: 75.11 203168 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 279508 PW Admin Office Supplies PW Admin Office Supplies Page: 24 Packet Page 76 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203168 7/11/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Invoice (Continued) 203169 7/11/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER June, 2013 PO # Description/Account Amount 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 117.70 Water Quality - File Folders 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 55.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 11.18 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.26 Total : 189.50 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI• Emergency Medical Services & Traun 001.000.237.120 1,713.03 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 30,488.09 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 144.00 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 52.96 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 5,960.50 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 108.18 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 3,376.94 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 640.50 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 37.77 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 37.78 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 84.08 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 149.39 Page: 25 Packet Page 77 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203169 7/11/2013 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 300.82 Total: 43,094.04 203170 7/11/2013 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-211243 Unit 102 - Brake Supplies Unit 102 - Brake Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 31.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.03 Total: 34.88 203171 7/11/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 178.93 Total: 178.93 203172 7/11/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 3808 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 719.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 68.31 Total: 787.43 203173 7/11/2013 073070 PERRINE, JULIE PERRINE 16975 CLAY EXPLORATION 16975 CLAY EXPLORATION 16975 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 490.00 Total: 490.00 203174 7/11/2013 074489 PIERCE, JOHN PIERCE 07012013 INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION 001.000.239.200 118.00 Total: 118.00 203175 7/11/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 5162195 WWTP - GLOVE/SAFETY SUPPLIEr WWTP - GLOVE/SAFETY SUPPLIEr 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 180.09 Page: 26 Packet Page 78 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203175 7/11/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 17.11 5166725 WWTP - HARD HAT KIT/SAFETY WWTP - HARD HAT KIT/SAFETY 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 136.57 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 12.97 Total: 346.74 203176 7/11/2013 073231 POLYDYNE INC 813208 WWTP - POLYMER WWTP - POLYMER 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00 Total: 8,184.00 203177 7/11/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 208013 WWTP - UPS PACKAGE FOR OILAr WWTP - UPS PACKAGE FOR OILAr 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 10.16 Total: 10.16 203178 7/11/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.12 Total: 111.12 203179 7/11/2013 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0013836-IN WWTP - PORTABLE 8-OZ PRESER\ WWTP - PORTABLE 8-OZ PRESER\ 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 47.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 4.55 0014007-IN WWTP- 16" KNEE BOOT WWTP- 16" KNEE BOOT 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 59.95 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 5.70 Total: 118.05 Page: 27 Packet Page 79 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203180 7/11/2013 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 13-036S Q3-2013 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q3-20013 Clean Air Assessment per 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 5,806.75 Total: 5,806.75 203181 7/11/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 869.15 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 76.79 200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 165.85 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 83.87 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 130.15 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 204.92 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 105.96 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 111.07 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 72.75 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 13.51 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH Page: 28 Packet Page 80 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203181 7/11/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 51.34 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 51.34 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.34 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 51.34 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 51.36 200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00C WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER OOC 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 43.41 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 89.90 Total: 2,224.05 203182 7/11/2013 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 13-528 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,801.25 Total: 2,801.25 203183 7/11/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INV#00000137375 INSCRIPTION CURTIS INSCRIPTION CURTIS 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 INV#00000137376 INSCRIPTION WEED INSCRIPTION WEED 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 Total: 200.00 203184 7/11/2013 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC E9GA.Pmt 7 E9GA.PMT 7 THRU 6/30/13 E9GA.Pmt 7 thru 6/30/13 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 316,214.72 Total: 316,214.72 Page: 29 Packet Page 81 of 660 vchlist 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203185 7/11/2013 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 004429 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 2,109.34 004473 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,786.99 Total: 3,896.33 203186 7/11/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 27.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 105.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 105.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 105.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 105.76 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 105.75 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 148.83 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 64.98 Total: 770.43 203187 7/11/2013 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7924 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 600.00 Total: 600.00 203188 7/11/2013 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JUNE 2013 INVOICE 06/30/13 ACCT#70014 - EE #126467 1 NPC 06/03/13 Page: 30 Packet Page 82 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203188 7/11/2013 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 11.32 #128440 8 NPC 06/24/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 90.56 Total: 101.88 203189 7/11/2013 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-370153 Unit 338 - Windshield Repair Unit 338 - Windshield Repair 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 29.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2.85 Total: 32.80 203190 7/11/2013 065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 58 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 189.40 Total: 189.40 203191 7/11/2013 072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC 61411187 WWTP - FLANGE WWTP - FLANGE 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 368.98 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 39.82 Total: 408.80 203192 7/11/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S1-17716 Unit 102 - Brake Supplies Unit 102 - Brake Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 222.33 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.12 S3-13778 Unit 120 PRK - Water Pump Kit Unit 120 PRK - Water Pump Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 97.73 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.28 S3-13780 Unit 335 - Oils Page: 31 Packet Page 83 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203192 7/11/2013 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued) Unit 335 - Oils 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 90.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.59 S3-17349 Unit 335 - Motor Assembly Unit 335 - Motor Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.76 S3-21403 Unit 455 - Automatic Oil Unit 455 - Automatic Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.95 S3-22015 Unit 649 - Window -Less Motor Regul� Unit 649 - Window -Less Motor Regul; 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 62.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.92 S3-7293 Unit 42 - Supplies Unit 42 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.81 Total: 708.07 203193 7/11/2013 074401 SERIO, CHERYL SPYROGRPAHS 07142013 CONCERT IN PARK JULY 14, 2013 CONCERT IN PARK JULY 14, 2013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00 Total: 500.00 203194 7/11/2013 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA 0000127239 Unit 98 - Hose, Bearings, Reel, Joint Unit 98 - Hose, Bearings, Reel, Joint 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4,551.80 Freight Page: 32 Packet Page 84 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203194 7/11/2013 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 482.91 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 432.41 Total: 5,467.12 203195 7/11/2013 074086 SIGNON 153543 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 171.98 Total: 171.98 203196 7/11/2013 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0154932-IN Unit 776 - Lens Retro Kit Unit 776 - Lens Retro Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 189.00 Unit eg79po - Lens Retro Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 189.00 Unit eg78po - Lens Retro Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 189.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.04 Total: 583.04 203197 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 45.40 2021-1448-4 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 111.23 Total: 156.63 203198 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.43 Total: 8.43 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- Page: 33 Packet Page 85 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2002-0256-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 32.33 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 253.16 2002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.56 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 68.66 2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,153.42 2004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.11 2005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 75.80 2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 205.78 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 125.32 2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A\ DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 37.08 Page: 34 Packet Page 86 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2011-5141-2 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219' 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2011-5142-0 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.99 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.79 2014-2731-7 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WP LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WP 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.27 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7909 1/2 211TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.27 2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 275.42 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,963.01 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.30 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 44.64 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,403.33 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW Page: 35 Packet Page 87 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 247.36 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 42.41 2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 68.26 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 259.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 259.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 259.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 259.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 259.39 2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 944.51 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 246.34 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 31.27 2022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 103.54 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 104.97 2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,169.40 Page: 36 Packet Page 88 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.90 2024-2780-3 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188' PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188' 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,026.61 2024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 809.27 2025-1986-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 1400 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OL 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,439.86 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 113.38 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 14,054.72 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 329.36 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 32.63 2036-5215-1 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOb 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOA 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 367.96 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' Page: 37 Packet Page 89 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203200 7/11/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.32 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 73.65 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 38.85 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 9.88 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 133.94 Total: 33,812.28 203201 7/11/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2013-1658 CREDIT ON INVOICE #2013-1658 El S CR 10 HOUSING DAYS @ $65.94 5/- 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 -659.40 10 WORK RELEASE @ $18.00 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 -180.00 13 WORK RELEASE @ $36.00 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 -468.00 27 WORK RELEASE @ $32.00 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 -864.00 2013-1658 INV#2013-1658 - EDMONDS PD JUNE BOOKINGS - 66.67 @ $94.95 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 6,330.32 JUNE HOUSING - 451.83 @ $65.94 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 29,793.67 JUNE WORK RELEASE - 80 @ $44.: 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 3,544.80 Total: 37,497.39 203202 7/11/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 1000328770 INV#1000328770 CUST#SSH00010 E TASK FORCE JULY-DEC 2013 Page: 38 Packet Page 90 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203202 7/11/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.51.00 5,118.50 Total: 5,118.50 203203 7/11/2013 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 62562 SOLID WASTE CHARGES JUNE 20' SOLID WASTE CHARGES JUNE 20' 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,009.00 Total: 1,009.00 203204 7/11/2013 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER June 2013 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 843.40 Total: 843.40 203205 7/11/2013 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 131.00 MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 131.00 Total: 262.00 203206 7/11/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLINi 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 Total: 29.95 203207 7/11/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total: 1,685.04 Page: 39 Packet Page 91 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203208 7/11/2013 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q2-13 Leasehold Tax Q2-13 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY Q2-13 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 001.000.237.220 5,224.64 Total: 5,224.64 203209 7/11/2013 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 40528478-001 BALLINGER PARK GRADING FOR F BALLINGER PARK GRADING FOR F 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 2,048.55 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 194.62 Total: 2,243.17 203210 7/11/2013 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA 17076 KENDO 17076 KENDO 17076 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 269.50 KENDO 17078 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 318.50 Total: 588.00 203211 7/11/2013 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 79541 PRINTING 40,000 TOURISM BROCF Printing of 40,000 tourism brochures 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 3,442.13 9.5% Sales Tax 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 327.00 79542 CALENDAR OF EVENTS PRINTING Printing of calendar of events for 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 801.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 76.11 Total: 4,646.41 203212 7/11/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01824494-06212013 E2FB.SEPAAD E2FB.SEPAAd 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 51.60 Total: 51.60 Page: 40 Packet Page 92 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203213 7/11/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1825482 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3928 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 29.24 1825483 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3929 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 25.80 1825484 NEWSPAPER AD Closed Rec. Rev. on rezone 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 37.84 Total: 92.88 203214 7/11/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1824504 PLN20130034/Edgewood legal notice PLN20130034/Edgewood legal notice 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 82.56 1824986 AMD20130003/City-RM-EW. AMD20130003/City-RM-EW. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 47.60 1825234 Case/PLN20130037 legal notices. Case/PLN20130037 legal notices. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 80.84 1825607 Ardsley Homes/PLN20080046 legal r Ardsley Homes/PLN20080046 legal r 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 82.56 1825633 WA Fed/PLN20130039 legal notices. WA Fed/PLN20130039 legal notices. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 80.84 Total: 374.40 203215 7/11/2013 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 050327 Fleet - Supplies Fleet - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 220.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 20.95 Total: 241.48 203216 7/11/2013 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53323 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HA Page: 41 Packet Page 93 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203216 7/11/2013 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (Continued) ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HA 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,020.79 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 96.98 US54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 178.00 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 16.91 US54537 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING C ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING C 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 48.13 Total: 1,360.81 203217 7/11/2013 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING S ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING S 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.48 Total: 14.48 203218 7/11/2013 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 3060119 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 70.71 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 70.71 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 72.84 Total: 214.26 203219 7/11/2013 074490 VERDANT HEALTH COMMISSION REFUND 0713 REFUND FOR X-FIT CAMP REFUND FOR X-FIT CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 37,185.00 Total: 37,185.00 203220 7/11/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29452288 WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA Page: 42 Packet Page 94 of 660 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203220 7/11/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 406.25 Total: 406.25 203221 7/11/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 49413 INV#49413 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1976 CHEV IMPALA#713VKV 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 203222 7/11/2013 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 113010078 INV#113010078 EDM301 - EDMOND7 BACKGROUND CHECKS JUNE 201: 001.000.237.100 363.00 Total: 363.00 203223 7/11/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5959 1000 ENVELOPES 1000 ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 89.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 8.54 Total: 98.43 203224 7/11/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5952 Letterhead for Engineering. Letterhead for Engineering. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 147.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 13.97 Total: 160.97 203225 7/11/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5940 INV 5940 EDMONDS PD DV CHECK 1,000 DV CHECK LIST 2 PART NCR 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 26.60 Total: 306.60 Page: 43 Packet Page 95 of 660 vchlist 07/11/2013 8:42:21AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 44 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203226 7/11/2013 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 57 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 771.69 Total: 771.69 203227 7/11/2013 064213 WSSUATREASURER 77 SOFTBALL UMPIRES FOR JUNE G� SOFTBALL UMPIRES FOR JUNE GA 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 2,112.00 Total: 2,112.00 203228 7/11/2013 074073 XP SOLUTIONS M7232 XPERTCARE RENEWAL FOR 50001` XPERTCARE Renewal for 5000n XP; 422.000.72.531.40.49.00 1,094.63 XPERTCARE Renewal for 5000n XP; 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 1,094.62 Total: 2,189.25 203229 7/11/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0163300 Traffic Control - Supplies Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 417.50 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.98 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 40.99 Total: 472.47 155 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 678,334.68 155 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 678,334.68 Page: 44 Packet Page 96 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 97 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 98 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 99 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 100 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 101 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 102 of 660 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 7/11/2013 Packet Page 103 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 104 of 660 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 7/11/2013 Packet Page 105 of 660 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 106 of 660 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 646 (06/01/2013 to 06/30/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 170 174 191 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 Total Net Pay: Amount 7,000.00 200.00 2,608.94 $9,808.94 $6,826.74 07/04/2013 Packet Page 107 of 660 Page 1 of 1 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 616 (06/16/2013 to 06/30/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 412.00 14,706.87 122 VACATION VACATION 1,068.43 41,832.09 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 27.25 960.14 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 69.50 2,535.40 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 88.25 3,288.20 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 24.00 858.97 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 28.50 950.54 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 3.25 84.45 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 36.00 1,732.65 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 134.00 5,044.74 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 65.00 3,128.39 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 40.00 1,925.16 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 57.50 2,416.79 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 53.30 2,565.28 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 288.10 13,865.99 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 38.56 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,926.92 532,204.59 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 80.00 3,196.17 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 3.00 221.99 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 1,844.88 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLAW 15.00 1,340.40 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 291.25 17,894.09 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 4.00 288.99 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 127.51 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 738.72 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 69.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 97.25 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 160.89 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC 11 Certification 0.00 80.05 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 582.15 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 07/04/2013 Packet Page 108 of 660 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 616 (06/16/2013 to 06/30/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 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 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 201.50 7,864.72 fmly VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 23.50 799.94 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 211.31 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,866.21 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 % 0.00 390.24 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 235.48 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 phv 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 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 35.04 0.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 19,179.04 $683,438.25 Total Net Pay: $474,276.48 07/04/2013 Packet Page 109 of 660 Page 2 of 2 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 616 - 06/16/2013 to 06/30/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60304 07/05/2013 mebt AST TTEE 81,008.06 0.00 60305 07/05/2013 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,127.00 0.00 60306 07/05/2013 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 60307 07/05/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 483.83 0.00 60308 07/05/2013 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,495.64 0.00 60309 07/05/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,361.05 0.00 60310 07/05/2013 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 60311 07/05/2013 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 2,994.86 0.00 60312 07/05/2013 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00 60313 07/05/2013 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 344.00 0.00 60314 07/05/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,015.57 0.00 60315 07/05/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 15,950.50 0.00 109,209.51 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2014 07/05/2013 aflac AFLAC 4,676.12 0.00 2017 07/05/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 99,236.85 0.00 2018 07/05/2013 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00 104,121.47 0.00 Grand Totals: 213,330.98 0.00 7/4/2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 110 of 660 AM-5931 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Sandy Chase City Clerk's Office Action Information Committee Action: 4. C. Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Gary Reynolds (amount undetermined), and Steve Grooters (amount undetermined). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Claims for Damages have been received from the following: Gary Reynolds 20212 Maplewood Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 (Amount Undetermined) Steve Grooters 851 1 Oth Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 (Amount Undetermined) Claim for Damages - Reynolds Claim for Damages - Grooters Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/10/2013 04:59 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/05/2013 01:14 PM Packet Page 111 of 660 Packet Page 112 of 660 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2013 CHOILCAPAL ATW VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL June 27, 2013 Ms. Patricia Taraday c/o patricia@lighthouselawgroup.com Lighthouse Law Group 1100 Dexter Avenue N., Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98109 Re: Unlawful Search, Seizure and Arrest of Mr. Gary Reynolds Ms. Taraday: EDMONDS CITY CLERK Our firm represents Mr. Gary Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds retained our office to file a claim against the Edmonds Police Department for incidents that occurred on March 14th and 15th of 2013, at his residence located at 20212 Maplewood Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026. We understand that you represent the City of Edmonds Police Department. Therefore, we believe we are directing this correspondence appropriately to your office. Our client, Mr. Reynolds has suffered from unlawful search, seizure and arrests conducted by the Edmonds City Police on March 14th and 15th 2013. On each of those two days, the Edmonds City Police entered and searched Mr. Reynolds's home and arrested Mr. Reynolds without a warrant. The Edmonds City Police not only acted unlawfully in violating Mr. Reynolds's constitutional rights, they also made numerous false criminal accusations against Mr. Reynolds without probable cause, which ultimately caused Mr. Reynolds's employment to be terminated. The Edmonds Police officers also defamed Mr. Reynolds by contacting his employer, his friends, colleagues and neighbors, and conveying false information that portrayed Mr. Reynolds in a false and derogatory light. To this day, Mr. Reynolds suffers from tremendous embarrassment and severe emotional and physical distress from the shocking events that occurred on March 14th and 15tn Therefore, Mr. Reynolds demands that the Edmonds Police Department provide a formal, written apology for their unlawful conduct and additionally, he demands monetary compensation for the emotional distress and defamation he suffers directly from the unlawful actions of the Edmonds Police officers. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter. We expect to hear positively in response to these demands no later than July 3, 2013. 520 Pike Tower, Suite 1750, Seattle WA 98115 Tel.: 206-588-0463 Fax: 206-682-7865 www.choicapitallaw.com Packet Page 113 of 660 AL CHOILAATW Should we not hear from you by July 3, 2013, we will proceed in filing a legal action against the Edmonds City Police to seek damages. Sincerely, CHOI CAPITAL LAW PLLC Boyoon Choi 520 Pike Tower, Suite 1750, Seattle WA 98115 Tel.: 206-588-0463 Fax: 206-682-7865 www.choicapitallaw.com Packet Page 114 of 660 nr'l,rJ1 V bV CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Ail- 0 2 20E3 Date Claim Form Received by City Please tSe. take note that f-e-V (SV-n 04-e r S , who currently resides at t7 -r" A. yc- k) GG c 44 0't A S WA C15020 ., mailing address home phone # 4Z-5 774 - $ R 1 G , work phone # 42S -778 -`;103 , and who resided at Sa wrt r ' at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is ME—, is claiming damages against e_ 01,14 - ut,r in the sum of $ 500 —'44 2. arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: ,_Vav-IouS , LOCLIr dOr►e- isb. 13 TIME: d%A LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Per aAJ 4Z"� &,,.ce 65t 10TI, Ak /J- edmo&AS DESCRIPTION: Pi Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: Yes * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY Driver License # (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Invol(ce-vatf, PJVW ): No Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 115 of 660 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * being first duly sworn, depose an that I m the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the s me t be tr e. X Signature of Claimant(s) State of W t}in to County of � I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �TK V [ _ 67 UC is he person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1-71 1 Title My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: 17 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Notary Public State of Washington SAMANTHA AOSAS MY COMMISSION IIXPIAES Maroh if, 9017 Form Revised 07/16/09 Packet Page 116 of 660 Page 2 of 2 �r5cr ip�1c�� - o►n�ly►uzr� (1' 011 of I"J 4,3 n Vi _f 4 M 60Lt r I�S'I�c -�.re o I vL C o vl c j4 In•�7� i �� v►S LL S ID�► �+� k117Cc1C V G �'I'_ �- 7 u H e av'wle- J Packet Page 117 of 660 pj,jjj,-" S wve,t, 1 +�, f e 4 L —imb 041 4kk -3 CA a"W69�04v_ ri I vv"� bo��t 0 _t�Sor' p�ut-, - (0`Ved (2) '►.G qC4j\jCtv1i2<ZJ- i i C �� v1G� �%1� �b Dvv' 9f f 1 ✓1 L-1 e-G' ' + __1 _ 44 44 J II ll - e 4 Lf_) i r 3� atdr �L€ - U -8 S -� v cCwc m -5�eVA j _�'. i S rJC-�S 5 .ut✓l.r� �,CaC j i �K ct+ 1 w �`l�M�2 0( I.uc�.�v �e u�� � � ce � �,-� �� w� �- W L V�Q, i/�2,(/ 1�� ✓ urn � o F t � � � DO 1r Gc� V 14+l% 1 -?-e, Cl I b tr Packet F II- I I j �w_ F7 V ^-C T /W-- W166 W ki l Ci � e ► V D 1 V ��1.1 sow, (.p�,w�j 1.t iAn i v11 , vA D servl cev4 'D(Al' e4- 51v+� ref tc<y,� a k a dAl bo A's-01, ( f,� I f19 i ( I e rtat it� 4v owVr wJ&v lip b-4/� 'PVC, 1 FPIAVW)e-zl� w� L �e��� F i �e� �� � �-� � �.� � ems, i � J- tk�wrnb ►mew 4O t v-e- c . 5���� � �sf � ►� Sel �- . I �e,� �- F-c�vj u��� �Ok�4-ru�f a,- �owl 04 9kVeAA r^t-rtle, Cv�.++r c5' c�w,c[ Ovr YLC�il � o 'er Ova 4--t, C DKvtecl- I F,00 \ , CtIU Cl v� 1e41464'- Ce G. � It-efi � mil, e . 1 L\,tV V'C (1( ��GVN� W. �G �0 �.U�U 4 � ►1 N►�(� IA 0 ,1 vtc,��r�P.� I urnM -fie as wel YJ lute vo ac Dv- , Wire ,17,�7 + �ZS P� I(vv et R�j �'� Z , .� ►� a,4-1V,,� Cl ' "l b 5 ham. lln PAI CO5�5 OtL.tr qe 118 of 660 �.c , � ��� ��,� _ ram. u. o�•:�.-.� f �c�C.A& (; �Ir►, ► � p,�r a .,, � v� � � J hew G s � G4 sC,Aa •tG� �v,f t7� � +�vl. � bt, w� � Vl.� tq 5 &C kA6 --1 i e-i r ev �u c?.ed c $ Doi re, i All s B ►� o i S IM w Packet Page 119 of 660 AM-5934 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 4. D. Carolyn LaFave Subject Title Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, June and July 2013. Recommendation Please approve the list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their WSLCB licenses. Previous Council Action Narrative The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached lists and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the liquor licenses for the listed businesses with one exception: #5 on the June 2013 list, Enkutatash Grocery & Deli -- this business is not located within Edmonds city limits. WSLCB Jun13 WSLCB Ju113 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 AttnehmPntc Form Review Date 07/10/2013 12:17 PM 07/11/2013 09:47 AM 07/11/2013 09:49 AM 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Started On: 07/09/2013 08:42 AM Packet Page 120 of 660 �i rrCTop ca. oc-�Q. •y���nv Washington State Liquor Control Board PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 MAYOR OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 ""-f -h 111 ); U—yc f NAP v n 7- v v m Washington State Liquor Control Board N PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 oVA407 www.liq.wa.gov Fax k: (360) 753-2710 O rn O June 06, 2013 Dear Local Authority: RE: Liquor License Renewal Applications in Your Jurisdiction - Your Objection Opportunity Enclosed please find a list of liquor -licensed premises in your jurisdiction whose liquor licenses will expire in about 90 days, This is your opportunity to object to these license renewal requests as authorized by RCW 66.24.010 (8). 1) Objection to License Renewal To object to a liquor license renewal: fax or mail a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) Licensing Division. This letter must: o Detail the reason(s) for your objection, including a statement of all the facts upon which your objection or objections are based. You may include attachments and supporting documents which contain or confirm the facts upon which your objections are based. o Please note that whether a hearing will be granted or not is within the Board's discretion per RCW 66.24.010 (8)(d). Your letter or fax of objection must be received by the Board's Licensin Division at least 30 days prior to the license expiration date. If you need additional time you must request that in writing._ Please be aware, however, that it is within the Board's discretion to grant or deny any requests far extension of time to submit objections. Your request for extension will be granted or denied in writing. If objections are not timely received, they will not be considered as part of the renewal process. A copy of your objection and any attachments and supporting materials will be made available to the licensee, therefore, it is the Local Authority's responsibility to redact any confidential or non-disclosable information (see RCW 42.56) prior to submission to the WSLCB. 2) Status of License While Objection Pendin During the time an objection to a renewal is pending, the permanent liquor license is placed on hold.. However, temporary licenses are regularly issued to the licensee until a final decision is made by the Board. 3) Procedure FollaWina Licensing Dtvlsian Reoel t of Objection After we receive your objection, our licensing staff will prepare a report for review by the Licensing Director. The report will include your letter of objection, as well as any attachments and supporting documents you send. The Licensing Director will then decide to renew the liquor license, or to proceed with non -renewal. 4) Procedure if Board Does Not Renew License If the Board decides not to renew a license, we will notify the licensee in writing, stating the reason for this decision. The licensee also has the right to request a hearing to contest non -renewal of their liquor license. RCW 66.24.010 (8)(d). If the licensee makes a timely request for a hearing, we will notify you. The Board's Licensing Division will be required to present evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to support the non -renewal recommendation. You may present evidence in support of your objection or objections. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. RECEIVED JUN 10 1f113 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR N 0 C CD 5) Procedure if Board Renews License Over Your Objection N WIT the Board decides to renew the license over your abjection, you will be notified in writing. At that time, you may be o given an opportunity to request a hearing. An opportunity for a hearing is offered at the Board's discretion. If a hearing C)is held, you will be responsible for presenting evidence before an Administrative Law Judge in support of your objection to Mlicense renewal. The Board's Licensing Division will present evidence in support of license renewal. The Licensee may also participate and present evidence if the licensee desires. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence, and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. For questions about this process, contact the WSLOB Licensing Division at (360) 664-1600 or email us at wslcb@liq.wa.gov. Sincerely, A&m E. Rathbun Alan E. Rathbun, Director, Licensing and Regulation Division LIO 864 07/10 C091080-2 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD DATE: 06/06/2013 LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS IN INCORPORATED AREAS CITY OF EDMONDS (BY ZIP CODE) FOR EXPIRATION DATE OF 20130930 LICENSE LICENSEE BUSINESS NAME AND ADDRESS NUMBER PRIVILEGES 1, PENAICH CORPORATION PORTOFINO PIZZA & PASTA 358386 BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE 1306 OLYMPIC VIEW DR BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE EDMONDS WA 98020 2638 2. RAMS CO. INC. VATIEA INDIA CUISINE 360894 102 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 3132 3 . TIM SQUARED LLC EPULO RESTAURANT 083744 526 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 3148 4. WELCOME MARKET, INC. 99 RANCH MARKET 085587 22511 HWY 99 EDMONDS WA 98026 8379 5 . A5ERE5U, MULUCEFA TA1(ELE ENKUTATASH GROCERY & ❑ 402385 ?Y91C. m 99 S'1E 5 EDMONDS JOW. WA 93026 8456 BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE + GROCERY STORE - BEER/WINE SPIRITS RETAILER GROCERY STORE - BEERIVINW j�kj$jn-CSS IS "Olf Wkltj w aw-�' G v`1 uy "t.) T Q) 77 Washington State Liquor Control Board PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 MAYOR OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2013 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR N 0 C CD m Washington State N - Liquor Control Board rn PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 p www.liq.wa.gov Fax #: (360) 753-2710 O) O O July 06, 2013 Dear Local Authority: RE: Liquor License Renewal Applications in Your Jurisdiction - Your Objection Opportunity Enclosed please find a list of liquor -licensed premises in your jurisdiction whose liquor licenses will expire in about 90 days, This is your opportunity to object to these license renewal requests as authorized by ROW 66.24.010 (8). 1) Objection to License Renewal To object to a liquor license renewal: fax or mail a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) Licensing Division. This letter must: a Detail the reason(s) for your objection, including a statement of all the facts upon which your objection or objections are based. You may include attachments and supporting documents which contain or confirm the facts upon which your objections are based. o Please note that whether a hearing will be granted or not is within the Board's discretion per ROW 66.24.010 (8)(d). Your letter or fax of objection must be received by the Board's Licensifl Dlyision at Least $0 days prior to the license expiration date. I1 you need additlanal time you must request that In writing. Please be aware, however, that it is within the Board's discretion to grant or deny any requests for extension of tima to submit objections. Your request for extension will be granted or denied in writing. If objections are not timely received, they will not be considered as part of the renewal process. A copy of your objection and any attachments and supporting materials will be made available to the licensee, therefore, it is the Local Authority's responsibility to redact any confidential or non-disclosable information (see ROW 42.56) prior to submission to the WSLCB. 2) Status of License While Objection Pending During the time an objection to a renewal is pending, the permanent liquor license is placed on hold. However, temporary licenses are regularly issued to the licensee until a final decision is made by the Board. 3) Procedure Following Licensing Division Receipt of Objection After we receive your objection, our licensing staff will prepare a report for review by the Licensing Director. The report will include your letter of objection, as well as any attachments and supporting documents you send. The Licensing Director will then decide to renew the liquor license, or to proceed with non -renewal. 4) Procedure if Board Does Not Renew License If the Board decides not to renew a license, we will notify the licensee in writing, stating the reason for this decision. The licensee also has the right to request a hearing to contest non -renewal of their liquor license. ROW 66.24.010 (8)(d). If the licensee makes a timely request for a hearing, we will notify you. The Board's Licensing Division will be required to present evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to support the non -renewal recommendation. You may present evidence in support of your objection or objections. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. N 0 C CD cu5) Procedure if Board Renews License Over Your Objection vIf the Board decides to renew the license over your objection, you will be notified in writing. At that time, you may be p given an opportunity to request a hearing. An opportunity for a hearing is offered at the Board's discretion. If a hearing ais held, you will be responsible for presenting evidence before an Administrative Law Judge in support of your objection to p)license renewal. The Board's Licensing Division will present evidence in support of license renewal. The Licensee may °also participate and present evidence if the licensee desires. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence, and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. For questions about this process, contact the WSLCB Licensing Division at (360) 664-1600 or email us at wslcb@liq.wa.gov. Sincerely, Alan E. Rathbun Alan E. Rathbun, Director, Licensing and Regulation Division LIQ 864 07110 v C CD co C091080-2 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD DATE: 07/06/2013 m N LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS IN INCORPORATED AREAS CITY OF EDMONDS 00 (BY ZIP CODE) FOR EXPIRATION DATE OF 20131031 0 LICENSE rn LICENSEE BUSINESS NAME AND ADDRESS NUMBER PRIVILEGES O 1. SAFEWAY INC. SAFEWAY STORE #1297 076677 SPIRITS RETAILER 23632 HWY 99 EDMONDS WA 98020 0000 2. CLAIRE'S LTD. CLAIRE'S PANTRY 350215 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE + 301 MAIN STREET EDMONDS WA 98020 3135 3 . PSD HOLDINGS, INC. EDMONDS LIQUOR k GAS 401372 SLS SPIRITS RETAILER 23726 100TH AVE W SLS SPIRITS RETAILER EDMONDS WA 98020 5631 4. MUNDAY INC HARVEY'S LOUNGE 352265 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE - 21116 HWY 99 KEGS TO GO EDMONDS WA 98026 7217 5 . STARS IN THE SKY L.L.C. STARS IN THE SKY 086945 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE - 23830 HIGHWAY 99 STE 121 EDMONDS WA 98026 9279 6. BROTHERS' LLC BROTHERS' 404669 BEER/WINE SPECIALTY SHOP 23423 HIGHWAY 99 STE A EDMONDS WA 98026 9325 AM-5938 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Doug Fair Municipal Court Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Finance Type: Action 'information Subject Title Reinstate Judicial Clerk Position Recommendation Reinstate the judicial clerk position to full time Previous Council Action Unanimous approval from Finance and Personnel Committees Narrative 4. E. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda In 2012, before the hiring freeze was instituted, my staffing level was five clerks: four clerks were permanent employees and one was a probationary employee. Unfortunately the probationary employee did not make it through the probation period successfully. By the time it was determined that she would not be retained; the hiring freeze had been instituted. We were able to keep a part-time position in lieu of filling the full-time probationary position. Luckily, during this time our filings were significantly below our averages. Our filings had averaged between 7700 and 7900 per year for the years 2008-2011, inclusive. In 2012 the filings dropped to 6325. As you may recall, that drop in filings was as a result of a number of injured officers in the traffic division of the police department. Since early in 2013, the traffic division has been at full strength. Predictably, our filings have increased. We are now on pace to exceed our historical averages. Through the end of May we have had 3,379 filings. This extrapolates to approximately 8100 filings for the year. We have been using volunteer interns to help us meet the growing number of filings. However, they are not a substitute for a dedicated employee. We have observed the staff working on their lunches and breaks. We have reminded them that this is against our policies but they have indicated that they are unable to meet their workload unless they perform extra work. While I am impressed with their phenomenal work ethic, we should not be placing any staff member in this type of untenable position. I am requesting approval to return my staffing level to the pre -hiring freeze level. The cost of this decision, including benefits, is about $25,000-$30,000 on an annual basis. Currently there is money available in the Mayor's non -departmental budget to cover this expense. This money comes from the money that was budgeted but not spent on the Public Defender contract. This will not require an increase in the overall budget. It will only require a transfer of available funds from the non -departmental budget to the Court budget. The Mayor, HR and our Finance Director have reviewed and approved this request. Both the Finance and Packet Page 129 of 660 the Personnel Committees have unanimously approved this request and authorized it to be placed on the consent agenda for July 16, 2013. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: Expenditure: 30,000 Fiscal Impact: This will not require a budget increase. Funds exist in the non -departmental budget to cover this expense. These funds come from unexpended funds for the Public Defender contract. The noted expenditure is based on a full year of reinstating the position to full time. In actuality, the impact in 2013 should be less than half of the amount listed as the position will be reinstated starting in July. Thereafter the full amount is appropriate. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Doug Fair Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Date 07/10/2013 12:17 PM 07/10/2013 05:01 PM 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 08:40 AM Packet Page 130 of 660 AM-5943 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Quarterly Public Works Project Report Recommendation The report is being provided for information. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Information Infnrmntinn 4. F. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the July 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative Attached is the quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works Department. The second quarter report for 2013 contains information on the estimated project budget, 2013 budget, change orders, funding sources and schedule. Quarterly PW Project Report Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Megan Luttrell Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 07/10/2013 01:52 PM 07/10/2013 02:03 PM 07/10/2013 04:44 PM 07/10/2013 05:07 PM 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 11:50 AM Packet Page 131 of 660 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud qet Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budge[ Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description T e MA Facilities Ameresco $ 758,683.00 $ 758,683.00 One Field $ 247,942.00 Various _ May-14 Con •ESCO Contract through WA DES process. Authorizatio -Guaranteed energy savings. n to enable *Important equipment replacements for Yost Pool and Edmonds Yost Pool to Senior Center. open. NTE *Large impacts on City owned decorative lamps and area amount lighting at buildings. $51,666 ESCO III Project +WSST Frances Anderson ADA Upgrades Facilities Consultant $200,000 $170,000 _ _ 016 May-13 OGt-13 Con *Bids opened May 30th. ProjectE3LA/c393 *Council awarded contract to Moon Construction June 18th. *Permit ready to pick up. *Construction periods start August 19th and run 8 weeks. *Project budqet now set at $134,131, includinq contingency. Public Works Yard Water Quality Facilities Consultant $397,960 $263,500 _ $311,379 422 Jun-13 Aug-13 Des • Consultant hired to design waste handing facility at Public Upgrade (Vehicle Waste Facility Works Yard, construction 2014 (75 % grant funded). Upgrade & Cover for Material • Constuction of spoil pile covers completed (100 % grant Piles) I I Ifunded). 76th Avenue West175th Place Parks Gray & $3,704,064 $12,000 $1,282,613 _ 125 Apr-09 Nov-10 CI -Out *Construction is complete. West Walkway Osborne *Change Order 1: $59,895; Change Order 2: $28,584; Change Order 3: $22,117; Change Order 4: $10,096; Change Order 5: $15,799; Change Order 6: $131,547; Change Order 7:$245,297;Change Order 8: $167,739; Change Order #9: $25,109; Change Order #10: $19,618; Change Order #11: $92,710; Change Order #12: $139,100; Change Order #13: $325,000. •$77,000-2012 Budget Amend (1st Qtr) •$103,000-2012 BudgetAmend (May) •$30,000-2012 Budget Amend (December) .P19 nnn-2n1i R, iHi tGmanri[Pahl Dayton Street Plaza Parks Barker $160,605 $168,000 _ _ 132 TBD TBD Des *Coordinating with Parks Dept to possibly go to construction in 2013 •$168,000 - 2013 Budget Amend (Feb) Interurban Trail Parks KPFF $2,430,000 $27,000 $145,556 $1,325,703 132 May-11 Jun-12 CI -Out • Construction is complete. • Plant establishment period completed in spring 2013. • Change order 1: $37,757 • Change order 2: $2,240 • Change order 3: $41,003 • Change order 4: $13,412 • Change order 5: $7,257 • Change order 6: $4,680 • Change order 7: $0 • Change order 8: $33,275 • Change order 9: $4,152 • Change order 10: $1,780 • $314,414-2012 Budget Amendment (1st Qtr) •$27,000-2013 Budget Amendment (Feb) 2012-AldedDellwood/Beach Sewer City $1,257,627 $1,224,500 _ _ 423 May-13 Oct-13 Con -Coordination with OVWSD to transfer ownership of pipe for P11224th Sewer Replacement sewer west of 224th & 76th completed Sept 18, 2012. Interlocal signed with OVWSD for repairs of a small portion of sewer east of 224th & 76th signed August 2012. -224th project being done separately by OVWSD Spring 2013/Summer 2013. •Dellwood site to be completed at a later date so that more pressing sites can be addressed. Expected Ad Date for Beach Place and AlderFeb 2014. *Easement acquired at Ebb Tide Site acquired and approved by council on Feb 2013. 2013 Sewer Replacement Project Sewer CHS $2,027,000 $1,982,000 _ _ 423 Aug-13 Dec-13 Des *Construction Surveying complete Nov. 2012. -Design in progress. •Phase 1 to be built in 2013. •Phase 2 to be built in 2014. AlderCIPP(Citywide CIPP Sewer Sewer City $306,000 $302,600 423 Jul-13 OGt-13 Des *Design Alder Site Complete Rehab) Project was bid in August 2012. No responsive bidders. *Construction delayed until 2013 due to bidding climate. *Additional 3 sites to added in 2013. -Project to be out to bid July 2013. 7/10/2013 PAGE 1 Packet Page 132 of 660 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud qet Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Funi# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description Type Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10. 11, 12, Sewer CHS $4,602,121 $3,484,900 _ _ 423 Aug-12 Oct-13 Con • Construction contract awarded to Razz Construction. 14 & 15 • Construction is 65 % complete. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Sewer BHC $218,100 $99,100 423 Study -First draft of report completed spring 2013. Plan *Modeling of sewer network !complete. -Financial chapter in progress. To be completed late june/early july 2013. 238th St Drainage to Hickman Storm City $646,260 $646,260 _ _ 422 Aug-13 Oct-13 Des • Project broken into two phases due to grant for sidewalks. Park • Phase I to be constructed in 2013 (Alley infiltration system upgrade south of 107th PL W. and 102nd AVE W. infiltration system upgrade - behind church). • Phase II stormwater improvements on 238th St SW with sidewalk in 2014 (connect to Hickman Park infiltration). 95th/93rd PI Stormwater Storm City TBD $226,000 422 Mar-14 Jul-14 On -Hold _ Improvements City -Wide Drainage Improv. Storm City $149,000 $149,000 422 Pre/Des/ • Willow Creek Outfall Inspected; minor repairs completed Con Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage Storm Consultant $283,000 $283,000 422 Study • Draft Alternatives Analysis Report completed Improvement Study • Public Open house completed 6/20/2013. • Final Report due 3Q 2013. Dayton St. Storm Improvements Storm City TBD $40,000 422 On -Hold _ (6th to 8th) Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Storm City $106,000 $106,000 422 Apr-13 Dec-13 Des • Construction to begin 7/1/2013. Project managed by City of Mountlake Terrace. • Edmonds contracted with consultant to evaluate different weir configurations that may help with flooding. Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Storm Consultant $388,772 $200,000 _ $188,772 422 _ _ Study • Contract executed with Consultant; project underway Retrofit Study • $188,772 grant secured from Department of Ecology to supplement budget. • Final report expected in Spring 2014. Talbot Rd/ Perrinville Creek Storm City $95,000 $95,000 _ _ 422 _ _ CI -Out • Construction complete Drainage Improvement & Habitat • Culvert inspections completed; no defects found. Enhancement -Phase H • Consultant selected for Tide gate feasibility study; to be completed in 2013 Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Storm Consultant $150,000 $100,000 _ _ 422 _ _ Study • Final Early Feasibility Study completed Marsh Feasibility Study • Pre -proposal for further work to RCO/SRF Board Submittal including response to questions. • Full proposal for further work to RCO/SRF Board due 8/2013. 15th St. SW Walkway Street TBD $374,000 $40,000 _ $374,000 112 Jul-14 Dec-14 Pre • The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 15th St. SW from SR-104 to 8th Ave. S, on one side of the street. • The City recently secured a state grant for $374,000 (through Safe Routes to School grant), The funds can't be obligated until July. Design phase to begin in August. 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Street Perteet $5,669,000 $719,700 _ $4,769,000 112 Apr-14 TBD Des / • Design at 80%. Improvements ROW • Right of Way acquisition (4 out of 9 property owners have signed the documents). • Grant funding is included in all project phases. 236th St. SW Walkway Street TBD $494,000 $40,000 _ $494,000 112 Jul-14 Dec-14 Pre • The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary, on one side of the street. • The City recently secured a state grant for $494,000 (through Safe Routes to School grant), The funds can't be obligated until 5th Avenue Overlay Project Street Otak, Inc. $774,000 $774,000 _ $551,000 112 & 421 Jul-13 Oct-13 Des *Design at 95 -Federal Project, $551,000 grant and $223,000 in Water Utility Funding. 7/10/2013 PAGE 2 Packet Page 133 of 660 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud qet Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments ProiaMMUNEWDtion Type 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. S W Street Dave Evans $2,760,000 $450,800 _ $940,397 112 TBD TBD Des • Design at 35%. Intersection Improvements • Grant funding is included in the design and ROW phases. Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Street DKS $300,000 $295,000 _ $300,000 112 Sep-13 Dec-13 Des • Design at 90%. Display & Cabinet Upgrades • Grant funding has also been secured for 100% of the design and construction phase. Five Comers Roundabout (212th Street Dave Evans $3,143,000 $3,134,200 _ $2,399,500 112 Dec-13 Dec-14 Des / • Design at 95%. St. SW @ 84th Av. W) 421 ROW • Right of Way acquisition (3 out of 5 property owners have 422 signed the documents). 423 • Grant funding is included in all project phases. • Water, Storm & Sewer Utility Funds are contributing to project funding. Main St. @ 9th Ave. (interim Street City $10,000 $10,000 _ _ 112 _ TBD Pre • On -Hold solution) SR-104 Transportation Corridor Street TBD TBD $50,000 _ _ 112 _ _ Study • On -Hold Study 238th St. SW Walkway Street TBD $591,000 $60,000 _ $591,000 112 Jul-14 Dec-14 Pre • The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, on one side of the street. • The City recently secured a state grant to cfor $591,000 (through Safe Routes to School grant). The funds can't be obligated until July. Design phase to begin in August. • This project will be combined with the storm drain ADA curb ramp upgrades along Street TBD $80,000 $0 _ $50,000 112 Jul-14 Oct-14 Pre • The project proposed the upgrade to curb ramps along 3rd 3rd Ave. S Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St. • A construction grant was secured in the amount of $50,000. State Route (SR) 99lnternational Street CH2MHill $615,800 $208,100 _ $662,000 129 Apr-12 Jul-13 Con • Construction at 95 % District Enhancements (Phase 1 • The only remaining item is the installation of the banners. and 2) State Route (SR) 99lnternational Street KPG $684,000 $98,000 _ $684,000 112 April-14 TBD Des • The grant covers 100 % of the design and construction costs. District Enhancements (Phase 3) • The construction will be combined with the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project since both are within close proximity of each other, have a similar construction timeline, and same grant funding source. Sunset Walkway Improvements Street MacLeod $882,000 $88,000 _ $159,000 112 TBD TBD Pre • The conceptual layout was completed by Parametrix in Reckord February'12. Main Street Pedestrian Lighting Street Parametrix $1,737,101 $220,000 $51,386 $1,225,000 112 Jul-12 Dec-12 CI -Out • Construction complete from 5th Ave to 6th Ave 421 • Construction close-out in progress. 422 • $312,000 - 2012 Budget Amendment (August) • Substantial Completion 12/14/12 • Change Order 1 - $15,099.14 • Change Order 2 - $1,193.00 • Change Order 3 - $1,020.18 • Change Order 4 - $639.24 • Change Order 5 - $16,335.51 • Change Order 6 - $3,169.57 • Change Order 7 - $1,968.00 • Change Order 8 - $2,980.00 • Change Order 9 - $10,321.98 • Change Order 10 - ($2,000.00) • Change Order 11 - $659.12 7/10/2013 PAGE 3 Packet Page 134 of 660 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS Capital Improvement Program Project City or Bud qet Schedule Status Total 2013 Change City Complete "Active Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s)# Advertise Const Phase Comments Project Description Type 2011 Replacement Program- Water MSA $2,364,506 $5,000 $50,112 _ 421 Jun-11 Mar-12 CI -out •Construction Complete March 2012. Waterline -Construction Closeout in Progress. Substantial completion reached march 2012. -Change order#1 $24,070.93 *Change order #2 $33,785.22 -Change order #3 ($7,744.22) •2012 BudgetAmendment $390,000 (1st Qtr) -Council Approval March 19, 2013. *Awaiting remainder of affidavits prior to continuing with closeout process. •2013 BudgetAmendment $5,000 (Feb) 2012 Citywide Waterline Overlay Water City $526,400 $5,000 -$17,071 _ 421 Jul-12 Nov-12 CI -Out •Construction Complete Project •Contract completed ahead of schedule and 12 % under budget •Afinal Change Order of-$17,071 was written to reflect the budget underrun. -Accepted by Council February, 2013 2013Replacement Program - Water City $2,137,980 $2,092,980 421 Mar-13 Nov-13 Con *Construction at251 . Waterline •D&G Backhoe awarded $1,304,457.70 contract in April 2013. 76th Ave W Waterline Extension Water Roth Hill $725,000 $665,800 _ _ 421 Oct-12 Sep-13 Con -construction began March 18, 2013 with Lynnwood Project approved by council Dec 2012. •$175,000-2013 BudgetAmendment (Feb). Control system upgrade W WTP Tetra Tech $67,500 $67,469 $0 $0 423 Jan-00 Dec-18 Design *Reliability -replace aging control system equipment and provide for redundancy - Start with PLC in 600 bldg. PLC and 1/0 replacement - replace 1 cabinetlyear - (replace old HIKs) Includes WIN911 upgrade and upgraded UPS/control rack for 300 bldg. Facility repair and improvement W WTP Tetra Tech $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 423 Summer Dec-13 Design •Reliability- repair men's locker room, floor damage and project 2013 reallocate space based on need. Incinerator regulatory compliance WWTP CH2MHill & $1,040,000 $100,000 _ _ 423 _ Jan-13 Study •Regulatory - The stack testing was completed in January & improvement Coal Creek 2013. Environment *While the testing indicated we can narrowly achieve the new al standards, we conducted a pilot test of a new technology to determine whether or not it will improve performance for Edmonds in the future. We expect the results of this test in the coming weeks. We continue to investigate the source of mercury in the influent. Sw/tchgearreplacement W WTP HDR $1,400,000 $1,297,724 _ _ 423 Apr-13 Sep-13 Con *The project was awarded to Ewing Electric. *We are in the process of reviewing submittals. -Estimated completion is October, 2013. Variable frequency drive W WTP City $100,000 $25,000 _ _ 423 _ Jul-13 Con •Reliability- VFD's are on site. 1 is completely installed - others installation will be installed in 2013. —Active Phase Ad Advertising Pre Preliminary Design Des Design ROW Right -of -Way Acquisition Ad Advertise for Contruction Bids Con Construction CI -Out Close-out Construcion Contract Studv Stud 7/10/2013 PAGE 4 Packet Page 135 of 660 AM-5944 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Mike De Lilla 4. G. Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization to advertise a Request for Bids for construction services for the 224th Street SW Waterline Replacement Project. Recommendation Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Bids. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda at the July 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative The 224th Street Waterline Replacement Project will relocate approximately 300 linear feet of 12 inch diameter watermain and associated appurtenances that currently lie directly above an existing City owned sewer main. The sewer main is currently in the process of being replaced as part of the sewer replacement project being jointly done by Olympic View Water Sewer District and the City near the intersection of 224h Street and 76th Ave. In order for the sewer to reconnect to the existing pipes, it requires that portions of the existing watermain be removed. This project will replace those missing pieces and realign the watermain so that the current site specific conflicts with the sewer pipe are resolved. The total estimated construction costs for this project is $130,000. Staff will select a contractor to build the project using the selection process outlined in the City's purchasing policy. The construction is expected to start late summer 2013 and be completed by fall 2013. Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Date 07/10/2013 01:45 PM 07/10/2013 02:03 PM 07/10/2013 04:44 PM 07/10/2013 05:02 PM 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 11:51 AM Packet Page 136 of 660 AM-5947 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 4. H. Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of easements from the Franklin property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Recommendation Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Easement documents for the Franklin property. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the Franklin property owner to purchase 1,630 square feet of temporary construction easement for the 228th St. Corridor Improvements project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $2,950 and this cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant with a 13.5% local match. The local match will be funded by the 112 Street Fund. The Franklin property is located on the northeast corner of Hwy. 99 at 76 th Ave. W. Attnrhmvntc Temporary Construction Easement Real Property Voucher Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/10/2013 05:27 PM Public Works Phil Williams 07/10/2013 07:02 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 09:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/10/2013 02:03 PM Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 137 of 660 Packet Page 138 of 660 Property Address: 22511 Highway 99 S Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 270429-003-074-00 Property Owner: Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C. The undersigned, Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C., a Washington Limited Liability Company, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR(S)", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's 228th St SW Corridor Improvements Project, hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTOR(S)' property as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of construction 2281h St. SW Corridor Improvements. The GRANTOR(S) further grant the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will include installation of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR(S) and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. Access to the GRANTOR(S)' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's 2281h St SW Corridor Improvements Project. 3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by the Edmonds City Council. 4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for twelve month(s) from the start of construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR(S) without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. 5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. Packet Page 139 of 660 DATED this day of , 2013. Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C. By: Printed Name: Title: Date: Phone Number {Optional] ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of } By: Prin TitlE Dati Date t^'� I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that / V C'I + _�Y Cn IC-k I V and 'isyare) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that h&/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that ((e., (isyshe is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the MC).V1ct Chi- and of Frannklin- Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C., to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: C"' I Ct J I (Votary Public State of Washington REBECCA RILEY MY ► ppointment Ejiros Jul. 30, 2016 Name (typed or printed): C b `c'­_ IZI NOTARY PUBL C in and for the State of Washingtdn Residing at �i? ' � k c H 1, II l l,C., My appointment expires: Ti '% V 'a Packet Page 140 of 660 erteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 January 2, 2013 APN; 27042900307400 EXHIBIT A. Temporary Construction Easement (Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, I. LC) A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said easement being a portion of the following described tract: Connnencing at the Southwest Corner of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Snohomish County, Washington.; Thence North 01'11'02" West, along the West line of said Section 29, a distance of 533.66 feet to the South line of the North 132.00 feet of the West half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 29; Thence South 89°34'04" East, along said South line, 30.01 feet to the easterly margin of 76"' Avenue West, being The True Point of Beginning of the Tract of land herein described; Thence North 01 ° 11'02" West, along said easterly margin, 132.15 feet to the intersection of said easterly margin with the easterly margin of U.S. Highway 99; Thence North 25'18'57" East, along said easterly margin, 700.08 feet to rho southerly margin of 224`1' Street Southwest; Thence South 89°31'29" East, along said southerly margin, 327.63 feet to the northwesterly corder of Lot 1, Block 1, Berg's Sun Valley Addition No. 5 according to the Plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats at Page 55, in Snohomish County, Washington; Thence South 00°55'30" East, along the westerly boundary of said Berg's Sun Valley Addition No. 5 and the southerly extension thereof, 790.26 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 2, Oliver Park according to Plat recorded in Volume 14 of Plats at Page 75, in Snohomish County, Washington; Thence North 89°36'37" West, along the south line of said Lot 5, Block 2 and the westerly extension thereof, 333.28 feet to the southwesterly comer of Lot 5, Block 1 of said Plat of Oliver Park; Thence North 01'03' 16" West, along the west line of said Lot 5, Block 1, a distance of 23.35 feet to the South line of the North 132.00 feet of the West half of the said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter ..of said Section 29, Thence North 89°34'04" West, along said South line, 93.31 feet; Thence North 01°11'02" West 60.00 feet; Thence North 89°34'04" West, parallel with said South line, 150.00 feet; Thence South 0191'02" East 60.00 .feet to the said South line; Thence North 89°34'04" West, along said South line, 60.00 feet to The True Point of Beginning; Packet Page 141 of 660 EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the City of Lynnwood for the SR 99 Widening Project, by Deed recorded under Recordhig No. 9711070637, records of Snohomish County, Washington. SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of 228th Street Southwest and 76th Ave West (Ballinger Road); Thence North 00°33'49" East, along the centerline of said 76"' Avcnue West, a distance of 532.99 feet; Thence South 89'26'11" East a distance of 30.00 feet to the easterly margin of said 76"' Avenue West, The Point of Beginning; Thence North 00°33'49" East, along said easterly margin, a distance of 131.67 feet to the southeasterly margin of Primary State Highway No. 1 (State Route 99); Thence North 27'00'13" East, along said southeasterly margin, a distance of 3.12 feet; Thence South 62°55'27" East a distance of 1521 feet; Thence South 00°33'49" West a distance of 93.82 feet; Thence North 89'26'11" West a distance of 10.00 feet; Thence South 00°33'49" West a distance of 33.96 feet; Thence North 8896'41" West a distance of 5.00 feet to The Point of Beginning. Containing 1,630 square feet, more or less. Packet Page 142 of 660 EXHIBIT B l ' / N 27.00' 13 E / 3.12' / S 62'55'27 E 15.21' LLI � I � N w o) t-,_I I �► Q r1) o cr) e� TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA = 1,630± SE S 89'26' 1 1 E 30.00' / P 0 B All 228TH ST SW 31 �32 SW 1/4 SEC 29 T27N R4E TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXHIBIT MAP TAX LOT PARCEL NO, 27042900307400 For: City of Edmonds GATE: JANUARY 2, 2013 Sheet 1 of 1 �-N 89*26'11 W W 10.00' n0) a 5.00' N 88' 16'41 W OG' IR30......... -1 ......... 0.. SCALE IN FEET [ erteet Inc. 425-252-770011-80M15.9900 2707 Colby Avenue, 5ulte 900 E�verelt, Washington 98201 Packet Page 143 of 660 City of Edmonds Real Property Voucher 2281h St SW Corridor Improvements Project Claimant(s) Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C. 15015 Main St., #203 Bellevue, WA 98007 Property Address: 22511 Hwy 99 S, Edmonds Project Parcel No. 112 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the Temporary Construction Easement, dated Temporary Construction Easement: 1,630 SF (m/1) $2,950.00 (R) Total $2,950.00 1 have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or lienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or Iienholder, I/we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant. Franklin -Edmonds Transitory, L.L.C. By: By: Printed Name: Prin Title: TitlE Date: Daft Michael Armstrong Righ - ay Consultant Date: 6 Zp ! 3 Place Signed: &D"OyDS 4 WA Printed Name: Title: Date: Place Signed: Packet Page 144 of 660 AM-5948 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Hochberg property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Recommendation Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Right -of -Way and Easement documents for the Hochberg property. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the Hochberg property owner to purchase 169 square feet of right of way and 230 square feet of temporary construction easement for the 228th St. Corridor Improvements project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $6,923.13 and this cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant with a 13.5% local match. The local match will be funded by the 112 Street Fund. The Hochberg property is located on the northeast corner of 76 th Ave. W at 228th St. SW. Attachments Statutory Warranty Deed Temporary Construction Easement Real Property Voucher Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/10/2013 05:27 PM Public Works Phil Williams 07/10/2013 07:02 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 09:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Packet Page 145 of 660 Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/10/2013 02:14 PM Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 146 of 660 Return Address: City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Bertrand Hauss STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Grantor(s): The Hochberg Family Trust Grantee: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal: Ptn of Lot 1, Luschens Tracts 4, V 20, P 29 Additional legal on: Exhibit "A" Tax Parcel No.: 005014-000-001-00 Project Parcel #107 228°h St SW Corridor Improvements Project THE GRANTOR, The Hochberg Family Trust, Henry W. Hochberg and Gi Hwa Hochberg Co -Trustees, for and in consideration of One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty and NO/100ths Dollars and Other Good and Valuable Consideration ($1,950.00) and under threat of the exercise of eminent domain, conveys and warrants to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, the real property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" herewith attached and made a part hereof, and any after -acquired interest therein, to the same extent and purpose as if the rights granted herein had been acquired by eminent domain under the laws or the State of Washington. The lands herein described contain an area of 169 square feet, more or less, the specific details concerning all of which are to be found in that certain map of definite location now of record and on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Edmonds, Washington, and entitled 228th St SW Corridor Improvements Project. It is understood and agreed that delivery of the deed is hereby tendered and that the terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the City of Edmonds unless and until accepted and approved by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, as indicated by the signature of the City Mayor, below. Page 1 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 005014-000-001-00 Packet Page 147 of 660 The Grantor(s) hereby request(s) the Assessor -Treasurer of said County to set -over to the remainder the lien of all unpaid taxes, if any, affecting the real property hereby conveyed, as provided by RCW 84.60.070. Dated this day of , 20 4 Accepted and Approved by Grantor The Hochberg Family Trust By: Printed Na e: Title: 5 Y Date. Accepted and Approved by Grantee CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR) as Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Office of the City Attorney By: Printed Name: Title: Date: ATTESTEDIAUTH ENTICATED Bv: Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk Page 2 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 005014-000-001-00 Packet Page 148 of 660 STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of �� d;� �.�►' S F-1 } I certify that i know or have satisfactory evidence that Henry M. Hochberg and Gi Hwa Hochberg (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Co -Trustees of The Hochberg Family Trust to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: —Sc{.j -2-0-,,,2di3 Name (typed or printed): �_ ► ,;. =,_ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at 1> ► }�C My appointment expires: Page 3 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 005014-000-001 -0 0 Packet Page 149 of 660 efteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 December 11, 2012 APN :00501400000100 kWIN :ItopiN rd� A Parcel for Right of Way, Hotchberg to City of Edmonds A PARCEL FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said parcel being a portion of the following described ta'act: Lot 1, Luschen's Addition No. 4, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 20 of Plats, Page 29, records of Snohomish County, Washington, SAM PARCEL FOR PU13L[C R(GHT OF WAY being more particularly described as follows: Conunencing at the intersection of 228"' Street Southwest and 76"' Avenue West (Ballinger Road); Thence North 00°33'49" Cast, along the centerline of said 76"' Avenue West, a distance of 57.41 feet; Thence South 89°26' l 1" Cast a distance of 30.00 feet to The Point of Beginning on the easterly margin of said 76"' Avenue West at the beginning of a 29.00 foot radius non --tangent curve to the left having a radius point which bears South 89'26'11" East; Thence southeasterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 88°26'02" and an are distance of 44.76 feet to the northerly margin of said 228"' Street Southwest; Thence North 87°52'13" West, along said northerly margin, a distance of 28.22 feet to the easterly margin of said 76"' Avenue West; Thence North 00"33'49" East, along said easterly margin, a distance of 28.22 feet to The Point of Beginning. Containing 169 square feet, more or less. Packet Page 150 of 660 EXHIBIT B i S 89' 26' 1 1 " E PQB I w I m �cc z LaJ Q M e} F -- 0 thri (0 N Z I SW 1/4 SEC 29 T27N R4E FEE ACQUISITION AREA : 169 SF S 89'26'11" E(R) R = 29.00' L=49.76' A=88'26'02" 28.22' N 87'52' 13" W 228TH ST SW N 87'52'13" W --- 20 10 0 SCALE IN FEET Perteet inc. 425-252-77D0 i 1.800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 90D Everett, Washington 96201 Packet Page 151 of 660 Property Address: 22721 — 761h Ave W Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 005014.000-001-00 Property Owner: The Hochberg Family Trust The undersigned, The Hochberg Family Trust, Henry W. Hochberg and Gi Hwa Hochberg Co -Trustees, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's 2281h St SW Corridor Improvements Project, hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property as describe in Exhibit B and depicted in Exhibit B, Map, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of constructing the 228th St, SW Corridor Improvements project. The GRANTOR further grants the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will include the necessary construction activities of the project, and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. Access to the GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's 228'h St SW Corridor Improvements Project. 3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by.the.Edmonds City. Council 4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for twelve months from the start of construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. 5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. Packet Page 152 of 660 1 DATED this day of The Hochberg Family Trust By: By: i Printed Na e: Printed Name: Title: Title: Date: Z' Date: Phone Number (Optional ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of-SA/0Hgd M t c N } Date I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Henry M. Hochberg and Gi Hwa Hochberg (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he is/she is /they are) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Co -Trustees of The Hochberg Family Trust to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: /�' �Zt t N Name (typed or printed): A lSx-c& e• NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires: Packet Page 153 of 660 erteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 January 2, 2013 APN:00501400000100 Temporary Construction Easement (Hotchberg) A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said easement being a portion of the following described tract: Lot 1, Luschen's Addition No. 4, according to the flat thereof recorded in Volume 20 of flats, Page 29, records of Snohomish County, Washington, SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of 228"' Street Southwest and 76"' Avenue West (Ballinger Road); Thence North 00033'49" East, along the centerline of said 76"' Avenue West, a distance of 57.41 feet; Thence South 89'26'11" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the easterly margin of said 76"' Avenue West, The Point of Beginning; Thence North 00°33'49" .Cast, along said easterly margin, a distance of 5.00 feet; Thence South 44'26'11" East a distance of 7,07 feet to the beginning of a 24,00 foot radius non - tangent curve to the left with a radius point which bears South 89'26'11" East; Thence southeasterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 88°26'02" and an are distance of 37.04 feet; Thence South 42'52'13" East a distance of 7.07 feet to the northerly margin of said 220' Street Southwest; Thence North 87°52'13" West, along said northerly margin, a distance of 5.00 feet to the beginning of a 29.00 foot radius tangent curve to the right; Thence northwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 88°26'02" and an are distance of44.76 feet to The Point of Beginning. ... .Contaiiiiiig 23.0.. square. feet,. more. or_Icss......... . Packet Page 154 of 660 EXHIBIT B i i /S 44'26'11" E 7.07' 0 S 89'26'11" E S JIfI 89'261" E(R) 30,00'POB =2,00' L=44.76' a=8826'2"R90R24,00 L=37.04' 6'' 0A=882= 2" �uj b S 42'52' 13" E W ¢ 7,07' Q "' �— 5.00 T o i N 67'52' 13" W nzi I 228TH ST SW N 87'52'13" W TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA = 230 SF SW 1/4 SEC 29 T27N R4E 20 10 0 SCALE IN FEET Fame Inc. 425-262-7700 1 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Fvwoll, Washirgion 98201 Packet Page 155 of 660 City of Edmonds Real Property Voucher 2281n St SW Corridor Improvements Project Claimant(s} The Hochberg Family Trust 18022 — 159th Ave. NE Woodinville, WA 98027' 7L in Project Parcel No. 107 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the Statutory Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated Lands Conveyed Fee: 169 SF (m/1) $1,950.00 (R) Temporary Construction Easement: 230 SF (mli) 300.00 (R) Improvements: Sod 200.00 (R) Administrative Settlement 4,200.00 Statutory Evaluation Allowance 273.13 Total $6,923.13 I/we have agreed to the compensation listed above as the full and final payment for the loss of my/our sod. The City of Edmonds will not, at any time in the future, be responsible for any additional costs above and beyond the amount listed above. I have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or lienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or lienholder. /we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant. The Hochberg Family Trust r By: Printed loam ). Title: Date:,. i By; Printed Name:i- Title: Date: Packet Page 156 of 660 r j I ark'Anderson, ig t-of-Way Consultant Date: c} ::� r✓�� Place Signed:.�rny.:�t Printed Name: Title: Date: Place Signed: Packet Page 157 of 660 AM-5949 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 4. J. Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of right of way and easements from the Yunis property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements project Recommendation Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Right -of -Way and Easement documents for the Yunis property. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the Yunis property owner to purchase 6 square feet of right of way and 348 square feet of temporary construction easement for the 228th St. Corridor Improvements project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $550 and this cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant with a 13.5% local match. The local match will be funded by the 112 Street Fund. The Yunis property is located on the southeast corner of 76 th Ave. W at 228th St. SW. AttarhmPntc Statutory Warranty Deed Temporary Construction Easement Real Property Voucher Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/10/2013 05:27 PM Public Works Phil Williams 07/10/2013 07:02 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 09:20 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/10/2013 02:27 PM Packet Page 158 of 660 Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 159 of 660 Return Address: City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Bertrand Hauss STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Grantor(s): Shamail Yunis Grantee: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal: Ptn of L 1, Blk 1, Evergreen Add to Lake Ballinger, V 15, P 58 Additional legal on: Exhibit "A" Tax Parcel No.. 004415-001 -001 -00 Project Parcel #108 2281h St SW Corridor Improvements Project THE GRANTOR, Shaman Yunis, as his sole and separate estate, for and in consideration of One Hundred and NO/100ths Dollars and Other Good and Valuable Consideration ($100.00) and under threat of the exercise of eminent domain, conveys and warrants to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, the real property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" herewith attached and made a part hereof, and any after -acquired interest therein, to the same extent and purpose as if the rights granted herein had been acquired by eminent domain under the laws or the State of Washington. The lands herein described contain an area of 6 square feet, more or less, the specific details concerning all of which are to be found in that certain map of definite location now of record and on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Edmonds, Washington, and entitled 2281h St SW Corridor Improvements Project. It is understood and agreed that delivery of the deed is hereby tendered and that the terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the City of Edmonds unless and until accepted and approved by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, as indicated by the signature of the City Mayor, below. ..... ........ ........ ......... . ... . ..... ...... ... ......... ......... Page 1 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004415-001-001-00 Packet Page 160 of 660 The Grantor(s) hereby request(s) the Assessor -Treasurer of said County to set -over to the remainder the lien of all unpaid taxes, if any, affecting the real property hereby conveyed, as provided by RCW 84.60.070. Dated this day of )) y > b ' = f Q , 20 d - , Accepted and Approved by Grantor Shamail Yunis Accepted and Approved by Grantee CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR) IA Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM Bv: Office of the City Attorney ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED Bv: Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk Page 2 of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004415-001-001-00 Packet Page 161 of 660 STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. County of KI AI(a } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Shamail Yunis (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her/their) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: A ---)C// Name (typed or printed: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington p►NDFjpS+++��Residing at � 4 My appointment expires: 10 r0-20 Ca fW S`: .lit, PageR of 3 Tax Parcel No. 004415-001-001-00 Packet Page 162 of 660 LIKipelteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 January 2, 2013 APN:00441500100100 EXHIBIT A A Pat -eel for Right of Way, Yunis to City of Edmonds A PARCEL FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said parcel being a portion of the following described tract: Lot 1, Block 1, Evergreen addition to Lake Ballinger according to tine Plat thereof recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, Page 58, records of Snohomish County, Washington. SAID PARCEL FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY being more particularly described as follows: Comm encing at the intersection of 228"' Street Southwest and 76"' Avenue West (Ballinger Road); Thence South 00°33'37" West, along the centerline of said 76"` Avenue West, a distance of 81.79 feet; Thence South 89°26`23" East a distance of 30.00 feet to the westerly margin of said Lot 1; Thence North 00°33'37" East a distance of 25.26 feet to the beginning of a 25.00 foot radius tangent curve to the right; Thence northerly, along said curve, through a central angle of 30'lT13" and an are distance of 13.22 feet to The Point of Beginning; Thence continuing northeasterly along said tangent curve to the right through a central angle of 11°18'14" and an are distance of 4.93 feet; Thence South 00'00'00" East a distance of 3.96 feet; Thence North 90°00'00" West a distance of 2.93 feet to The Point of Beginning, Containing 6 square feet, more or less. Packet Page 163 of 660 EXHIBIT B 228TH S7 SW S 00'00`00" E °O R-25,00' w L=4.93' % Q=11'18'14°��� ,S z In POB cep I +� \`SS•• o N 90'00'00" W \fit 2.93' \�J R=25.00' L= 13.22' i� A =30' 17' 13" f �ry I z S 89'26'23 E I FEE ACQUISITION AREA w 6 SF jI I t NW 1/4 SEC 32 T27N R4E ertee Ino. 4 25-252-770 0 1 1-800-615-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, Washington 98201 Packet Page 164 of 660 Property Address: 22807 — 76'h Ave W Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.. 004415-001 -001 -00 Property Owner: Shamail Yunis The undersigned, Shamail Yunis, as his sole and separate estate, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's 228`h St SW Corridor Improvements Project, hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of construction 228`" St. SW Corridor Improvements. The GRANTOR further grants the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will include the necessary construction activities of the project, and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. Access to the GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's 228`� St SW Corridor Improvements Project. 3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by the Edmonds City Council. 4 _.This...Temporary _Construction.. Ease.m.ent is _valid for twelve__month(s) from. the .... tart__of construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. 5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. Packet Page 165 of 660 DATED this day of ,%J A roc �4 , 20 Shamail Yunis Date: 3 —1 S-- zM k.3 Phone Number (Optional ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON } } SS. Countyof��� } Date I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Shamail Yunis (is/are) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her/their) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument DATED: f/r% : ERe +n,� ��'' Name (typed r p` infed):, ,e c "% r-.0. NOTARY PUBLIC i and for the State of Washington Y ►� ���r''�� ,y Residing at My appointment expires: ,-C G �5 PU6O;�; r � S 10 r1��` E of +``�P•�� Packet Page 166 of 660 7VN, Perteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 January 2, 2013 APN.-00441500100100 EXHIBIT A Temporary Construction Easement (Yunis) A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said easement being a portion of the following described tract: Lot 1, Block 1, Evergreen Addition to Lake Ballinger according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, Page 58, records of Snohomish County, Washington. SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of 228"' Street Southwest and 76"' Avenue West (Ballinger Road); Thence South 00°33'37" West, along the centerline of said 76"' Avenue West, a distance of 8 1.7 9 feet; Thence South 89°26'23" East a distance of 30.00 feet to the westerly margin of said Lot 1, The Point of Beginning; Thence North 00°33'37" East, along said margin, a distance of 25.26 feet to the beginning of a 25.00 foot radius tangent curve to the right; Thence northerly, along said curve and margin, through a central angle of 30°17' 13" and an are distance of 13.22 feet; Thence North 90°00'00" East a distance of 2.93 feet; Thence North 00°00'00" East a distance of 3.96 feet to the northwesterly margin of said Lot 1 at the beginning of a 25.00 foot radius non -tangent curve to the right with a radius ..... point which bears South 47°50'55" East; Thence northeasterly, along said margin and said curve, through a central angle of 49°58'42" and an are distance of 21.81 feet; Thence South 87°52'13" East, along the northerly margin of said Lot, a distance of 9.65 feet; Thence South 02°09'51" West a distance of 5.00 feet; Packet Page 167 of 660 Thence North 87°52'13" West a distance of 9.64 feet to the beginning of a 20.00 foot radius tangent curve to the left; Thence southwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 91'34'10" and an arc distance of 31.96 feet; Thence South 00°33'37" West a distance of 25.26 feet; Thence North 89°26'23" West a distance of 5.00 feet to The Point of Beginning. Containing 348 square feet, more or less. Packet Page 168 of 660 Im-mmumm-Awiml I _. _ 228TH ST SW I i I R=25,00' L=21,81' a=49'58'42'� S 87'52'13" E 3: W s 02'09'51" w Q N 00*00'00" w 9,64, 5.Oo' :C I i� 3.96, LO N 90'00'00" W r I 'oM 2.93' \ASS F L=13,22' R=20.00' �r�1 =30' 17' 13" 5 L=31.96' L=91'34'10" 7 � N N TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION I POB EASEMENT 30.00' 5• AREA = 348 SF S 89'26'23"I E jI ! I f I NW 1 /4 SEC 32 T27N R4E Pert@et Inc. 425-R52-774011-600-616-9900 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 P-vereft, Washington 96201 Packet Page 169 of 660 City of Edmonds Real Property Voucher 228"' St SW Corridor Improvements Project Claimant Shamail Yunis 4203 222nd St SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-3633 Project Parcel No. 108 22807 — 761h Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026-8401 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the StatutoryWarranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated Lands Conveyed Fee: 6 SF (m/1) $100.00 (R) Temporary Construction Easement: 348 SF (m/1) 400.00 (R) Improvements: Landscaping 50.00 (R) Total $550.00 I/we have agreed to the compensation listed above as the full and final payment for the loss of my/our landscaping. The City of Edmonds will not, at any time in the future, be responsible for any additional costs above and beyond the amount listed above). I have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or lienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or lienholder. I/we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant. Shamail Yunis Date: -� : - � " --- ?-z:' \-3 Packet Page 170 of 660 / erson, Rig'kit-of-Way Consultant Date: Oc j J Place Signed: Printed Name: P--�. v Title: Date:. Place Signed: Packet Page 171 of 660 AM-5946 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 4. K. Megan Luttrell Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the easement documents for the Public Storage property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Recommendation Authorization for Mayor to accept and sign the Easement documents for the Public Storage property. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the Public Storage property owner to purchase 518 square feet of temporary construction easement for the 228th St. Corridor Improvements project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $2,000 and this cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant with a 13.5% local match. The local match will be funded by the 112 Street Fund. The Public Storage property is located on the northwest corner of Hwy. 99 @ 76 th Ave. W. Temporary Construction Easement Real Property Voucher Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/10/2013 05:27 PM Public Works Phil Williams 07/10/2013 07:01 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 09:22 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/10/2013 01:38 PM Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 172 of 660 Property Address: 22510 — 761h Ave W Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 270430-004-032-00 Property Owner: Public Storage The undersigned, Public Storage, a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust, for themselves and for their heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's 228tt' St SW Corridor Improvements Project, hereby convey and grant to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTORS' property as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit A, map attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of constructing the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Work will include the necessary construction activities of the project as depicted on Exhibit B, plan attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. The Temporary Easement Area shall not be used to stage or deposit tools, implements, and other materials or spoils for work being done on property other than the Temporary Easement Area or City -owned property that is immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area. ........................... ...... ......... ....... ........ ......... .. ......... . 3. Access to the GRANTORS' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's 228th St SW Corridor Improvements Project (i.e., at least half of any driveway must be usable by vehicles entering or exiting the Facility at all times). 4. By accepting this easement, and undertaking work within the Temporary Easement Area, the City agrees: (a) to perform all work undertaken by the City in a good and workmanlike manner and to promptly complete its work within the Temporary Easement Area; (b) to restore any of GRANTOR's land disturbed by work undertaken by the City for purposes of construction, removal, demolition and/or maintenance to substantially the condition that Packet Page 173 of 660 existed prior to the commencement of such work, except as modified by the subject project; (c) to not unreasonably interfere with the use of GRANTOR's property by GRANTOR or any of GRANTOR's tenants, invitees or guests; (d) that no cost or expense shall be incurred by GRANTOR in connection with any of the City's construction, removal, demolition and/or maintenance pursuant to this easement; and (e) to indemnify and hold GRANTOR (and GRANTOR's successors and assigns) harmless from any and all claims, obligations, costs and liabilities (including without limitation, fees and costs related to such claims) arising from or related to the City's construction, removal, demolition and/or maintenance pursuant to this easement; provided, however, that if and to the extent this agreement is subject to Section 4.24,115 of the Revised Code of Washington, it is agreed that where such claims, obligations, costs and liabilities arise from the concurrent negligence of GRANTOR and the City, the City's obligations of indemnity under this section shall be effective only to the extent of the negligence of the City. 5. The City shall maintain, and shall require its contractor(s) to maintain, adequate liability insurance during its activities on the Temporary Easement Area. 6. This grant is made in lieu of condemnation under eminent domain. 7. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by the Edmonds City Council, or twenty-four (24) months from the date of this easement, whichever occurs first, and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. Following the termination date, this Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate without further action by GRANTOR or the City. 8. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. DATED this <;40-,--" day of �_Tll , , 2013. Publi StooDollA gy: David cT Senior Vice President Date: Tune_ 2z� , 2013 Packet Page 174 of 660 ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Date Title: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On .Ju'-C 2013 before me, Hcy=m4 A. Notary Public, personally appeared, David F. Doll who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to he the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. MERE01TH A. ALLEN Commission # 1885701 i - !Votary Public - California z z ' Los Angeles County n My Comm. Expires Apr 18, 2014 Place Notary Seal Above Signa re o ota y Public My Commission Expires:r'+ri•eP Packet Page 175 of 660 L'Kleiteet Inc. Project No. 20110010 January 2, 2013 APN:27043000403200 EX14M T "A" Temporary Construction Easement (Shurgard Storage Centers, inc.) A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT in the City of Edmonds, Washington, said easement being a portion of the following described tract: The South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Snohomish County, Washington; EXCEPT the West 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Edmonds by Quit Claim Deed dated May 21, 1963, recorded under Recording Number 1623972; AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet conveyed to Snohomish County, Washington for road by Quit Claim Deed recorded under Recording Number 189573; AND EXCEPT portion of the easterly 80.7 feet conveyed to the State of Washington for road by Deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 335616 and 415137; ALSO EXCEPT the North 85 feet of the West 150 feet of the East 180 feet thereof. SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT being move particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of 76"' Avenue West and Primary State Highway No. 1 (State Route 99); Thence North 0003226" East, along the centerline of said 76f' Avenue West, a distance of 135.71 feet; Thence North 89°27'34" West a distance of 30.00 feet to the westerly margin of said 76°' Avenue West and The Point of Beginning; ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. ............ ..................................... .... ..... ......... ......... ....... .............. ... ........ Thence South 00°32'26" West, along said westerly margin, a distance of 83.77 feet to the northwesterly margin of said State Highway; Thence South 27'00'13" West, along said northwesterly margin, a distance of 20.95 feet; Thence North 62°56'51" West a distance of 5.00 feet; Packet Page 176 of 660 EXHIBIT "A" Thence North 27'00'13" East a distance of 19.77 feet; Thence North 00°32'26" East a distance of 82.60 feet, Thence South 89°27'34" East a distance of 5.00 feet to The Point of Beginning. Containing 518 square feet, more or less, L... F� ?A 45325 AL LA�Q 5 Packet Page 177 of 660 S 89'27'34" E 5.00' �v o . = ry0 N 62'56'51 " W 5.00'-/)/ 3� CV/ I/ I I I f N89'27'34W �30.00, POB I � I V 00 co N N 0 0 m TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AREA = 518f SF LEGEND; SF..... SQUARE FEET . POC,..,..POIN.T.._OF....COMMENCEMENT...... POO., POINT OF BEGINNING 30 15 0 SE 1/4 SEC 30 T27N R4E SCALE IN FEET TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXHIBIT MAP Perteet tree. TAX LOT PARCEL NO. 27043000403200 For: City of Edmonds425-252-770011-SO©-645-990i] 27DT Colby Avenue, Wte 960 DATE: JANUARY 2, 2013 Sheet 1 of 1 Everett, Washington98201 Packet Page 178 of 660 GENERAL NOTES:t FED AID NO. ==9TERNSENpEp.�pIM-�Elpns�REI�FEET. SECTION 29/30, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. 2. ut slpEwALK NA FS S'r'JLL MEET CURRENT Mq Rfg1IRE>EEM15. ]. pllrirvSONS ARE MEtSUR FROM CENTERI TO rACE 4. A ANctE co CD DESIGN VARIANCES Exhibit B v c0 A En, RJR sAr SAYE ItX •E PR FFI p NER O P DOT p Tx NO U'JF THE PRW EI I RE-.Ea \ WSCCT C(: MANUAL, OxAPTE, 1]tl ""I 114p-3 (pECfIIEER Znc9), ikN,Rli tt4R-9 (.{pL7 � - QC n9n Ei ANnnp IRS R SPFCI.YG E5 CORNEA \ ' LFNZII. R NUMBER OF ACCESSER PER (N4' IENIP REl"ptENCE v5.m pE51GM Mh'UPL, \, /�B STAxECAsroMnL FAcfo sl.aPFCMouinB�cuRa, GxR 54p(DUNE ON.- SGTuslI�L\µ // TLH E1GGnN[ 13Tn NEGw afiE:usT OVAL PAGEAAWE-0MOUYfa:.E CURB YYY // olln T'Rp25RTRAFF,C I?h / 6 srA RNC SIpFNPIK IRT9YL'1 // 86Tq p6.0011 t'RFI� PS PII3L[C STORAGE fYp CVR6 ANUL'JTTER(pSTL� ^� �� t'T�// MEt5 Y1LFflu'�w:cw s srn GS.,T [N RT) s 8�i9O 5 G YtR,yv , YQ ivy a Qi ,x 35 R a 2 ..� �ev� tl Y Ix c W W � y RGO _ _ _ 175+00 _ c _ 116+00 _ _ SR 93 [C LINEI c 117-CO ao :RSG;I�w°3oL[.aooRrl ° o' Lp p r yF T _ CSYA�14•'&BF113LRT'J _. — _.... 13' to NU TFRrA%CG :R NS 131 RTI _ _ — _ _ _ — _ _. .� — — CSTAf� — _ _ _ _ _ Q - - — — — — _. R�sgVIALN _.._ — — — _ — _ _ _ _ _, — — --- -- ` — — c A T ------- ' — ILT} // I /BSTA ENp GpEWlc - q.K f40.M An RJTE AID ;WAI,I( az.aclartrl ENOLuxe ANp GUTlE0.(F,.it'RT) .Ln.. UNE MATCH WGTiN6 LINE Is.c, 0.5'(,E6TAT __ ___ -..._ __ as I. Pr) TWEaSRTRaFFicpRR9Y: - 10"pl6 �µlsrrN� PGCtEEt INL, 00", Y425-]5]-T]pp€i-BpD.51 &900e'rerelwa:hinglan eaat90p ON WSDOT NORTHWEST REGION APPROVED CHANNElJZATION PLAN TRAFFIC ENGINEER - AREA CPERATION5 Signed c.tP _ Pfift ENGINEERING MANAGER ~—I 2P 40 5'igned Ucte G SCALE€N%EET Print SR99 MP 44.54 TO MP AD "'"` CH06 220TH ST SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS CHANNELIZA71ON PLAN •smecer - E „ t0 ROMON©SISNOHOMISNCOUNTY JULY. 2012 LLCity of Edmonds 1WReal Property Voucher 228'" St SW Corridor Improvements Project Claimant Public Storage 701 Western Ave. Glendale, CA 91201-2349 Property Address: 22510 — 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA Facility 408160 Project Parcel No. 110 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the Temporary Construction Easement, dated�L_ C� Temporary Construction Easement: 518 SF (m/1) $1,000.00 (R) Administrative Settlement $1,000.00 Total $2,000.00 I have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on my property, the mortgage company or lienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or lienholder. /we hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that I/we am/are authorized to sign for the claimant. Publi torage By: By: Printed ame: Printed Name: Title: S r v Title: Date: cF - z o - i 3 Date: i t M rk Anderson; Right-af-may Consultant Date:�1 i Place'Signed:;Cac'�S Printed Name: Title: Date: Place Signed: Packet Page 180 of 660 AM-5962 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Public Works Submitted By: Kody McConnell Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subiect Title Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. 4. L. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell a surplus vehicle obtained through a seizure by the Edmonds Police Department. Previous Council Action 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 was obtained through seizure by the Edmonds Police Department and can be divested as surplus. 1994 Ford Explorer VIN# 1FMDU34XXRUA10745 WA License # 296-ZGT Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: $1,500 Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into the general fund account. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 03:57 PM Dave Earling 07/11/2013 04:50 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 03:54 PM Packet Page 181 of 660 AM-5956 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subiect Title Interlocal with Snohomish County regarding City Park project funding. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Interlcoal Agreement with Snohomish County 4. M. Previous Council Action The Council Finance Committee and Parks, Planning and Pulbic Works Committee is forwarding this to full Council on consent. Narrative Snohomish County recently sold bonds to support various projects around Snohomish County. They have awarded $80,000 to support the City Park Spray and Play Revitalization project. This request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement to receive funding for this project. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 07/11/2013 01:12 PM 07/11/2013 04:52 PM 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 11:51 AM Packet Page 182 of 660 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of , 2013, by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. RECITALS A. The 2007 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, a component of the Snohomish County Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan, has documented a County -wide need for a wide variety of recreational facilities; and B. The County Executive and the County Council have determined that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan and is in the public interest of County residents to participate in joint undertakings with local municipalities to increase recreational opportunities and facility capacity; and C. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 13-018 (the "Bond Ordinance") the County authorized the issuance and sale of its limited tax general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") to provide long-term financing for certain projects, which included "Parks Projects" located in the County; and D. The Bond Ordinance defines "Parks Projects" as those capital projects for the acquisition, development, construction, renovation, improvement, and/or maintenance of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities, public athletic facilities, neighborhood, community and regional parks, backcountry recreational areas, and/or recreational trails and facilities, which are identified by the County Council by motion (as an administrative act) that meet one or more of the following criteria: (i) The project will promote wellness and improve access to recreation; (ii) The project will provide public access to water for recreational enjoyment; (iii) The project will provide a positive impact on economic growth; (iv) The project meets a recognized community need and is supported in existing planning documents; and/or (v) Funding for the project will be matched by local community dollars or volunteer efforts; and E. By Motion 13-137 on April 17, 2013, the County Council approved a list of those Parks Projects to be financed with proceeds of the Bonds, which included a project providing matching funds up to the amount of Eighty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($80.000.00) (the "Matching Funds") to the City for the Edmonds City Park project; and F. Pursuant to this Agreement and Chapter 39.34 RCW, the City wishes to accept the above -described matching funds from the County; and INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 1 of 9 Packet Page 183 of 660 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the County and the City agree as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement is authorized by and entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to define the responsibilities of the County and the City as they relate to the County's provision of matching funds to the City for ADA and playground renovations (the "Project") located at Edmonds City Park, 600 3rd Avenue South, Edmonds, WA (the "Park Property"). Site enhancements include a splash area. 2. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall not take effect unless and until it has been duly executed by both parties and either filed with the County Auditor or posted on the County's Interlocal Agreements website. This Agreement shall remain in effect through April 24, 2016, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 below, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that each party's obligations after December 31, 2013, are contingent upon local legislative appropriation of necessary funds for this specific purpose in accordance with applicable law. 3. Administrators. Each party to this Agreement shall designate an individual (an "Administrator"), who may be designated by title or position, to oversee and administer such party's participation in this Agreement. The parties' initial Administrators shall be the following individuals: County's Initial Administrator: Tom Teigen, Director Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, Washington 98296 (425) 388-6617 phone (425) 388-6645 facsimile Tom.Teigen@snoco.org City's Initial Administrator: Carrie Hite, Director City of Edmonds Recreation and Cultural Services 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0230 phone caffie.hite@edmondswa.gov Either party may change its Administrator at any time by delivering written notice of such party's new Administrator to the other party. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 2 of 9 Packet Page 184 of 660 4. Proiect Performance. 4.1 Certification of Real Property Interest. The City certifies to the County that the City owns the real property or easements upon which the Project shall be executed and additional real property or easements are not needed to complete the Project. 4.2 City's Financial Commitment. The City certifies to the County that the City has monies sufficient to match any funding provided by the County to the City under the terms of this Agreement and will have sufficient monies to complete the Project by the Project deadline identified in Section 4.3 below (the "City's Financial Commitment"). 4.3 Project Deadline. On or before August 31, 2015, the City shall complete the Project. In executing the Project, the City shall obtain and, upon request, provide the County with copies of all permits necessary to complete the Project. 4.4 Recog_nition of County as Financial Sponsor. The City shall recognize the County as a financial sponsor of the Project as follows: 4.4.1 Upon completion of the Project or dedication of the Park Property, whichever comes first, the City shall install at the Park Property a plaque in a form approved by the County that indicates that the County is a financial sponsor of the Project; 4.4.2 The City shall invite the County to all events promoting the Project or Park Property and recognize the County at all such events as a financial sponsor of the Project; 4.4.3 The City shall recognize the County as a financial sponsor in all brochures, banners, posters, and other promotional material related to the Project. 4.5 Project Maintenance. The City shall be responsible for on -going capital improvements to, and maintenance of, the Project and Park Property. The County makes no commitment to support the Project or Park Property beyond what is provided for in this Agreement and assumes no obligation for future support of the Project or Park Property except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. 4.6 Availability to County Residents. The City shall make the Park Property available to all County residents on the same terms as to residents of the City. 5. Invoicing and Payment. 5.1 Invoiciniz. Prior to December 31, 2015, the City shall submit to the County an invoice requesting disbursement of the Matching Funds for the Project. The invoice shall provide line item detail for materials, labor and overhead and include any INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 3 of 9 Packet Page 185 of 660 documentation requested by the County, including but not limited to documentation as to what amounts have been spent by the City on the Project. 5.2 Payment. Unless the County delivers to the City written notice disputing the amount of a particular line item, within twenty (20) working days of receipt from the City of a invoice properly submitted to the County pursuant to Section 5.1, the County shall remit to the City an amount not to exceed Eighty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($80,000.00). 5.3 No Overpayments. In the event that the Project is completed for less than the combined total of the Matching Funds and the City's Financial Commitment, the County shall remit to the City an amount of Matching Funds equal to the difference between the City's Financial Commitment and the total cost of the Project. In no case shall the City retain Matching Funds which it does not utilize in the Project or that it utilizes in the Project without first exhausting the City's Financial Commitment. Should an overpayment occur, the County shall give written notice to the City of the overpayment, and within thirty (30) days of the notice of overpayment the City shall return to the County the overpaid Matching Funds plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum beginning thirty (30) days from the date of the notice of overpayment. 5.4 Accounting. The City shall maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with generally accepted accounting principles and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards in accordance with Chapter 40.14 RCW. 5.5 Recordkeeping. The City shall maintain adequate records to support billings. The records shall be maintained by the City for a period of five (5) years after completion of this Agreement. The County, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall have access to books, documents, or papers and records of the City relating to this Agreement for purposes of inspection, audit, or the making of excerpts or transcripts. 6. Independent Contractor. The City will perform all work associated with the Project as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the County. The City shall be solely responsible for control, supervision, direction and discipline of its personnel, who shall be employees and agents of the City and not the County. The County shall only have the right to ensure performance. 7. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. The City shall assume the risk of, be liable for, and pay all damage, loss, costs and expense of any party arising out of the activities under this Agreement and all use of any improvements it may place on the Property. The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, actions, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments, or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including but INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 4 of 9 Packet Page 186 of 660 not limited to any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the acquisition or use of the Park Property and this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the above indemnification does not apply to those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. 8. Liability Related to City Ordinances, Policies, Rules and Regulations. In executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 9. Insurance. The City shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this Agreement, by the City, his agents, representatives, employees/subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be paid by the City. 9.1 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. General Liability: Insurance Services Office Form No. CG 00 01 Ed. 11-88, covering COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. 9.2 Other Insurance Provisions. Coverage shall be written on an "Occurrence" form. The insurance policies required in this Agreement are to contain or be endorsed to contain the County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City in connection with this Agreement. 9.3 Verification of Coverage. The City shall furnish the County with certificate(s) of insurance and endorsement(s) required by this Agreement. 10. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 5 of 9 Packet Page 187 of 660 11. Default and Remedies. 11.1 Default. If either the County or the City fails to perform any act or obligation required to be performed by it hereunder, the other party shall deliver written notice of such failure to the non -performing party. The non -performing party shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice in which to correct its failure to perform the act or obligation at issue, after which time it shall be in default ("Default") under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the non-performance is of a type that could not reasonably be cured within said twenty (20) day period, then the non -performing party shall not be in Default if it commences cure within said twenty (20) day period and thereafter diligently pursues cure to completion. 11.2 Remedies. In the event of a party's Default under this Agreement, then after giving notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 11.1 above, the non - Defaulting party shall have the right to exercise any or all rights and remedies available to it in law or equity. 12. Early Termination. 12.1 30 Days' Notice. Except as provided in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 below, either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon not less than thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. The termination notice shall specify the date on which the Agreement shall terminate. 12.2 Lack of Funding. This Agreement is contingent upon governmental funding and local legislative appropriations. In the event that funding from any source is withdrawn, reduced, limited, or not appropriated after the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by either party immediately by delivering written notice to the other party. The termination notice shall specify the date on which the Agreement shall terminate. 12.3 Termination for Breach. In the event that the City fails to complete the Project by August 31, 2015, commits a Default as described in Section 11, or otherwise fails to appropriate the funds necessary to complete the Project, the County may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivering written notice to the City. Within thirty (30) days of such early termination, the City shall return to the County all Matching Funds previously disbursed from the County to the City for the Project plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum beginning thirty (30) days from the date of early termination. 13. Dispute Resolution. In the event differences between the parties should arise over the terms and conditions or the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve those differences on an informal basis. If those differences cannot be resolved INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 6 of 9 Packet Page 188 of 660 informally, the matter may be referred for mediation to a mediator mutually selected by the parties. If mediation is not successful or if a party waives mediation, either of the parties may institute legal action for specific performance of this Agreement or for damages. The prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee and court costs. 14. Notices. All notices required to be given by any party to the other party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person, by United States mail, or by electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator or the Administrator's designee. Notice delivered in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Administrator, or their designee, at the addresses set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time received by the recipient. 15. Miscellaneous. 15.1 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any manner except by a written document executed with the same formalities as required for this Agreement and signed by the parry against whom such modification is sought to be enforced. 15.2 Conflicts between Attachments and Text. Should any conflicts exist between any attached exhibit or schedule and the text or main body of this Agreement, the text or main body of this Agreement shall prevail. 15.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any action arising out of this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for Snohomish County. In the event that a lawsuit is instituted to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing parry shall be entitled to recover all costs of such a lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. 15.4 Interpretation. This Agreement and each of the terms and provisions of it are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated by the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either of the parties hereto. The captions and headings in this Agreement are used only for convenience and are not intended to affect the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so that wherever applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 7 of 9 Packet Page 189 of 660 15.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to the extent permitted by law. 15.6 No Waiver. A party's forbearance or delay in exercising any right or remedy with respect to a Default by the other parry under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the Default at issue. Nor shall a waiver by either party of any particular Default constitute a waiver of any other Default or any similar future Default. 15.7 No Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by either party without the express written consent of the other party, which may be granted or withheld in such party's sole discretion. Any attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall constitute a Default under this Agreement. 15.8 Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign this Agreement. 15.9 No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties. 15.10 No Separate Entity Necessary The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary to carry out this Agreement. 15.11 Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, any real or personal property used or acquired by either party in connection with its performance under this Agreement will remain the sole property of such party, and the other party shall have no interest therein. 15.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof is for the sole benefit of the City and the County. No other persons or parties shall be deemed to have any rights in, under or to this Agreement. 15.13 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left hlank.] INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 8 of 9 Packet Page 190 of 660 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. COUNTY: CITY: Snohomish County, a political subdivision City of Edmonds, a Washington of the State of Washington municipal corporation Name: John Lovick Title: County Executive Approved as to Form: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Name: David O. Earling Title: Mayor Approved as to Form: City Attorney [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 9 of 9 Packet Page 191 of 660 AM-5960 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Action Information Subiect Title Appointment of two new members to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. 4. N. Recommendation Confirm appointment of Larry Ehl and Susan Loreen to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. Previous Council Action Council has, historically, put confirmation of PFD Board members on the consent agenda. The Public Safety and Personnel Committee reviewed the appointment of two new members to the PFD Board on July 9, 2013, and recommended the appointment of the new members be placed on the City Council Consent Agenda. A copy of the committee meeting minutes is attached. Narrative On Tuesday, June 11 the PFD Board voted unanimously to nominate Larry Ehl and Susan Loreen for appointment to the Edmonds PFD Board. PFD Board members Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon retired from the Board (due to term limits) effective June 30, 2013. Edmonds City Councilmember and Council PFD Liaison Strom Peterson attended the interviews for all five of the highly qualified candidates. He was also present for the PFD vote to nominate Mr. Ehl and Ms. Loreen. Attach 1: Larry Ehl EPFD Letter of Interest Attach 2: Larry Ehl PFD application Attach 3: Ehl Resume Attach 4: Suan Loreen Application.pdf Attach 5: Loreen Resume Attachments Attach 1: Larry Ehl EPFD Letter of Interest Attach 2: Ehl PFD Application Attach 3: Ehl Resume Attach 4: Loreen PFD Application Packet Page 192 of 660 Attach 5: Loreen Resume Attach 6: Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 04:52 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/11/2013 03:41 PM Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 193 of 660 Nationally -recognized funding and policy analysis and news in short, kitchen -table english May 13, 2013 Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director Edmonds Public Facilities District Edmonds, Washington - via email - Dear Joe and EPFD Board Members, Please find attached my application to join the Board of the Edmonds Public Facilities District. My family and I have lived in Edmonds since 1999 and in south Snohomish County since 1990. Our children grew up performing and attending performances at the ECA facilities. I have been active in the community in the past as an elected and re-elected member of the Edmonds School Board (1997-2002), the Cascade Land Conservancy's (now Forterra) Puget Sound and Snohomish County Boards, the Edmonds Public Education Foundation, and the Alderwood Rotary. My professional experiences include public and private sector government relations and policy work. I have been an advocate to elected officials on behalf of private and public agency employers, and served as an elected official and congressional staffer lobbied by others. Two themes run through my community and professional experiences. First, I have worked with a variety of stakeholders holding different and sometimes conflicting perspectives and goals about difficult and contentious issues, and worked to build final consensus. Second, I participated in and/or led the development and execution of strategy, communications and advocacy. Due to a long work commute and then focusing on opening and operating a one -person business, I dialed back my community involvement over the past few years. I am now at a place where I wish to reengage in community service for an organization which could benefit from my experience and skills. I believe the ECA is an important, valuable resource for Edmonds and the surrounding communities. Working with the EPFD and ECA Boards, and the Edmonds City Council and other stakeholders to maintain and expand the success of the ECA would be interesting and an honor. Thank you for considering my application. Best Regards, tMan F Larry Ehl Packet Page 194 of 660 °V E°mod City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (Please print or type) T690 �190 Edmonds Public Facilities District (Board or Commission) Name Larry Ehl Date Please complete the following whether or not a resume or additional information is attached. Occupational status and background Publisher, Editor of Transportation Issues Daily, a national newsletter and website about transportation policy and funding issues. Background: 30 years in public & rivate sector government relations, communications; former Edmonds School Board Member, 1997-2002 Organization affiliations Assoc. of Washington Business. No others at this time, have been focused on starting a small business. Previous: Alderwood Rotary, Cascade Land Conservancy, United Way of Snohomish County, Edmonds Public Education Foundation Why are you seeking this appointment? I am looking for an opportunity to reengage in community service for an organization which could utilize my experience and skills. I believe the ECA is an important regional and community resource, and I would enjoy being part of a team working to maintain and perhaps grow the ECA's service to the community and region. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? Many years of strategic planning and direction, and public involvement and engagement, during service on boards of Edmonds School District and Cascade Land Conservancy. 25 years public policy advocacy experience. Additional comments (use back of this sheet, if necessary) I would appreciate the opportunity to work with the EPFD board, the ECA Board, the Edmonds City Council and other stakeholders to maintain and expand the success of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Signature Please return this completed form to. - Mail: Attn. Joe McIalwain 410 4t" Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Fax: 425.275.4485 email: joe@ec4arts.org Or deliver to Edmonds Center for the Arts, Administrative office (410 4`" Ave. N.) Packet Page 195 of 660 Larry Ehl Profile Senior executive with 25+ years of public and private sector experience in creating and executing strategic advocacy and communications plans to achieve organization goals. Recognized as a personable leader who builds positive relationships with policy makers, industry and community leaders, and who uses a levelheaded, proactive, creative and nonpartisan approach in addressing policy and communications issues. Selected Advocacy Achievements Secured project funding and policy proposals in federal transportation legislation • Led and coordinated WSDOT Secretary's involvement as Chair of several national coalitions and committees. • Fregeuent speaker at conferences and meetings and quoted regularly in press • Created advocacy plan that convinced USDOT to establish an inter -agency working group • Co-authored strategy that created the national Public Ferry Agencies Coalition • Led and coordinated a week-long Federal Funding and Policy educational exchange for Governor's staff in DC • Coordinated Alaska Way Viaduct and Ferries tour for Senate Appropriations, USDOT staff Wrote presentations for National Surface Transportation Policy & Revenue Study Commission Served as Secretary for Western Association of State Departments of Transportation • Assisted in generating strategy that formalized the West Coast Corridor Coalition • Developed federal transportation issue blog that became widely read and referenced • Influenced federal agency to modify regulatory proposal, saving five operating plants • Designed and executed corporate internal communications on critical public policy issue that generated positive employee feedback and was adapted by other companies • Stopped a key legislative proposal that seriously threatened the industry's and company's competitive edge in intellectual capital • Countered activist groups & prevented negative press on highly visible, controversial issue • Selected to address a national convention on "How To Lobby Effectively' • Member of Edmonds School Board that was selected as state's School Board of the Year and later won the state 2001 Diversity Award for outstanding efforts to promote and value diversity/multicultural education, and served as President. Packet Page 196 of 660 Experience Transportation Issues Daily / Ehl Advocacy Services (May 2011 — Present) Publisher / Principal Transportation Issues Daily is a weekly e-newsletter and daily blog that offers short stories and analysis about policy and funding issues about all modes, in kitchen -table language. Ehl Advocacy provides strategic and communications counsel to help clients increase the odds of securing funding and/or achieve legislative or regulatory goals. Washington State Dept of Transportation, Olympia (March 2009 — April 2011) Federal Relations Manager Develop and execute legislative and communications strategies. Provide counsel on legislative, communications, and policy issues to DOT Secretary and executives, the Governor's office, State Agencies, Congressional offices and coalitions. Act as Agency's primary liaison to Congress and USDOT. Represent WSDOT in, and assist in developing advocacy plans for, national associations and coalitions. Write briefing papers, testimony, speeches, and letters for executives, trade associations and coalitions. Partnership For Learning (April 2008 — March 2009) Executive Director Develop and execute strategic advocacy, communications and fundraising plans. Serve as a spokesman for business community's interests in public education. Washington State Dept of Transportation, Olympia (March 2002 — April 2008) Director of Government Relations (July 2007 — April 2008) Federal Relations Manager (March 2002 - July 2007) See above description. Fisher Communications, Seattle (1995 — 2001) Director of Coraorate & Government Relations Direct corporation's involvement in federal, state and local legislative and regulatory issues. Monitor and analyze legislative actions, develop and execute communications and legislative strategies. Write briefing papers, testimony, speeches and letters for executives, trade associations and coalitions. Serve as company's advocate, decision -maker, and public speaker in selected business and trade organizations. U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, Washington, DC and Seattle (1989 — 1995) Chief Of Staff (1994—1995); Deputy State Director (1992—1993). Bullock's, Los Angeles (1983 — 1988) Direct Mail Marketing Manager; Credit Marketing Manager; Customer Service Supervisor. Packet Page 197 of 660 Education Master of Arts, Adult Education and Training; Seattle University; 1983 Bachelor of Arts, History; University of Washington; 1981 Selected Professional and Community Involvement Cascade Land Conservacy Board, Snohomish County Board (1998-2004) Board of Directors, Edmonds School District (1997 - 2002) Packet Page 198 of 660 City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (Please print or type) Edmonds Public Facilities District (Board or Commission) Name Susan Loreen Date May 20, 2013 Please complete the following whether or not a resume or additional information is attached. Occupational status and background Vice President for Workforce Development at Edmonds Community College. Previous positions: Dean, Business Division, Director of Continuing Education, Director of Online Learning, instructor. Edmonds Community College. Organization affiliations Past president and current Vice -President of the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. Member, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, member "425 Launch", Member of Small Business Board, Economic Alliance of Snohomish County Why are you seeking this appointment? I have been active in the foundation side of the arts communit for several years and I am interested in continuing to help promote the arts and the positive economic and cultural impact they have on their communities. The ECA has had a tremendous impact on our community. It is one of our greatest regional assets and I would like to help it continue to meet its mission and goals by serving on the Edmonds PFD. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? I have over 20 years of managerial experience at a public institution. I have experience in strategic planning, budget development, economic analysis, public policy analysis and working with arts facilities. Additional comments (use back of this sheet, if necessary). I am very interested in this position and I believe I could utilize my past experience, skills and knowledge to sypport the City of Edmonds and the ECA by serving on the EPFD. Thank you Signature Please return this completed form to. - Mail: Attn. — Joe McIalwain 410 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Fax: 425.275.4485 email: joe@ec4arts.org Or deliver to Edmonds Center for the Arts, Administrative office (410 4th Ave. N.) Packet Page 199 of 660 SUSAN LORE EN EXPERIENCE July 2011 to Present, Edmonds Community College Vice President, Workforce Development • Serve as representative for the college to the community for on -going collaboration with business, industry and public organizations • Direct workforce and economic development programs and act as the second senior administrator responsible for the direction of professional technical programs at the college • Serve as liaison with the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges on all workforce areas • Develop initiatives and work with industry partners and community organizations to improve and enhance educational programs and provide opportunities for students January, 2000 to June, 2011, Edmonds Community College Dean, Business Division • Provided leadership, management and support for over 120 faculty and staff, generating over 3700 FTEES per year • Directed budget of $2.2 million, manage division grants and contracts, oversee all campus food services and outlets, write and manage grants and contracts, promote and advocate for division programs • Worked with the Vice President for Instruction and division deans to provide strategic planning, resources and support for instructional programs • With the Vice President for Workforce Development and workforce deans, developed and implemented strategies and operations to meet state guidelines, market programs, develop new certificates and degrees 1988-1999, Edmonds Community College Director of Distance Learning, Assistant Director of Continuing Education Programs • Established one of the first online teaching programs in Washington, led effort to establish first state-wide Distance Learning Council, chaired state-wide organization • Developed and managed contract training and self-support programs in computer information technology and management for Boeing, Tulalip Tribes, Snohomish County, AT&T and other businesses and organizations in Snohomish and King Counties EDUCATION • Master's of Education, University of Washington Packet Page 200 of 660 Bachelor's Degree, Political Science, University of Oregon Packet Page 201 of 660 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING J U LY 9, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom Councilmember Peterson City Staff Present: Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Carrie Hite, Human Resources Reporting Director Sandy Chase, City Clerk Also Present: John McGibbon Bob Rinehart The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda items were discussed in an order that would accommodate participants at the meeting. E. Review of appointment of two new members to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. John McGibbon and Bob Rinehart, Public Facilities District Board Members, were present to discuss this item. Councilmember Bloom commented that the City Attorney indicated that approval of appointment of new members to the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board must be made by Council based on the original ordinance. She noted that it is confusing that appointments to each board and commission are handled differently. Typically when the Council reviews applicants for appointment they receive the full list of candidates which did not occur in this process. She preferred to have all of the applications be forwarded to the Council in advance to discussing the appointment at a Council meeting. Councilmember Peterson noted that he is the Council representative to this Board and participated during the interview process, and he described the process. Mr. Rinehart also provided details surrounding the interview process. Mr. McGibbon confirmed the process used was consistent with what has occurred previously. The committee members requested that all of the applications for appointment to the PFD Board be forwarded to the full City Council for review. Approval of the appointment of two new members should be placed on the Council Consent Agenda for approval; only the applications of the two members to be appointed should be included with this agenda memo. The committee would also like to review and clarify the process for future appointments Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 1 of 5 Packet Page 202 of 660 AM-5951 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Consent Stephen Clifton Community Services Action Tnformation 4.0. Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Zoning Regulations to Allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones. Recommendation Following a public hearing on Interim Ordinance 3921 held on June 25, 2013, the Council voted to direct the City Attorney draft an ordinance for the consent agenda that incorporates the changes recommended by the Planning Board and does not include Section 11. 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). June 25, 2013 - Following a public hearing on Interim Ordinance 3921, the Council voted to direct the City Attorney draft an ordinance for the consent agenda that incorporates the changes recommended by the Planning Board and does not include Section 11. Narrative Packet Page 203 of 660 Background 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 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. 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 Packet Page 204 of 660 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 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." Packet Page 205 of 660 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 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. The Edmonds Planning Board voted to support Interim Ordinance 3921 subject to two recommended amendments. At the conclustion of a public hearing on June 25, 2013 regarding Interim Ordinance 3 92 1, the Council voted to direct the City Attorney draft an ordinance for the consent agenda that incorporates the changes recommended by the Planning Board and does not include Section 11. NOTE: Attached Ordinance 3922, relates to amending ECC Chapter 4.90 and was approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013; it did/does not require a public hearing by the Planning Board or City Council but was provided to the Planning Board, and is included in this agenda packet, for reference purposes. 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 Packet Page 206 of 660 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." Attachments Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Zoning Regulations to Allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones. June 25, 2013 City Council Minutes 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: 07/11/2013 Form Review Date 07/11/2013 01:12 PM 07/11/2013 04:53 PM 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/10/2013 04:35 PM Packet Page 207 of 660 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds only allowed 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 council adopted Ordinance 3921 to allow public markets to operate in the BC, BD, and CG zones on an interim basis; and WHEREAS, the planning board held a public workshop on the public market regulations on May 22, 2013; and WHEREAS, the planning board held a public hearing on the public market regulations on June 12, 2013; and WHEREAS, the planning board voted to recommend certain revisions of the interim public market regulations to the city council for adoption on a permanent basis; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. Ordinance 3921 is hereby repealed. Section 2. 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 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 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. I Packet Page 208 of 660 Section 3. Repealer of Definition of Seasonal Farmers' Market. Section 21.90.009 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Seasonal farmers' market," which reads as follows: .MMI WIN 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 strikethfettgh): 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. Public markets een&eted as an�et4deer- operation a*d-licensed pursuant to provisions in dw-Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90; 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:i 13Seasonal f ..mer-s ,.,.,.,,.vo� 0 Packet Page 209 of 660 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. 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 s4ikethr-euo): 03 Packet Page 210 of 660 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 f ..,,.,ors' Public markets, provided that when located next to a single- family residential 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 pter 17.50 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 str-ikethfough): 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 4 Packet Page 211 of 660 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 G,....wmaity efiented open :..Public markets , ndiieted , an iAde,.. , -ati l and licensed pursuant to provisions in tl-L-Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90. A A A A A Seasonal A4—A44cets 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 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 Packet Page 212 of 660 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: 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 311 Packet Page 213 of 660 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_Seasonal fi ers'Public markets provided that when located next to a single- family residential 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. C. Interim Use Status - Public Markets: 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a vear-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. 7 Packet Page 214 of 660 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 striketh-rettg ): 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 or- seasonal fafmer-s mafketsl provided that when located next to a single-family residential 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 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 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 Chanter 17.50 ECDC. Packet Page 215 of 660 Section 9. 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 10. 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: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. N Packet Page 216 of 660 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 AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. 4852-4054-9897,v. 1 10 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 217 of 660 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 25, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 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 Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. 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 with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. 2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). At 6:32 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He announced action may occur in open session as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:55 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:05 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso requested Item 15, Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions, be moved to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 218 of 660 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2013. B. 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. 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. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL A SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Valerie Stewart, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 14, Using Rain Gardens for Stormwater Management, and described her experience with putting rain gardens in her yard. Rain gardens now handle 100% of the rain water off the roof. When investigating development of the adjacent, downhill lot, she learned one of the downspouts was running onto that land. When her house was built in the 1930s it was in the middle of a forested area with many native plants and could handle the stormwater but no longer could due to development in the area. Instead of a storm sewer, rain gardens were designed for the front and backyard and a rain barrel is used for irrigation. Her rain gardens are beautiful; they filter toxins and have handled any storm event to date. A couple of Councilmembers have looked at her rain gardens, they were on the Snohomish County Task Force LID tour and they are the eighth rain gardens to be registered. She encouraged the public to look into the WSU Extension handbook for Western Washington Homeowners that describes how to make a rain garden. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed a citizen's concern with segways being driven on sidewalks. There is a segway rental facility in the area and a number are being used on sidewalks. This citizen's wife has a difficult time with rough sideways and feels threatened by segways speeding on the sidewalks. He recommended the City police the use of segways, have a discussion with the business and/or give direction regarding the use of skateboards, bicycles and segways on sidewalks in the downtown area. Next, Mr. Hertrich referred to last week's TIP presentation, reiterating his suggestion for the Council to allocate more money to the SR 104 study. He suggested Councilmembers imagine themselves as a shopper or visitor to the Westgate area and consider how to navigate the cars backed up to Westgate waiting for the ferry, and if the terminal were moved to Unocal where there would be space for vehicular storage. Rich Demeroutis, Edmonds, viewed the City's $250,000 purchase of the property in front of Old Milltown for a park and $150,000 for renovations as an advantage for the landowner and creating a park that could be utilized by businesses. Several months ago he noticed the Cheesemonger was utilizing the area for outside dining including waiters servicing the tables. He brought it to the attention of the City's Parks & Recreation Director and assumed the situation had been be remedied. A few weeks ago he walked by and saw customers picking up trays from the Cheesemonger to eat in the park. Several people he asked said they would not sit at a table if they saw a professional dining room being operated there. Several Councilmembers responded to his concern including Councilmember Peterson, who said he has been working with City staff and believed they had reached an equitable solution. He questioned why Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 219 of 660 Councilmember Peterson had standing on the property since he did not own or rent it and why he was able to utilize a park to operate his business. Apparently there is nothing in the City code to prevent this and other businesses in the area could do the same thing. He urged the City to remedy this situation, stating the park was intended to be a gathering place, not a dining room. Next, he wished Betty Mueller a happy 91" birthday today. Ms. Mueller founded the Fire Foundation and was not appreciated for her energy and the battles she raged against the City with regard to the transport fee and gambling. 6. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF PARKS & RECREATION MONTH Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring July 2013 as Recreation & Parks Month and presented the proclamation to Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. Ms. Hite thanked the Parks crew and staff for the excellent job they do all year long, from mowing and landscaping to being stewards of the off -leash area, cleaning restrooms, providing activities at the Frances Anderson Center, softball leagues and other fitness opportunities for the community. The United States has declared July Parks & Recreation Month for over 25 years. This year's theme is Love My Parks and Recreation. A flyer was distributed to Councilmembers and available at the table in Council Chambers with ideas about what to do during the month of July to celebrate Parks & Recreation Month as well as a schedule of summer concert series. There are seven concerts in the park scheduled at City Park this year, one fewer than last year. Thanks to the Hazel Miller Foundation there will also be concerts at the Hazel Miller Plaza this summer. She encouraged the public to thank the Parks crew and recreation staff for the excellent job they do all year long. 7. PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION Park & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled this subject was presented to the Council over a year ago. Staff has been working with a consultant, Randy Young, Henderson, Young and Company, who provided a complete Park Impact Fee Study and Report on April 23, 2013. After the report was delivered there were several decision points. She has contacted each Councilmember and met with the Finance Committee and Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee to discuss the decision points. Ms. Hite explained the Park Impact Fee ordinance has been distributed to the Council with proposed amendments. On Friday Mr. Young met with Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave and her to discuss concerns with the change of use language. The change of use language in the ordinance is consistent with the Transportation Impact Fees; staff wants to do further research. If adopted tonight, the Park Impact Fee will not be effective until October 1, providing time for staff to conduct that additional research. Randy Young, Henderson, Young and Company, advised the presentation on April 23, 2013 of the draft calculations was in compliance with Washington law, specifically RCW 82.02.050. He also made a presentation to the Finance Committee and Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on June 11, 2013. He summarized the overall method by which the Park Impact Fee was calculated, explaining he considered what Edmonds has already accomplished in developing its parks system and identified how much it would cost to maintain that same system or the cost in today's dollars to buy it again; that amount is nearly $10 million in investments. Other sources such as grant funds and local funds such as Real Estate Excise Tax would provide approximately $3 million of the investment; new development would pay the remainder. Washington law allows each new dwelling unit and new business to pay their pro rata share of the $7 million cost. The study presented in April illustrated the calculations and the amount per dwelling unit and per square foot for different types of businesses. Tonight's presentation is to determine if the Council is ready to proceed with the ordinance to ask new development to pay for a portion of the park system. The Council already made that decision for the transportation system. He recalled he conducted a Transportation Impact Fee study for the City several years ago and the Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 220 of 660 Mr. Young discussed the remaining issues: 1. Should the Park Impact Fee be charged only to residential development or should businesses also be charged a Park Impact Fee? There are 78 other cities in Washington that charge a Park Impact Fee, only a few charge new businesses development. If the Council decides to charge businesses a Park Impact Fee, only new businesses will be charged. For a new retail business, the fee is approximately $2.50/square foot; $0.70/square foot for office, compared to over $2000 for a new residential unit. If businesses are not included, the City still needs to make the $10 million investment in parks to serve the new population and residential units would pay approximately 20% more. His sense of the Council in April and at committee meetings was they supported charging a Park Impact Fee to commercial as well as residential development and the draft ordinance and draft code, specifically Section 3.36.120, reflect a commercial Park Impact Fee. 2. When should the Park Impact Fee start? Under Washington law, a City government can adopt an ordinance to be effective quickly to allow new rules to be imposed as soon as possible. His advice, based on experience in many other cities, is that it is worth waiting a few months to make the Park Impact Fee effective. The primary reason is development transactions that are currently underway will not have expected the additional cost. Most cities, and what the draft ordinance reflects, adopt a 90-100 day waiting period. This allows developers that amount of time to wrap up their application and not pay the fee. After that time, the Park Impact Fee would be charged all new development that receives a permit on or after October 1, 2013. 3. Should the new fees be enacted in full or phased? The advantage of phasing in a Park Impact Fee is it allows the development community a lower rate the first year. The disadvantage to the city government is it does not collect as much the first year. They have found the rate differential does not make a big difference in the amount of development that occurs; the discounted rate does not cause a construction boom but to some, it seems a more reasonable way to enact a new fee. Councilmembers had many different opinions regarding phasing the Park Impact Fee. The draft ordinance has a two year plan; 50% of the rate would be charged the first year (October 1, 2013 — September 30, 2014), and on October 1, 2014, the rate would be increased the remaining 50% (Section 3.36.120). He provided examples of the October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2014 rate: Development Type 50 % rate Full rate Condo/Apartment —$1400 —$2800 Retail $1.24/square foot $2.48/square foot Office $0.31/square foot $0.62/square foot 4. Exemptions. State law limits exemptions to low income housing or other broad public purposes. A number of cities with Park Impact Fee have adopted exemptions for low income housing but a number of cities have not. When the City adopted its Transportation Impact Fee, a decision was made not to create an exemption for low income housing. The draft ordinance does include an exemption for low income housing built by a non-profit organization such as Habitat for Humanity. If the housing is exempt, the ordinance also includes a provision requiring they file a lien on the property for ten years so that if at any time that house or unit is flipped into profit making and the price goes above the threshold, the person who did that would owe the City that impact fee. With regard to the potential draft amendment that Ms. Hite mentioned, Mr. Young explained the current Transportation Impact Fee has a provision requiring a new house, condominium, office building or new grocery store to pay the fee; but if the use is charged, such as from a grocery store to an office building or a house to a lawyer's office, changes in use that require a permit are also subject to a Transportation Impact Fee. He and staff discussed the challenge that poses in administering the fees. A number of other Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 221 of 660 cities charge fees for changes in use or expansion and a number of cities do not. Staff is discussing whether to continue that practice with the Transportation Impact Fee. The draft ordinance models the Transportation Impact Fee; a change in use or expansion requires paying an impact fee. The amendment staff proposed would continue to charge an impact fee for expansions of significant size, such as more than 10%. However, a small scale expansion would not be charged a Park Impact Fee. He relayed some other cities have stopped charging a Park Impact Fee for change in use because they found it very difficult to charge for a change of use from a low use to a high use but when that high use changed back to a low use, the business did not get a refund. There is a legitimate question of fairness and in staff's view, would be difficult to administer. Mr. Young explained the City already charges a Transportation Impact Fee and staff is used to administering it. The administration of any impact fee is not free; the annual budget will reflect the additional time to administer the fee. Staff has suggested future amendments of the fee address whether administrative fees could be recovered from the fees; they are not included in the current draft. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Young for his easy -to -read, understandable information. She asked whether the fees could cover staff time to administer the impact fee. Mr. Young answered a number of cities and counties have elected to add either a flat dollar amount or a percentage to the fee. The funds are reserved in the impact fee account with the purpose of paying for staff administration, updating studies, consultant analysis, appraisals, etc. It is not done universally and was not included in the rate study or ordinance and he was not prepared tonight to say what that amount should be. Staff has discussed and may discuss with the Council amending the Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee ordinances to reflect that cost. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, was opposed to charging new businesses a Park Impact Fee. He questioned how businesses coming to Edmonds would benefit from the Park Impact Fee. He anticipated the cost of space would increase. He concluded a Park Impact Fee was not the right way to raise revenue in Edmonds. He suggested the City survey residents in the 15-20 blocks surrounding each park to ask what they want in the park. When the City makes those improvements, those residents will support a park levy. Val Stewart, Edmonds, Expressed concern with imposing additional fees on new construction, recalling the dramatic increase in the sewer and water connection fees approximately a year ago, and now a Park Impact Fee. If the Council chose to impose a Park Impact Fee, she preferred to phase the fee in over time. She suggested the Council consider a park levy where all residents are assessed a percentage based on the value of their property, noting people living in existing buildings all enjoy the parks. Park levies are popular and overwhelmingly supported by voters. She was hopeful any development she pursued on her property would not meet with any more unexpected surprises as far as costs, pointing out the importance of predictability in these uncertain times. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented that he felt an impact fee was proper for new development but the City should not depend on it to cure everything or charge so much that it becomes prohibitive. Businesses produce sales tax and therefore should be promoted rather than penalized. If the Park Impact Fee were minimal, a park levy could still be pursued. He questioned how a Park Impact Fee benefits the City and suggested further discussion regarding how the money would be spent. He asked if public facilities would be charged the Park Impact Fee. He referred to language that fee payers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate their development will have less impact than presumed in the impact fee schedule and asked what the impact fee schedule is based on, what would constitute less impact and whether the fee would be increased if the fee payer had more impact than assumed in the fee schedule. He summarized a Park Impact Fee was reasonable but he did not want it to be so prohibitive that it discouraged development and he did not believe it belonged in the business sector. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 222 of 660 Randy Hayden, Edmonds, acknowledged parks are suffering from lack of funds. A tax on new homes was acceptable to him because residents would use the parks. He had a problem with imposing a Park Impact Fee on businesses, noting most people at a business would not use the parks. He is working with a business that needs to relocate and he is encouraging them to come to Edmonds. That business needs 15,000-20,000 square feet and the proposed Park Impact Fee would be a substantial amount. The business currently has a park next door and only about 10% of the people use the park. He anticipated imposing a Park Impact Fee on businesses would push businesses away, reducing revenue from sales tax and property tax. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Park Impact Fee would be imposed only on new buildings. Mr. Young answered the current owner of a house, apartment, condo or business would not pay a Park Impact Fee. It is only charged on new development or, in the case of the Transportation Impact Fee, any expansion or as proposed in the amended Park Impact Fee language, expansion in excess of 10% of the existing building. The amendment also proposes no charge for a change in use with no change in square footage. He explained one of the difficulties with change of use is many changes of use do not require a permit; many cities felt it unfair to charge some changes of use an impact fee and not others. He anticipated staff will later propose eliminating a Transportation Impact Fee for a change of use. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained eliminating change of use from the definition of development activity creates a potentially significant loophole. The Transportation Impact Fee is driven by the ITE manual and how it defines trip generation for each type of use; use is a very significant factor in the calculation of the Transportation Impact Fee. When developers understand there is no fee collected with a change of use, they will simply propose they are building something that creates a very low trip generation under the ITE manual and later change the use to something that generates much larger traffic volume. The threat is not as significant for the Park Impact Fee because they are not calculated using the ITE manual, but if a decision is made to have a parallel structure for the two impact fees, it could create a very significant loophole. He suggested the Council take that issue under advisement for a couple months while staff confers on whether to have a parallel structure for both impact fees. Mr. Young agreed with Mr. Taraday's concerns, noting a delayed effective date would allow further discussion of change of use. He observed the two principle commercial categories for the Park Impact Fee are retail and office. With regard to the Park Impact Fee, for someone to intentionally beat the system, they would build an office building which has a Park Impact Fee of $0.30/square foot versus $1.20 for retail. They would then need to turn the office into a restaurant without applying for a permit to put in a kitchen, restrooms, etc. He anticipated it would be difficult to beat the system. Councilmember Bloom referred to the example Mr. Hayden provided, observing a new business locating in an available space would not be charged a Park Impact Fee. Mr. Young agreed there is no new impact fee if the building already exists. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Young provided the Finance Committee with reasons it was appropriate for businesses to pay the Park Impact Fee. Mr. Young explained the study provides technical calculations regarding the small park usage by businesses. It is recognized that businesses' employees, customers and visitors only have incidental use of parks. There is clear proof, however, that employees visit a park for a break, exercise, lunch, etc. The data sources about when and how often that happens result in the study charging businesses a tiny percentage of what would be charged a residence. Approximately 12 of the 78 Washington cities that charge a Park Impact Fee agreed businesses benefit from the park system and charge businesses a Park Impact Fee. The impact fee amount is low. If it is accepted businesses receive some small benefit, asking them to pay a Park Impact Fee based on square footage for new space, in his experience, does not drive businesses away from communities. If it did, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 223 of 660 cities would not have a Transportation Impact Fee. The practical proof that impact fees do not discourage business is the cities with the biggest growth in business, such as Bellevue and Redmond, have some of the largest impact fees in the State. The transportation system and parks system attract businesses. Contrary to the thought that cheaper is better, better quality of life is better and that attracts businesses. Mr. Taraday referred to Councilmember Bloom's question about a new business coming to Edmonds, explaining the answer depends on what the Council decides to do with regard to change of use. If change of use is removed from development activity as the amendment proposes, it is more certain that the situation posed in Councilmember Bloom's question would not be charged an impact fee. If changes of use are development activity, then City staff in processing whatever permits are associated with that new business could potentially charge an impact fee depending on the business that previously occupied the space. For example, does the preceding business generate the same impact on the system that the new business generates. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Taraday's concern about a loophole was only if the Transportation and Park Impact Fee had parallel structures. Mr. Taraday acknowledged it is a significantly larger loophole for transportation than parks but a potential loophole in both. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the goal was to have the impact fee structures mirror each other. Mr. Taraday answered that is up to the Council Mr. Young commented for the businesses and staff who administer the impact fees, there is a lot to be said for consistency. His understanding of Mr. Taraday's advice was to adopt the ordinance as drafted without the amendment to preserve that consistency. Staff will then have an opportunity to research and discuss this point further and return to the Council, possibly with both impact fees, and the loophole could be addressed at that time. Mr. Young pointed out the rates in the ordinance had not been corrected to reflect a 20% lower rate for residential with the inclusion of a commercial Park Impact Fee. He provided the following revision to the rates in Section 3.36.120: Housing Type Incorrect Rate 1011113 — 9/30/14 Corrected Rate 1011113 — 9/30/14 Incorrect Rate 10/1/14 Corrected Rate 10/1/14 Single Family $1,660.19 $1,367.03 $3,320.38 $2,734.05 Multi -Family $1,421.01 $1,170.08 $2,842.02 $2,340.16 Councilmember Peterson asked whether any neighboring cities such as Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, or Shoreline had a Park Impact Fee and if so, did they charge businesses. Mr. Young responded Mukilteo has a residential Park Impact Fee of $2,438 and does not have a commercial Park Impact Fee. Redmond, Mountlake Terrace, Arlington, Tukwila, Sedro Woolley, Buckley, Burlington, Arlington, Sumner, Ephrata and Yelm charge a commercial Park Impact Fee. Due to the amount of time spent discussing this item and the number of items remaining on the agenda, Mayor Earling suggested the Council consider moving this to a future meeting. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3928, 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, WITH THE OCTOBER 1, 2013 START DATE, AN EXEMPTION FOR LOW INCOME BUILT BY A NON-PROFIT, A TWO-YEAR PHASE -IN, AND INCLUDING BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 224 of 660 Councilmember Peterson stated he did not support charging a commercial Park Impact Fee. There has been discussion that businesses on Highway 99 are the financial center and revenue generator for the City. Edmonds is in direct competition with Lynnwood; when a decision is being made to build a new building in Edmonds or across the street in Lynnwood, he wanted Edmonds to have every advantage. He anticipated the sales tax generated would make up for the possible loss in Park Impact Fees. He preferred the Park Impact Fee for single family and multi -family to be phased in over three years, particularly in view of needed but significant increases in fees for new construction. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her support for the motion. She understood Councilmember Peterson's concerns about businesses on Highway 99, pointing out most of those businesses were large corporation -type businesses and medical facilities and they are a good way to generate funds via a Park Impact Fee. Further, there are a number of parks in that area that will be used by the staff and patrons of those businesses. Councilmember Peterson asked if the motion included the amendment that was distributed tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis said it did not. Mr. Taraday pointed out the motion also does not include the revised numbers read by Mr. Young. Amendment #1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CORRECTED NUMBERS PROVIDED BY MR. YOUNG. Vote on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vote on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3921 - ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC. BD AND CG ZONES. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council approved Interim Ordinance No. 3921 on May 21, 2013, adopting amendments to ECDC Title 16 and 21. The ordinance is good for six months as long as the Council conducts a hearing within 60 days; this hearing meets that obligation. The Planning Board also concluded a public workshop on May 22, 2013 followed by a public hearing on June 12, 2013 to review and discuss the interim ordinance. Ordinance No. 3922 related to amending ECDC 4.90 regarding licensing was approved by the Council on May 21, 2013 and is included in the Council packet for reference purposes only and does not require a public hearing. The Planning Board recommendation is to support Interim Ordinance No. 3921, subject to recommended amendments contained in Attachment 1 of the Council packet. The most significant amendment is related to a concern raised by a Councilmember, a public market adjacent to a single family would need to be contained entirely within a building. Mr. Clifton explained the Edmonds Historical Museum approached the City last fall about opening a produce and food market in another location. Upon the review of existing regulations applicable to such a proposal, City staff found numerous issues in the existing code. The current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and farmers market from operating Wednesday evenings during any month of the year and existing regulations conflict with current operation of the Edmonds Historical Museum Garden and Summer Market that takes place each Saturday because the current code restricts operations to the months of July, August and September. The code contains a definition for seasonal farmers market but it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 225 of 660 only allows them to operate May — September. Existing regulations prohibit any other open air market to exist other than what exists today as well as precludes the ability to establish a year-round farmers market. Mr. Clifton reviewed the goals and how the amendments addressed each goal: Goal #1: Create one definition that would be located in ECDC Title 21 - Definitions that apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets. Amendments: The term Community Oriented Open -Air Market has been deleted from ECC Section 4.90.010 and Seasonal Farmers Market has been deleted from ECDC Title 21. A new term called Public Market has been added as ECDC 21.80.103 and will allow: • a stand-alone produce only farmers market • a farmers market • community oriented outdoor market Goal #2: Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within buildings.....or both Amendments: The term also allows the use to take place indoors or outdoors. Goal #3: Allow public markets to operate in public rights of way, private property, and public property not located within public rights of way Amendments: Amendments to ECC Section 4.90.020(C) reference operations that might take place in public rights of way, private property, and/or public property not located within public rights of way. Goal #4: Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic, residential properties, etc. Amendments: Establishes hours of operations: - Activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday within public rights of way. • Extended hours are allowed up to 10 p.m. 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: Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time, e.g., four months, 8 months, or year-round Amendments: 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: 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 Amendments: ECC Section 4.90.060 has been deleted and relocated to ECDC Title 16. This language relates more to land use, i.e., temporary use status. Mr. Clifton advised the ordinance applies to the Strategic Action Plan, finding a way to create a year- round market. For the public market on the Salish Crossing property at the intersection of Dayton & SR 104, the process was flawless and smooth and the market is now in operation. Council President Petso asked if there was a recommended action to incorporate the Planning Board's amendments or only hold a public hearing. Mr. Clifton suggested the Council hold the public hearing and then make a decision. Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 11 of the ordinance that restricted the duration of a public market to six months. Mr. Clifton advised that was only in the interim ordinance. If the Council holds the hearing and approves a permanent ordinance, the six month provision would be removed. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 226 of 660 Al Rutledge, Edmonds, questioned whether a property owner who has been using their property in the past to sell items would be grandfathered. Fay May, Edmonds, expressed support for adoption of the ordinance, noting it will help things run smoothly and it is well thought out. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised Ordinance No. 3921 was adopted as an interim zoning ordinance; a public hearing was required within 60 days. It was his understanding this was the public hearing required by State law within 60 days of the adoption of the interim zoning ordinance. He did not realize it was intended to be combined with the permanent adoption of the zoning regulations for public markets. Mr. Clifton pointed out the packet contained the ordinance with the amendments recommended by the Planning Board. Council President Petso suggested rather than a motion to adopt the ordinance, there be a motion to ask the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for next week's Consent Agenda that includes the Planning Board's recommendations and not include Section 11. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA THAT INCORPORATES THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SECTION 11. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY REPORT Planning Board Vice Chair Valerie Stewart reported the Planning Board (PB) has met 5 times since the last Quarterly Report was delivered on March 26, 2013. The PB meets on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. Meetings are open to the public and citizens are encouraged to attend so concerns and comments are addressed early on and incorporated into discussions before making recommendations to City Council. The PB is a group of volunteer citizens who review findings, research, conduct public hearings and discuss matters relating to land use. The PB serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in regional and local planning issues and ultimately passes on recommendations to City Council for consideration. Vice Chair Stewart provided the following highlights of recent PB meetings: 1) Public hearing on proposed code amendment to increase the time frame for validity of preliminary short plat approval In February, the PB discussed this item and proposed to extend the time frame for preliminary short plat approval to be consistent with the State's time frame for formal subdivision approval, including a provision to address applications that have already expired. The preliminary short plat approval would expire at the end of seven years if the preliminary short plat approval was issued on or before 12-31-13 and at the end of five years if the preliminary short plat approval was issued on or after 01-01-14. The time frame would then switch back to five years at the beginning of 2014, which is one year sooner than what the State regulations afford to formal plats. Also included was a provision for extending the time limit for preliminary short plats that would have expired within the past couple of years, giving applicants two additional years from the effective date of the ordinance to obtain final approval. The intent of this change was to provide builders additional time to complete projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. 2) Public hearing of proposed rezone of parcel (22133 76th Ave. W) from contract General Commercial (CG) to General Commercial (CG2) and a portion of another parcel (22121 76th Ave. W) from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to General Commercial (CG2) This rezone is proposed in order to correct two errors on the official zoning map that dated back to 1995. This rezone, as recommended by the PB, brings the parcels into better alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and the CG2 zoning which has surrounded the parcels since 1995. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 227 of 660 3) Highway 99 Corridor Update The following projects are a few that are likely to come to the attention of the PB: • New Swedish cancer treatment center, located at 21605 — 76th Avenue involves future planning with the City. Community Health Centers of Snohomish County is proposing to construct a new 25,000 square foot facility. The building will be constructed to meet LEED Silver standards. • Edmonds Gateway/SR99 Revitalization Project - Phase 1: with the successful transformation of Highway 99 within the Shoreline City limits, the opportunity and precedent exists to extend similar safety, capacity, and aesthetic improvements to that portion of Highway 99 within the City limits of Edmonds. The City will create a recognizable "Gateway" that identifies this portion of Highway 99 as Edmonds from both the North and South. • 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project: a new roadway will be added from Highway 99 to 76th Ave W creating a new E/W connection from Highway 99 to I-5 and Mountlake Terrace Park-n-Ride. The City has been instrumental in securing significant funding for this project through the Federal Highway Administration grant programs. 4) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Quarterly Update The PB is also a Parks Board and is often called upon to review and discuss matters relating to parks. The following are a just a few of the many projects underway: • The Edmonds Marsh: The City recently contracted with Earthcorps (formerly the work of People for Puget Sound) to manage the phases of the Edmonds Marsh rehabilitation efforts. A major goal of this effort is day lighting Willow Creek. $100,000 funding has been secured and additional funding is being sought. • Yost Pool: The goal this year is to replace the boiler with a more energy efficient system barring any unforeseen emergency repairs. • City Park: the department is planning to improve, update, and diversify the outdated play features at our key downtown community park. The redesign introduces a water spray play element and replaces aged play structures with interactive, kinetic, and inclusive play structures. The project is scheduled to be completed by summer 2014. • Dayton Street Plaza: the design is complete and work is scheduled in Fall of 2013. • SR 104 Mini Park: the park naming process is underway for this park. A PB sub -committee is reviewing entries for the full PB to consider at our next meeting. • Park Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS): The current plan was adopted in 2008, and expires in May 2014. A committee has been selected to be involved in the planning which includes me as our PB representative. The full PB will play a major role in the process of review, comments, public hearings, approval and recommendation to City Council. • Edmonds Municipal Code regarding dogs: EMC prohibits dogs on the beachfront walkways. This will be up for review. • Community Garden: The Parks Department has set aside $200,000 in the upcoming budget for acquisition of land to establish this. The goal for 2013 is to secure land to develop the garden for 2014. • Esperance Park: The Parks Department is having conversations with Snohomish County about the City of Edmonds acquiring ownership of Esperance Park. • Metropolitan Park District/Park Levy Exploratory Committee: This Committee was charged with gathering and interpreting information about the pros and cons of a Metropolitan Park District; exploring goals, issues, needs and priorities of Edmonds Parks and Recreation system; and soliciting input from the community. Board member Lovell sits on this committee. 5) Edmonds Way Zoning The PB reviewed new zoning, BC-EW and RM-EW, along Edmonds Way at two meetings. In light of the recent Compass development there, the PB discussed potential changes to the zoning to ensure a better outcome. Concerns were expressed by the City Council specifically related to the height and setback requirements, incentives for low -impact development, ground floor Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 228 of 660 commercial requirements and landscaping requirements. The PB 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 PB felt that a greater setback would be preferable. The PB also agreed that the code language should have more depth in regards to the incentives required to obtain the additional building height. They talked about whether it would be appropriate to incorporate design standards into the language similar to those found in BD zones to make development more appealing. There was additional discussion about LEED certification, bicycle storage, preferred building materials, and the inclusion of affordable housing. Staff will draft proposed amendments and bring this back for a public hearing in July. 6) Public Markets The City Council approved an Interim Ordinance on May 21, 2013 adopting amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21 which would allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones.; the ordinance is good for a period of up to six months. The PB conducted a public workshop on May 22, 2013 to review and discuss the interim ordinance and conducted a public hearing on June 12, 2013. The PB subsequently recommended proposed amendments to City Council involving zoning regulations which would allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG zones. The City Council has just conducted a public hearing on this proposed ordinance tonight. This ordinance relates to the following Strategic 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 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." 7) Incentive zoning opportunities and Highway 99 The PB discussed Highway 99 zoning incentives/issues. Highway 99 was prominently mentioned in the Strategic Plan as an opportunity for some initiatives. The PB considered ways to include 'green building' incentives in regulations along with opportunities to encourage transit oriented development in association with SWIFT bus rapid transit. The idea is to provide flexibility and more options to developers. Board Member Lovell and Chair Reed agreed to serve on the 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. Staff is incorporating the Board suggestions for later review. Further details are available on the City's website under Planning Board agendas. On behalf of the Planning Board, Vice Chair Stewart thanked the Mayor, Councilmembers, staff, and involved citizens for their careful study and consideration of all the land issues the Planning Board evaluates. It is extremely important work, looking toward a much needed sustainable approach to land use and development in order to ensure equity, a clean and healthy environment, and resilient economics. Councilmember Bloom thanked Ms. Stewart for her reference to items that address goals in the Strategic Plan. 10. SNO-ISLE REGIONAL LIBRARY PRESENTATION Jonalyn Woolf -Ivory, Sno-Isle Libraries Executive Director, commented in 1946 the partnership between Edmonds and Sno-Isle Libraries began. A lot of has changed in the Edmonds and Sno-Isle community since 1946; a beautiful new library building, a new City Hall, 24-hour access to library resources, online homework assistance and new faces in the community and at the library. Regardless of the shape or format, library materials provide a doorway to reading, resources and lifelong learning. The partnership between Edmonds and Sno-Isle Libraries is built on mutual respect and support. The partnership began with a contract for library service in 1946. The Library District agreed to provide library service and the City agreed to provide library quarters and furnishings, utilities and janitorial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 229 of 660 services. Over the years, the library building was replaced, more materials and books were added to the collection, space was made for computers, staff and open hours were added and the Library District began reimbursing the City for utilities and janitorial costs. In 2001, faced with many financial issues, the City asked its citizens to annex to the Sno-Isle Libraries District. Peggy Pritchard -Olsen led a successful annexation campaign that resulted in Edmonds residents paying Sno-Isle Libraries directly for library services, allowing the City to cease paying the contract fee and be responsible for only providing the library facility. The results of this updated partnership have been incredibly successful. The City is no longer required to pay for library services from the General Fund, Edmonds residents no longer fear losing their library, and Sno-Isle Libraries now has an ongoing source of revenue that allows for thoughtful planning of future services. She appreciated the Mayor's and City Council's forethought that lead to the 2001 annexation election and knew that Ms. Pritchard-Olsen's work with the Friends of the Edmonds Library and the Library Board ensured that the future of the library in Edmonds was secure. Public libraries are a vital part of a vibrant community and for a community such as Edmonds; the library is the first step that a young family takes on the road to early learning. It is a go -to resource for small businesses and job seekers and an essential element of the community's quality of life. Her work at Sno- Isle Libraries focuses on working with staff and communities to provide the best possible customer service within each of the 21 community libraries, whether provided directly by Lesly Kaplan at a customer service desk in the library or from a staff member providing virtual service to a customer via the internet. Recently the Board of Trustees took steps to begin the Library District's upcoming Strategic Planning cycle, looking out to the next three years, gathering feedback from community members, local library boards, and friends groups and looking closely at the demographics through Snohomish and Island Counties. Over the next several months, there will be opportunity to provide feedback, comment and discussion regarding library services. Sno-Isle Libraries is a community of libraries. Their success depends on the success of each of the 21 community libraries. They count the Edmonds Library as a success, a success that started with an engaged and supportive community. Kendra Trachta, Sno-Isle Libraries Deputy Director, recognized the impact of Library Manager Lesly Kaplan and the library's staff. The summer reading program kicked off today, their annual project to keep kids reading and learning throughout the summer. This year's theme is Dig into Reading; today's event included the Pacific Science Center. Over 100 children attended and over 250 children have signed up for summer reading in Edmonds. Thanks to a suggestion by Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Trachta reported the Edmonds Library is checking out tablet PCs to customers in the library to allow them to sit in the comfortable chairs and read the new electronic magazine service, Zinio. Recent improvements at the Edmonds Library include replacing all the old wooden shelving and the Friends of the Edmonds Library funded comfortable seating, new seats for tables and replaced all the blinds. Ms. Trachta explained the Edmonds Library also go out into the community. Library staff are members of the Chamber of Commerce and make contact with businesses, introducing them to business resources; a librarian visits the Senior Center every month to teach classes on new devices and library eBooks. The Edmonds Library is collaborating with Humanities Washington and Edmonds Community College thanks to a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation on a series of conversations from the Humanities Washington Speakers Bureau. At each session, resources and links to library titles are provided so that participants can continue learning about what they hear in those public conversations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 230 of 660 Councilmember Johnson thanked Sno-Isle for the Near Futures Conference held recently, Transforming the Nexus of Business, Education, Government and Libraries; she found it very informational and inspiring. She expressed her appreciation for the work of all the library staff. 11. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT INTERIM MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM/BUDGET FOR YEAR 2013 AND BYLAWS Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained ECC Section 3.75.120 requires the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Advisory Board present the Council a work plan and bylaws within 90 days of the Mayor's appointment of the Board. A presentation to the Finance Committee in June met the 90 day requirement. He met with Councilmember Bloom and Mary Kay Sneeringer, a member of the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board, today to discuss the amendments to the bylaws proposed by Councilmember Bloom. A redlined copy of the bylaws with those amendments was distributed to the Council tonight. David Arista, Arista Wine Cellars, President, EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board, introduced the members of the BID Interim Members Advisory Board who were present: Sally Merck, Sally Merck Counseling; Paul Rucker, Saetia; Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds Bookshop; and Kim Wahl, Reliable Floor Coverings. Other members include Steve Balas, Waterfront Coffee Co.; Juliana Buskirk, Edward Jones; Kevin Clarke, Clarke Consulting Group; Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering; Chris Fleck, Puget Sound Tax Services; and Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee. Mr. Arista explained the EDBID was approved by the City Council on January 15, 2013 and updated February 26, 2013. The Interim BID Members Advisory Board was appointed by Mayor Earling on March 12, 2013. The EDBID Board will present a proposed 2014 work plan to the City Council in September. Assessments and collection of assessments have begun. The most recent information indicates the EDBID has received close to 80% of the assessments. A few logistical issues such as businesses that have closed and discrepancies in square footage are being addressed. Assessments for the three quarters of 2013 total approximately $22,000 per quarter for total assessments of $66,000. Depending on the number of businesses that open and close, he anticipated next year's budget would be approximately $90,000. The EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board developed the proposed bylaws working with City Attorney Jeff Taraday. The Board will consider Councilmember Bloom's suggested changes to the bylaws at their next meeting. He recognized City staff they have worked with including Stephen Clifton, Cindi Cruz, Jeff Taraday, Roger Neumaier, Sandy Chase and many other department staff. He summarized their overall goal is to build a good foundation for the EDBID for the betterment of downtown businesses as well as the overall community. Paul Rucker, Co -Owner, Saetia, EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board Member, explained he and his wife opened their business three years ago; his day job is Executive Director UW Alumni Association, a non-profit, dues -paying membership community with 60,000 dues -paying members. He appreciated the contributions of the Members Advisory Board to ensure that by -appointment, service and retail businesses are both engaged and incorporated in this process. The work plan incorporates the goals and objectives of the ordinance as well as speaks to areas the Members Advisory Board would like to emphasize in the next six months. He highlighted several priorities: establish a foundation of the EDBID governing structure, non-profit incorporation of the EDBID and operating agreement between the EDBID and the City. He recognized member communication, engagement, participation and stewardship is the priority and will be highlighted in the next six months. The EDBID recognizes the architecture to establish a brand and identity of the EDBID is a key priority and it is included in the work plan for the remainder of this year and into next year. The EDBID Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 231 of 660 recognizes the responsibility of stewardship of resources and assessments of all members, and evaluating the effectiveness of expenditures. The work plan incorporates an opportunity to engage with education institutions such as the UW Business School to ensure the ability to provide return on investment and benefit for those resources is properly stewarded and communicated to members and the City. Mr. Rucker referred to the proposed 2013 budget of $40,000 for the remainder of 2013, recognizing the estimated revenue of $66,000 will be collected through the remainder of the year. Key priorities and allocations are identified on the last page of the budget. The EDBID anticipates unallocated funds for the first year of $26,000, and will be prepared to present a more comprehensive 2014 budget along with the 2014 work plan. Councilmember Bloom commented the total 2013 budget is $40,000 and $26,000 is allocated to branding and identity development. She asked for an explanation regarding how the funds would be allocated and what was meant by branding and identity of the EDBID. Mr. Rucker explained the ordinance specifies a scope of work and identifies the areas the EDBID is able to allocate expenses to and attempt to achieve its goal of improving the Edmonds Downtown Business District. Other BIDs this size have focused on establishing a clear and distinct brand and identity, and creating a toolkit, logos, signage, website presence, etc. that create a package and an identity that is consistent with introductory and formative efforts of BIDs Edmonds' size. The EDBID's research of similar efforts nationally indicated that was the first step that would inform the process of establishing a foundation for EDBID's efforts. This would be done in partnership with the Chamber, City and other civic organizations that are active in the publicity and promotion of the City. Councilmember Bloom observed the bulk of the budget was allocated to branding and identity, including hiring a consultant to assist. She asked if the intent was to pay a consultant to assist with developing a logo and website design as well as a brand for the EDBID. Mr. Arista answered it would include all those things. The intent is to establish a foundation to build future programs on. The all -volunteer Advisory Board anticipates a brand will be developed over the next six months. Establishing the brand will be a one-time expense; marketing efforts will result from the brand. For example, a Shop Local means shopping at local retail as well as using local services, lawyers, doctors, counselors, etc. It is possible the entire amount will not be expended on that item in the budget. Councilmember Bloom asked how much of the $26,000 would be allocated to a consultant. Mr. Arista answered he was uncertain at this point. The intent of the full member meeting in September was to gather input from the membership that the Board was moving in the direction the membership wants. Once the full member meeting is held, the Board will have a better idea of exactly how to spend those funds. Mr. Rucker advised a Request for Proposals will be prepared for a qualified creative agency or consultant to guide this process. One of the concerns was ensuring any creative approach, branding or identity effort were not done by volunteers on their home computer but worked in concert with the City and other agencies to ensure the effort had a level of professionalism. Mr. Arista explained the work to date has been done entirely by the volunteers on the EDBID, all of whom have their own businesses. At some point, professional assistance will be necessary if the goal is a good product. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had worked on two logos, one for the dog park and one for the Floretum Garden Club. She agreed it was a tremendous effort to ensure you got everyone's opinion. She noted 65% of the first six months' proceeds would go toward the branding and logo. Although she did not want to micromanage, she recognized that was a large amount. She agreed a professional was needed to do the logo, explaining one of the volunteers in the organizations she was involved in was from Microsoft and did their logos free of charge. Councilmember Johnson commented branding for the City has been discussed for many years as it relates not only to the BID but also the arts community and others. She asked how branding for the EDBID Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 232 of 660 would be coordinated with branding for the rest of the City. Mr. Clifton answered the EDBID is a distinct entity and needs to determine their brand themselves. As branding moves forward on a citywide basis, that will be considered as part of a bigger picture. He recalled Roger Brooks' advice that branding come not from elected officials or the City but from the private sector and business community. Main Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE WORK PLAN PREPARED BY THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with the amount allocated to branding and identity development in the work plan, finding it put the cart before the horse. There are two distinct groups of business owners, by appointment and open door. The concerns of all focus on parking and a public restroom. She was concerned with jumping into a brand or identity when it was linked with the identity of the entire City and before funds have been allocated for exploration of a map to identify available parking spaces or the EDBID doing a project that would generate enthusiasm. She understood a number of people have serious concerns about allocating their assessments to this endeavor. She will not support the work plan, finding the allocation of $26,000 in this budget cycle to branding and identity development premature and there were other things that should be worked on first to get the buy -in of by appointment businesses as well as open door businesses that opposed the EDBID. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out a committee with members from both open door and by appointment businesses was appointed to consider this. She assumed the committee had vetted the issue. Mr. Arista assured it has been. Everyone on the Board does not necessarily just represent one constituency, open door or by appointment, they represent all viewpoints. Councilmember Johnson asked how the branding, identity and website would work for by appointment businesses. She noted approximately 50% of the EDBID members are by appointment businesses. She recognized it would be a challenge to meet the needs of that group. Mr. Rucker explained an attempt was made to capture that in Section G, Professional Business Resources, to ensure professional development, training, technology resources, innovation for by -appointment business was part of the effort in order to provide value to all members. He recognized there is a shared common good from increased publicity and foot traffic to the health and wellness of the downtown business district. The assessment and evaluation by the UW Business School to ensure expenditures advance the effective goals of the EDBID was an attempt to recognize the diversity of the membership. The responsibility of the EDBID leadership is to ensure engagement with all members of the community and identifying value on an annual basis. Vote on Main Motion #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE BYLAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS AMENDED IN THE CURRENT DOCUMENT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted the proposed amendments were minor. Mr. Arista responded the bylaws would need to be approved by the Advisory Board first. The Board has not met since Councilmember Bloom proposed the amendments this afternoon. He agreed the amendments appear to be minor but he did not think the Council could approve the bylaws until the Advisory Board had approved the amended bylaws. He noted bylaws can be amended; the Council could approve the bylaws as proposed, the Advisory Board could review the amendments proposed by Councilmember Bloom and if the Board approved the amendments, the Council could approve the amended bylaws. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 233 of 660 Mr. Taraday advised that the Council may want to wait until the Interim EDBID Members Advisory Board has approved the revised language, but the Council can approve any bylaws they wish. If there are questions about the amendments to the bylaws, he agreed it may be preferable to have another meeting with the Advisory Board before the Council adopts them. Councilmember Bloom thanked Ms. Sneeringer and Mr. Clifton for meeting with her today and Ms. Merck for speaking with her. She preferred to have the amendments she suggested included in the adoption of the bylaws. She proposed an additional amendment to the composition of the Advisory Board to reflect not how much each member pays but the actual percentage of open door versus appointment only businesses. There is a larger percentage of by appointment businesses in the EDBID than open door businesses. She noted it is well known that she did not support the BID; however, as a business owner in the BID, she wants it to succeed. She suggested the following change in Section 5.1.a. Composition, "...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 e-n- eaeh ells. foe fie of business percentage of open door and by appointment businesses in the EDBID." She explained this would shift the balance to six by appointment businesses and five open door businesses. She felt this would improve relationships for the EDBID. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmember Bloom provide draft language to the Board for their consideration with the other bylaw changes at their next meeting and return to the Council for approval of the amended bylaws. Action on Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO SEND THE BYLAWS BACK TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ALONG WITH COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT. Councilmember Peterson spoke against the motion, stating it was setting up a slippery slope. The last thing the Council wants to do is micromanage the BID. The Council needs to trust that the EDBID has vetted a lot of things. The Council should give the EDBID an opportunity to succeed and build on the momentum. The Board developed all this information in 90 days, an incredible feat for a group of volunteers who have businesses to run and other community service commitments. He preferred to approve the bylaws as proposed. If there are serious issues, the Board can return to the Council with needed amendments. Mr. Clifton commented in today's meeting with Councilmember Bloom, there was discussion that the amendments reflected in the draft provided to the Council tonight were minor enough that the Advisory Board would find them acceptable. The change Councilmember Bloom proposed to Section 5. La to alter the composition of the Board is significant enough that neither he nor Ms. Sneeringer were comfortable taking a position or guessing whether the Advisory Board would accept it. He concluded that change was significant enough that it warranted having the Advisory Board discuss it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the amendments provided in the ordinance were minor; she asked whether the Council could approve the bylaws with the amendments or did the EDBID Advisory Board have to approve them first. Mr. Arista advised the amendments to the bylaws, with the exception of the last amendment Councilmember Bloom proposed, were minor. Mr. Taraday has indicated the Council can approve the bylaws with those amendments tonight; his understanding was they had to be approved by the Board first but apparently that is incorrect. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 234 of 660 Action on Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion #4 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY PETERSON, TO ACCEPT THE BYLAWS AS AMENDED TONIGHT WITH THE PRINTED CHANGES. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF 5.1.A COMPOSITION, FROM "THE 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" TO "IN ROUGH PROPORTION TO THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN DOOR AND BY APPOINTMENT BUSINESSES IN THE EDBID." Vote on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson commented the Council had done what he was hoping they would not do, micromanage the EDBID. The Council made a significant change to the structure of the BID without consulting the EDBID. The whole point of a BID is to have the businesses come up with the ideas and not have them dictated by the City Council. The Council just blew that whole concept out of the water. All Councilmembers have seen Roger Brooks' presentation where he recommended letting the businesses do the work and the Council stay out of the way. He will vote against the main motion because he could not believe the Council had already stepped in it this early in the process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not view Councilmember Bloom's amendment as a drastic change. All the board members own businesses in Edmonds; the amendment did not change the number of board members; it only changed number of board members from one category to another. She has no vested interest and wants to do what was best for the BID and businesses downtown. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. She did not view this as micromanaging; it is changing the allocation of board members from basing it on the amount of money they pay in to the majority of business owners which is a reasonable suggestion. Council President Petso commented the Council had an opportunity early to send the proposed amendments to the bylaws back to the EDBID Advisory Board. She will support the motion and if it needs to be changed, she is confident the Advisory Board will approach the Council with a proposed change. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the amendments to the bylaws should have gone back to the EDBID Board. She felt the composition of the Board does have an impact but because she preferred the EDBID Board should have an opportunity to review the proposed change first, she will vote no on the motion. Councilmember Johnson preferred to have the amendments to the bylaws returned to the EDBID Advisory Board for their consideration; therefore, she will vote no on the motion. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday clarified the motion was to approve the version of the bylaws that was emailed to Councilmembers by Mr. Clifton at 4:38 p.m. today that was subsequently amended by Councilmember Bloom's motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 235 of 660 Vote on Main Motion #4 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE WAS (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. DUE TO THE TIE VOTE, MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO. MOTION FAILED. Main Motion #5 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO PASS THE AMENDED BYLAWS FOR THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS AMENDED IN THE PRINTED BYLAWS AND WITHOUT COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S AMENDMENT. Councilmember Bloom said she would not support the motion because it did not include the amendment she proposed. She preferred to send the amendments back to the Advisory Board to consider all the proposed changes including the change she proposed to the composition of the Board. Vote on Main Motion #5 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Main Motion #6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ASK THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO CONSIDER COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S PROPOSED CHANGES, BOTH WRITTEN AND THE ONE READ INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL ON ANOTHER DAY. Vote on Main Motion #6 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 12. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS 3.75.060 - 100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained these amendments were recommended by Interim Finance Director Ron Cone to clarify the language in the code regarding unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments. The revisions do not change the intent of the ordinance, they only provide clarification. He highlighted changes in ECC 3.75.060, 3.75.080 and 3.75.100 related to delinquency charges, and 3.75.080 related to how the interest rate is calculated. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3929, 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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. REVENUE BOND FINANCING PRESENTATION Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled the City's last utility capital bond was late in 2011. Most plans show the City borrowing funds every two years. The proper use of debt in financing the utility capital program was discussed with the Finance Committee and the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee two weeks ago. Tonight's discussion does not relate to that longer range issue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 236 of 660 Mr. Williams explained the intent of borrowing money is to support the water, sewer and stormwater capital programs, just as was done in 2011. He provided photographs of the interior of pipes and identified how the bond proceeds would be used: Water Utility o Replace/upsize old pipes o Improve flow pressure o Upgrade pressure reducing stations. He described the reasons Sewer Utility o Replace existing pipes o Cured in Place Pipe repairs o Upsize pipe Storm Utility o Replace existing pipes o Cured in Place Pipe repairs o Upsize pipe Scott Bauer, A. Dashen & Associates, provided graphs illustrating Bond Buyer 20-bond GO Index 1990 to present, and the Municipal Yield Curve, identifying rates on December 14, 2011; May 10, 2013; and June 25, 2013. He explained interest rates hit 40-year lows in early December 2012. Rates have risen over the past five weeks, but are still low by historical standards. He provided a debt profile of the City's outstanding revenue bonds (2011 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds). Mr. Bauer reviewed the financing plan: • Provide approximately $14 million in project funds for the water, sewer, and stormwater systems • Fund the reserve account and pay the bond issuance costs • Wrap the debt service around the existing bonds • Final maturity in 20 or 25 years (Mr. Bauer recommended 25 years) Mr. Bauer described delegation authority: • Under Washington State law, the City Council can delegate final approval of bond sale to designated individuals • This was utilized on the City's prior transactions • This delegated authority allows the bond sale to occur on days other than a board meeting / City Council date • Certain parameters are set in advance in the ordinance o Maximum issue sizes o Maximum interest rates o Minimum savings o Final maturity • Provides more flexibility in timing bond issue Mr. Bauer described sale method options: Negotiated Sale o The City selects an underwriting firm to which bonds will be sold Competitive Sale o The City solicits sealed bids from underwriters nationally o The bonds would be sold to the underwriter providing the best combination of interest rates and fee (i.e., true interest cost) at the specified date and time Each sale method has advantages / disadvantages o Competitive sales work well for high quality general obligation and water/sewer bonds in stable markets Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 237 of 660 o Highly transparent results • Planning for a competitive sale o The Bond Ordinance will provide for change in sale method, based on financial advisor recommendation, if market conditions warrant He reviewed the schedule of events: • July 16 Council Approval of Delegation Ordinance • July 18 Rating Visit • July 31 Post Preliminary Official Statement (Marketing Document) • August 7 Competitive Bond Sale • August 21 Bond Closing — Funds Available Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether it could be expected inflation would continue and bond rates would continue to increase. Mr. Bauer agreed that could be expected; how quickly rates increased was unexpected. He anticipated short term interest would level out. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the bond sale should occur sooner than later. Mayor Earling asked if the schedule could be condensed. Mr. Bauer answered consideration could be given to moving it up a week; the 4th of July holiday impacts the schedule. Mayor Earling observed moving as quickly as possible would improve the chances of avoiding another spike in rates. With the Council's approval, Finance Director Roger Neumaier assured the schedule would be expedited as much as possible. He concurred with A. Dashen & Associates' recommendation for 25 year bonds. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Petso asked if the bond issue would provide funds for water, sewer and stormwater. Mr. Williams answered yes. Council President Petso asked whether the Council had not yet adopted one of the utilities' Comprehensive Plans or were all of them current. Mr. Williams answered there are current Comprehensive Plan on all utilities; they are updated every six years. Until the Comprehensive Plan is replaced with a new one, the existing plan is current. An update is being prepared for the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and will be presented to the Council this fall. The Sewer Comprehensive Plan focuses on the conveyance system. Council President Petso asked if the reason bonds were being sold before the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and rate analysis were completed was to capture the lower interest rates. Mr. Williams answered that is one of the reasons but it is clear the City needs to start replacing sewer pipes and those funds must be borrowed because they are not available in the sewer fund. There were no objections voiced by the Council to proceeding as proposed. 14. PRESENTATION ON STORMWATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) - USING RAIN GARDENS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. This item will be rescheduled on a future agenda. 15. DISCUSSION: EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 REVISIONS. This item was moved to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee via action under Agenda Item 3. 16. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Johnson reported on June 10 she participated on a panel to review artist selection for the Five Corners roundabout. There were 21 artists who participated in the artist selection; 3 were selected to submit proposals that will be presented on July 25 from 5:30 — 6:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 238 of 660 Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow received their assessments which had not changed. She reported on the WRIA 8 meeting; Edmonds is attempting to get Lynnwood and Woodway to join WRIA 8. Perrinville Creek is one of the creeks that WRIA 8 is looking at. Councilmember Peterson reported the Public Facilities District interviewed candidates and selected two new members. Their appointments will be scheduled on a future Council agenda. He participated in the interviews of several great candidates; the two selected will serve the community well. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission discussed implementation of the Strategic Plan, limiting office space in the BD1 zone, and the email policy. The meeting also included a report from the Technical Subcommittee and a report by the Tourism Subcommittee regarding changes the Port has made to their website. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board did not have a quorum. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling provided a reminder of the Arts Summit on Saturday, June 29, 8:30 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Over 220 people have registered and he hoped Councilmembers would attend at least part of the day. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom encouraged everyone to support the new mid -week market on the Salish Crossing property on Wednesdays from 3:00 — 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Congressman Jim McDermott's town hall meeting was well attended. Congressman McDermott also toured the Edmonds Saturday Market. Council President Petso echoed an earlier speaker who wished Betty Mueller a happy birthday and praised her contributions to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis announced there were only seven flower beds left for adoption. The $250 cost to adopt a corner flower bed is tax deductible. Councilmember Johnson thanked the members of the Planning Board and the Interim EDBID Advisory Board for their participation in civic engagement. 19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This agenda item was not required. 20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This agenda item was not required. 21. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 239 of 660 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 240 of 660 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 241 of 660 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 242 of 660 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 243 of 660 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 reendurated 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 244 of 660 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 245 of 660 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 246 of 660 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 247 of 660 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 248 of 660 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 249 of 660 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 z�- CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 250 of 660 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, 2ot3, 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§VWomislt 2-17-2016 Q� OF Order Number: 0001821848 Packet Page 251 of 660 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-GRAPAI 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 252 of 660 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-veesior�-w+t#-easkw�dor-c3perat+eg•iade�ent:i e�-tly-f�srx►--the-otk�e��e rod ors and subleasing booths; -stalls -or tables-far-the-puflx 6�a(;4ng before the PuWiG4GP4a1e—on 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•cions 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-� 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 sitress-losatior4-ta•be used4or4heupdertakeg beinooensed-exoent fiat spase-speclfatally-set-asade-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 253 of 660 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 254 of 660 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 255 of 660 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. =;Genres 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 256 of 660 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 257 of 660 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 258 of 660 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 259 of 660 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, I COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH SlLM—MAffY 4F ORDlNANC£ N0. 3,A2`2 at 1y4 of Efimorx#s, Washingjpn On the 21st dSy d ey $Q18, the W Courtin of the City of Edmgartfi pascot! ❑rHtnaulce No. 3M. A aummaty of the ewton o! sa d aComantxr, Wri6istf of the title. provides as totfows' AN ORDINA1yC£ OF THE [TY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTOt'1, AIAENDING EOh14NDS CITY CODE CHAPTER a.90 H TCi LICENSING AND PERMtTTINLi REOUIREMENTS FOR PU6LIC MAAK S. AND ESTA13LSIMING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 22nd day of May, 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Published: May 26, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No- 3922 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: May 26, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. rl r.— 1 0- Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of i -fty, 2013 27th �$slYly L.(Af Notary Public in and for the State of Washrin;l' n, fe iding at Everett, S11ob mis i County. " 81-1t; Account Number. 101416 Order Number: 0001821851 Packet Page 260 of 660 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 261 of 660 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 262 of 660 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 263 of 660 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 264 of 660 (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 265 of 660 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 266 of 660 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 267 of 660 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 268 of 660 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 269 of 660 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 270 of 660 • 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 271 of 660 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 272 of 660 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 273 of 660 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 274 of 660 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 275 of 660 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 276 of 660 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 277 of 660 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 278 of 660 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 279 of 660 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 280 of 660 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 281 of 660 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 282 of 660 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 283 of 660 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 284 of 660 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 285 of 660 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 286 of 660 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 287 of 660 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 288 of 660 • 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 289 of 660 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 290 of 660 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 291 of 660 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 292 of 660 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 293 of 660 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 294 of 660 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 295 of 660 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 296 of 660 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 297 of 660 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 298 of 660 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 299 of 660 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 300 of 660 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 301 of 660 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 302 of 660 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 303 of 660 AM-5935 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfnrm.]+inn Submitted By: Committee Action: 717 Carolyn LaFave Subject Title Proclamation honoring Terry Vehrs & John McGibbon for their service on the Public Facilities District Board. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling honors founding members of Edmonds Public Facilities District, John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs. Under their leadership Edmonds Center for the Arts was conceptualized, the historic Edmonds High School auditorium was renovated, and the Center's programs and services flourished in the first seven years of operation. Mr. Vehrs and Mr McGibbon's terms on the board expired on June 30, 2013. Attachments McGibbon Vehrs Form Review Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Date 07/11/2013 01:12 PM 07/11/2013 04:49 PM 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/09/2013 08:57 AM Packet Page 304 of 660 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor In Honor of John McGibbon & Terry Vehrs WHEREAS, on June 19, 2001, the Edmonds City Council approved the appointment of a five -member Public Facilities District (PFD) Board; and WHEREAS, John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs were two of the five initially appointed Edmonds PFD Board members; and WHEREAS, Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon attended hundreds of Edmonds PFD Board meetings, worked with other PFD Board members, City of Edmonds, Snohomish County and community representatives, and volunteered thousands of hours each over a period of iz years; and WHEREAS, John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs were instrumental leaders in developing a vision, concept, and budget related to the creation of a multipurpose community facility; and WHEREAS, Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon worked with fellow PFD Board members and City and community representatives to implement a vision to purchase and transform the old Edmonds High School auditorium and gym into the Edmonds Center for the Arts; and WHEREAS, John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs helped lead a community -wide fund raising effort to finance the construction of the Edmonds Center for the Arts; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has become a significant multipurpose community and regional asset and a leading host of performing arts events; and WHEREAS, Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon's terms expired June 30, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor, along with the Edmonds City Council, do hereby honor John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs for their 12 years of volunteerism and their selfless commitment to creating a key gathering place and cultural resource for Edmonds and the surrounding region and I ask all citizens of Edmonds to join us in thanking them for their years of hard work and perseverance. I David O. Earling, Mayor July 16, 2013 Packet Page 305 of 660 AM-5941 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 20 Minutes Michael Clugston Planning Action Information Committee Action: 7. Closed record review of File # PLN20130030 and the Planning Board's recommendation to approve a proposal to rezone one parcel (403 & 405 3rd Ave. N.) from contract Residential Multifamily (RM-3.0) to Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4). Recommendation Uphold the recommendation of the Planning Board to approve the proposed rezone and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. Previous Council Action None Narrative The proposal is to rezone the parcel addressed as 403 & 405 3rd Ave. N. The parcel was rezoned in 1999 from Single -Family Residential (RS-6) to Multiple Residential (RM-3.0) with contract limitations on use (PLN19980207). There are currently two single family dwelling units on the parcel (Units A and B) in accordance with the contract rezone. The current proposal seeks to rezone the parcel as Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) without limitations. If approved, the owners of 403 & 405 3rd Avenue could choose to completely redevelop the site to the RM-2.4 development standards and uses of ECDC 16.30. While possible, this is unlikely at the current time since the single family residence at 405 3rd (Unit B) was built in 2000 and 403 3rd (Unit A) underwent a substantial remodel in 2007. In fact, the owner of Unit A has stated the intent to establish an additional dwelling unit within that existing house. Only one additional dwelling unit would be allowed on the site if the rezone is approved (Unit B would not also get an additional unit). Regarding uses, the 1999 contract prohibits community facilities, boarding/rooming houses, and bus stops/shelters but all other permitted and conditional RM uses including retirement homes, group homes, offices, daycare centers and the like are allowed. If approved, the owner of Unit A would need to apply for and obtain building permits and show compliance with the zoning code in order to establish a new unit. If denied, the owner of Unit A (403 3rd) could not try to establish another dwelling unit within the existing house and the existing RM-3.0 contract restrictions from PLN19980207 would remain. Of note, one option not available to the owner of Unit A (or Unit B) is to establish an accessory dwelling unit in Packet Page 306 of 660 the structure - that use cannot be permitted because the parcel is zoned contact RM-3.0 and accessory dwelling units may only be established in the single family zones by conditional use permit. Attachments include: 1) the staff report to the Planning Board; 2) the applicant's testimony at the June 26 Planning Board public hearing; 3) draft minutes from the June 26 hearing; and 4) the sign -in sheet from the hearing. Af nehmPnfe Exhibit 1 - Staff report to the Planning Board Exhibit 2 - Applicant's testimony at Planning Board Exhibit 3 - June 26 Planning Board minutes Exhibit 4 - June 26 hearing sign up sheet Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Michael Clugston Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 07/10/2013 04:44 PM Dave Earling 07/11/2013 05:00 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/10/2013 08:44 AM Packet Page 307 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS 121- STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION To: Edmonds Plann' g Board From: Michael Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Date: June 19, 2013 File: PLN20130030 Hearing Date, Time, and Place: June 26, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5th Avenue North MMUMfirOT-11IF14—Rou A. Applicants Property owners Helena Parker ("Unit A", 403 3rd Ave. N) and Jack Shubic & Hattie Longmire ("Unit B", 405 3`d Ave. N). Steve Cohn is representing. (Attachment 1) B. Location 403 & 405 3rd Ave. N (Tax Parcel #s: 00906200000100 for "Unit A" and 00906200000200 for "Unit B"). (Attachments 2 — 5) C. Request To change the zoning designation from contract Multiple Residential "RM-3.0" which was established by a contract rezone in 1999 (PLN19980207) to Multiple Residential "RM-2.4", no contract (Attachment 6). The intent of the rezone is to allow for an additional dwelling unit within the Parker residence at 403 3rd Avenue North. D. Review Process A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV-B" application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. The application was submitted on April 23, 2013 and determined to be complete on May 21. A combined Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was issued on June City of Edmonds caR Planning Board Packet Page 308 of 660 4 and a subsequent Notice of Public Hearing was issued on June 12 (Attachment 7). E. Applicable Codes 1. ECDC Chapter 16.30 (Multiple Residential) 2. ECDC Chapter 20.01 (Types of Development Project Permits) 3. ECDC Chapter 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications) 4. ECDC Chapter 20.03 (Public Notice Requirements) 5. ECDC Chapter 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) 6. ECDC Chapter 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) 7. ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review - SEPA) 8. ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones) II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS A. Site Context The subject parcel is approximately 8,621 square feet and is currently developed with two single family homes in accordance with the contract stipulations of a site -specific rezone approved in 1999 (PLN19980207). Prior to 1999, the subject parcel was zoned Single Family Residential "RS-6" and developed with a rambler built in 1955 (the Parker house, "Unit A"). The 1999 rezone approved by Council upzoned the parcel to Multiple Residential "RM-3.0" (Attachment 8). However, the contract limited uses on the parcel to two single family residences (Attachment 9). The second dwelling unit ("Unit B" at 405 3rd Ave. N) received approval through building permit BLD19990696. Parker purchased "Unit A" in 2004. In 2007, she received building permit approval for an addition and remodel through BLD20070878 (Attachment 10). That permit was conditioned to indicate that the house did not contain an accessory dwelling unit (Attachment 11). In fact, it could not contain an accessory dwelling unit because the parcel was no longer zoned Single Family Residential but rather Multiple Residential. It also could not be a duplex given the 1999 rezone contract which restricted development on the parcel to two single family units. On September 15, 2011, Parker was cited for creating an unpermitted duplex at 403 3`d Ave. N (COD20110253). The dwelling was restored to its former single family status and the code enforcement action was closed on November 23, 2011. Shubic and Longmire purchased "Unit B" in early 2013. B. Neighboring Development and Zoning The neighborhood is comprised of a variety of different zones and comprehensive plan designations — see Attachments 3 & 4. Generally, more intense business and Packet Page 309 of 660 multifamily uses are located to the south of the subject parcel while single family residential predominates to the north. The residentially -zoned parcels are chiefly developed with single family residences while the RM- and BD -zoned parcels to the south are developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses. In the immediate vicinity, there is an 8-unit condominium building south of the subject parcel while to the north, west and east (across 3`d Ave.) are single-family zoned and developed parcels. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 4, 2013 (Attachment 12). No comments or appeals were received. D. Technical Review Committee This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Engineering Division, and Fire District #1. No comments or conditions were noted by these reviewing bodies. E. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. F. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcel is Multi Family— Medium Density (Attachment 4). The compatible zoning classifications for this designation include "RM-3.0" and "RM-2.4". B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: Packet Page 310 of 660 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. At the same time, the purposes of the Residential Zones include (ECDC 16.10.000): The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are: A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan; B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: 1. Light (including direct sunlight), 2. Privacy, 3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, 4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; C. To provide for community facilities which complement residential areas and benefit from a residential environment, D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities; E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense, land uses. Finally, the Multiple Residential (RM) zone district has its own purposes as identified in ECDC 16.30.000: The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment, B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. 4 Packet Page 311 of 660 The 1999 contract rezone was intended to create a 'transition' zone to buffer the RS-6 zoned and developed lots to the north from the RM-1.5 zoned lot to the south which was redeveloped with an 8-unit condominium building in 1995. If this was achieved, it was done so by stepping the intensity and bulk down from an 8-unit condo to two single family dwellings on the subject parcel down to the rambler on the north (Attachment 13). The Planning Board and Council found this to be compatible with the zoning ordinance at that time. Rezoning the parcel from contract "RM-3.0" to "RM-2.4" would eliminate the restrictions placed on development of the parcel in 1999. This would not only allow for the creation of one additional dwelling unit on the parcel but also for the possible establishment of any permitted and conditionally permitted uses identified in ECDC 16.30 (Attachment 14). The 1999 contract specifically prohibits some RM-zone uses including community facilities, boarding and rooming houses, and bus stops and shelters. At the same time, while those uses could be established if the subject rezone is approved, the Applicant has indicated the intent now is to simply establish another dwelling unit within 403 3rd Avenue North (Attachment 6). However, without a development agreement (or contract) there is nothing to prohibit the complete redevelopment of the site to "RM-2.4" standards nor establishment of any of the permitted or conditionally permitted uses allowed in the "RM-2.4" zone. C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; The Applicant has indicated that the intent of the rezone is to create an additional dwelling unit within "Unit A" but not alter external appearance of the building and site (Attachment 6). This action would likely result in little change relative to the surrounding area. However, the change from contract "RM-3.0" to "RM-2.4" with no contract (or development agreement) could alter the relationship of the subject site with respect to the surrounding area since the current or future owners could redevelop the site more fully in accordance with the standards of the "RM-2.4" zone (Attachment 14). D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; The character of the immediate and surrounding area has remained virtually unchanged since the 8-unit condominium building was constructed in 1995 and the contract rezone was approved in 1999. Attachment 13 visually shows that there is still redevelopment potential on the three parcels zoned "RM-1.5" to the south of the 8-unit condo. To the southwest, the Breakwater Condominium on 2nd Avenue North was built in 1965 and has changed little since then. The remaining parcels to the west and those to the north and east across 3rd Avenue Packet Page 312 of 660 remain zoned Single Family Residential (RS-6) and are developed with single family residences built in the 1950s or earlier. Neither city policy or nor the Comprehensive Plan has changed appreciably in the past 20 years in the vicinity. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor concept was developed in 2003-2004 and was subsequently included as an element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2006 but that applies to the parcels on 4th Avenue south of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, not on 3rd Avenue. The Downtown Business (BD) zones were created in 2007 but those simply replaced the Community Business (BC) classification on the zoning map (Attachment 3). E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning, As currently envisioned —with Parker establishing a duplex in "Unit A" at 403 3rd Ave. N — it does not appear that the property is suitable under the proposed "RM-2.4" zoning. Besides making the north and south portions of the existing building nonconforming (increasing the required side setback from 5' to 10' — see Attachment 10), it does not appear that adequate off-street parking could be obtained as "Unit A" is currently configured. According to ECDC 16.30.030.C, no parking spaces may be located within the street setback (Attachment 14). "Unit A" currently has a two car garage which provides the required off-street spaces for the single-family dwelling unit. If a duplex was allowed through approval of this rezone, additional off-street spaces would be required relative to the table in ECDC 17.50.020: Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per dwelling unit Studio 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 2 bedrooms 1.8 3 or more bedrooms 2.0 For example, if two, two -bedroom units were established in "Unit A" as a result of this rezone, four off-street parking stalls would then be required (2 two bedroom units x 1.8 spaces per unit = 3.6 spaces, which rounds to 4). Based on the length of the driveway (20') and the required size of off-street parking spaces (8.5' by 16'), there is currently not enough room on the driveway Packet Page 313 of 660 to establish any additional required spaces (Attachment 10) since they may not be located within the street setback in an RM zoned property. It may be possible to establish additional compliant parking stalls within "Unit A" or elsewhere on the site but some substantial remodeling would be necessary to "Unit A" and/or "Unit B" at 405 3`d Avenue North depending on the number of stalls required. It should be noted, however, that tandem parking may not be used to provide any required parking space according to ECDC 18.95.030. F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Parker would realize increased value and income if her "Unit A" were altered to be used as a duplex as the proposed rezone is envisioned. A small gain in tax valuation would also be realized by taxing districts if the duplex use was established. If the property was redeveloped more fully with some of the other possible RM uses including offices, day care centers, or boarding and rooming houses, additional value would accrue to the owners and taxing districts. However, it does not appear that there is much of a gain otherwise to the public health, safety and welfare since the site is already developed utilities, access and the like are already present. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the "RM-2.4" zoning classification is one of the possible implementing zones for the Multi Family — Medium Density designation. B. The proposal to rezone the parcel "RM-2.4" in order to establish one additional dwelling unit within "Unit A" at 403 3rd Avenue North is not inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance nor the zoning district. Complete redevelopment of the lot to the uses and development standards of the "RM-2.4" zone would be somewhat less consistent. A development agreement (or contract) limiting uses to those currently allowed by the "RM-3.0" contract would have provided greater assurance of the Applicant's intent. C. As envisioned by the Applicant, the proposal would be appropriate in relation to the surrounding area. However, without a development agreement (or contract) to limit potential uses on the site, it is possible that the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the "RM-2.4" zone could impact the surrounding area and nearby property. D. There has not been sufficient change in the area or in the City's policy to justify the rezone. Except for ongoing remodeling of single-family residences to the north, west and east, the area remains as it has for many years and is actually underdeveloped to the south of the 8-unit condominium building. Additional residential units or uses in those locations would make sense since the parcels are already zoned "RM-1.5". E. As envisioned by the Applicant, the site is not currently suitable for the inclusion of an Packet Page 314 of 660 additional dwelling unit at 403 3rd Avenue North. Significant alteration would need to occur to "Unit A" in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. If the entire site were to be redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for it since the property is flat and located on an arterial. F. There does not appear to be a gain in public health/safety/welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. There would be a slight increase in the tax base if Parker could establish an additional unit in "Unit A" and potential a larger increase if other RM uses were established at the site. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff proposes that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to DENY the requested rezone from contract Multiple Residential "RM-3.0." to Multiple Residential "RM-2.4". There has not been sufficient change in the area or in city policy to justify the rezone nor is the parcel currently suitable for development at the proposed density as the Applicant envisions. V. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land use applications and supporting materials 2. Aerial photo of vicinity 3. Zoning map 4. Comprehensive Plan map 5. 2002 condominium plat 6. Applicant's cover letter 7. Public notice documentation 8. Council minutes and staff report from 1999 contract rezone (PLN19980207) 9. Ordinance 3259 (1999 contract) 10. Site plan for addition/remodel at 403 3rd Ave. N (BLD20070878) 11. Parker statement on accessory dwelling units from 403 3`d Ave. N 12. Determination of Nonsignificance, issued June 4, 2013 13. Oblique aerial photo of vicinity 14. Multiple Residential (RM) zoning code, ECDC Chapter 16.30 AINFWAAK• �*r 1. Helena Parker, 403 3rd Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 9 Packet Page 315 of 660 2. Jack Shubic and Hattie Longmire, 40260 Skunk Bay Rd. NE, Hansville, WA 98340 3. Steve Cohn, 6535 Seaview Ave. NE, #1128, Seattle, WA 98117 4. City of Edmonds Planning Division Packet Page 316 of 660 City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • 0 ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # PGN u 13a030 ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE -3 13 REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE Z"73'5_� Q o RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT [I❑STAFFPB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION MEWED rV REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT APR 2 �. 2Q13 ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: OSVE OP ENf SEFMCES CM3NTFB 0 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFOR�M/ATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 7 PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)! PROPERTY OWNER dleo ✓ G�_k� PHONE # ,-;20,/,' %9el 71,0S` ADDRESS �V _i &_14 C?- k E-MAIL e/ 1,1n t YLL e- ��� G� �� tCr 7 FAX # / / TAX ACCOUNT # (/ Q �D in d� O O. D. a %� U SEC. � ' 7 TWP. RNG. 63 ql- 00 ??/ 6 _'Z d Ooaoo DESCRIP ION OF PROJECT OR ROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT uv PHONE # c�-P 1a % Pc-1 %/ 0S ADDRESS 4/i &.-e `/ E-MAIL Ae t76 j i!� �COYIICLGS%% !e- r/1 FAX# CONTACT PERSON/AGENT �N�I�' PHONE # ` 797' D '/4�7 ADDRESS,pS�iS , Z` .9 - �a— M117 — �d�d E-MAIL S h'1 Le) k) V1 FAx # J The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. / SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT Ile DATE 7 /5 — Prooperr Owner's Aut rtza/tiion I, "(Yf certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of tl subject property for the purposes of i spection and posting yattendant _to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER ��t��/ /� (/ Glfz��/ DATE Attachment 1 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. P LN20130030 �It�d�t d/LL/!1 n - Lana use AppiteanaLaoe FROM.,: FAX NO. :3603791122 .r. 15 2013 12:27PM PS Ii KALTY No, 42577o2182 P. N/Ooi City of dn1®tlds Land Use Application ARCiItTTEMRAL DRSIGN REVIEW ❑ CO,N,pREHENSIV$PLANAMENt)1vIENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FMB ZONE. ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC 0 By FORMAL SUBDIVISION Q SHOAT SUBDIVISION Fa RECM1,r# ❑ LOT LINE ADIUsTMENi I3EARINO DATE ❑ PLANNED RRSMENTIAL DEVELOPMENI 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP ANWNDMENNT L' B13 0 STAFF ❑ PH ❑ AM 0 CC ❑ STREET VACATION REZONE 814ORELM PERMIT ❑ VARLWC) /RFASONAKEUSiEXCEPTION ❑ O'1HER; ® PLP-4SENOM MATALC INfOAAM MIV CONTAINED WITH& TEE APPLICATIONis A PUBLIC RECORD i'ROPERTYADDRESS ORT.Ot MON'103 ,12 PROUCT NAME (I]E; API?UCABXS) PR0P9,RTY0WNr,'R JSLL .�- a _ /2��i` PH(1NAi✓. ,2Dl %3?-'l ADDRESS Lea 3& atA&L `e� [rJI fs7a;l- E FAX # TAX ACCOUNT# 00%'�;Z, OD©D®fOL SEC. f T p,a-ZARNG_- 0-3_ DIES ION OF ilRQ1ECT ORpROposFD%TSE (ATT,Q,CH COVER LE1717&R aNECF 1� -� r DESCRME HOW 7-M PROIECT MBM APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVET. LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT ADDRESS - I:-MUL f'Je phi r-ZP �a� n{ 9� � f FAX CONTACTftRSON/AoENT ,t.,� PHONE# � 7� ®`tyi ,ADDRESS{ o , l.d. �l �-li/- E-MAIL,-h1'C.�� Yl .47c3P,a-1 /ts h2 FAX# ®. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its hairs and assigns in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds hamtless from any and all damages, ineludng reasonable attorney's fees, arising faun any action or htfiaetian based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccuraro or incomplete inform4vu farnishad by the applicant, hisrlterlits agents or employees. By my signa=m, I certify that the inforr6ation and exhibits herewitb submitted are t1W and correct to the best ofmy knowledge and that I am author[zed w Methis applicatioa on the behalf ooffthe owner as listed below. SIGNATUPZ OF APPLICANT/AGaNT X 6P D' i DATE M FROM : Cam' FRX NO, :3603791122 fir. 15 2013 12:28PM P2 rop 0 0,ftr's Aut rl"utin i, ter/ certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washiugtan that the following is a.'tnte and correct ataiemenp I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to cater the subject property for thepwpoaes of etion and posting attendant to dais apOicati f� y SIGNATURE OF OWNER � 'ens? Call i91�022t1. _ p d �1(2 B. and setppktroravrdoa p�g��! Packet Page 81.8 of 660 - -t,- . - . I RECEIVE.� htW6c /sns �gip,��,yggoutput/Assessor_pmz-arcims285249082818jpg 4/5/2013 age 0 U N M N M cs U EC) co U— _ o ct N M N _001 Ncu r1tjp�-,1ty 0U11U11Q1y 1 1 Vl L. SnohomishOnlino Govornmont Information $ Surviees CountyW Washington Printable Version Home Other Property Data Help Property Search > Search Results > Property Summary Property Account Summary ---- ........ Parcel Number 00906200000100 Property Address — 403 3RD AVE N , EDMONDS, WA 98020 —� Parties -_For changes use -utner r_r_o_p__e_r_cy uacamenu _ i --------......._..._._.__._....._....__..._...__.—_.._..---....---- --.......__..................._........------......._.__.—..__—_....__.......__._—._....._: Role , 1 Percent Name Mailing Address J Taxpayer —�i100 PARKER HELENA R 403 3RD AVE N, EDMONDS, WA 98026 Owner ; 100 PARKER HELENA R 1403 3RD AVE N, EDMONDS, WA 98026 ___...._....._.._..........------__... _._.................................... __........ __........... -----_........... .._--_.._7 Pro erty Characteristics Use Code 141 Single Family Residence Condom(nlum Detached -—...._..._..... _......-- .......... -- ....—__..__.._..._...........__._......................_........------..........—.__...._..............—_.......................... .........__.............__....— ._._._....__._..__._..._.._.... _._....__, Related Properties No Values Found i -....._.__....._......._.__...__.._.._.... —._...._....... ----- — ---- ._._...........--.._—..._._......._......---_-__.......---...-_-.----...........— ._....._...... -- ----._.._........_.._.._—...._._.__... .... - -- .._.......--...... -v ctive Exemptions __ ' No Exemptions Found __...-------- ...._...------........._....... .._.__-....__...-----._._................ - ----.....-----------......--- ._......._.—.__..._..---- .....---._....._...._..__..._----------- -____ ..... -...__.._1__-----..- ---_._......._. Interest and Penalty are due if paying after due date since web is available regardless of holidays or weekends. eCheck and Credit Card payments require interest and penalty after due dates. If unable to make payment by due date because of site maintenance; payment must be postmarked by the next business day per RCW 1.12.070. If you wish to pay taxes online, select an option and click "Add To Payment List". , If property is in "Foreclosure" - call 425.388.3236 for current total. If Special Assessments (not Surface Water, Soil, Forest Fire) - call 425.388.3750 for payoff totals. Make Check/Money Order to "Snohomish County Treasurer". Send to Snohomish County Treasurer, 3000 j Rockefeller Ave, M/S 501, Everett, WA 98201 ____ ... ---........... ......---._.....-------...__.._...._...._.....---._.........._..... ...........--................. ........... ........... _..... _..... -........... -------.........._.......-------._..._...__._._...--.....-..._.._._..---._._........... -- Installments__Payable. -........._..__..... .............. ................ ..._..._...........-- 'P ;-_...._...--------.._...__...............__._.._........._.__.._.._..—................._..__._..__.._................--....._._.............._....._.._.__....__.. ......._......— !Tax Year Installment Due Date Princi al Interest, Penalties and Costs Total Due Cumulative Due Select to Pay 2013 1 04/30/2013 2,080.73 0.00 2,080.73 2,080.73 4 j ` 0.00 2,080.73 4,161.46 2013 2 10/31/2013 2,080.73i Add To Payment List j View Detailed Statement Detailed Information about taxes and all other charges displayed above. Calculate Future Payoff Taxes, interest and penalty due on a specific future date. Statement of Payable/Paid For Tax Year: 2013 Distribution of Current Taxes_ — District Rate Amountl 0.18 63.081 CITY OF EDMONDS ___ ___—._._..._.............._--__......_............_......._...._.—_.__..... CITY OF EDMONDS .....---..........---...._._....---------._..........---r 2.26 —_..._._.....--...__.._.........._.....1 807.35,i 1,775.76j EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 15 — T �— 0.12 42.951 PORT OF EDMONDS 0.11 40.63i PUB HOSP #2 SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY _.._.........._9 _50. ___.....__._._....___....._.—_.178.50 384.53(( SNOHOMISH COUNTY-CNT _ ___— _1.08 -- STATE — -- --- ——__�_--_— 2.43 868.66I -- 11.66 TOTALS — ---- -------------- — — -- - — -- — --_-4,161.461 --------------------------------- 3ending Property Values......—.._-.-- ---------------.......... — M— ......... ----......_.....-------- - .— ---...... __.......-.-.------*----....__..... -...-- ......_.. Pending Tax Year Market Land ValueiMarket Improvement Value arket Total Value,Current Use Land Value=Current Use Improvement Current Use Total Value; i3ropertV Values Tax Year Tax Year Tax Year Tax Year Tax Yeari Value Type 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009� Taxable Value Regular — — __357,000 343,300 424,500 _-- 365,100 — 356,100y Exemption Amount Regular __............_..__._—_-...__. ___._._. _ ... _................ ..........._....__..._..._._...._._-_____—.... .... _..._........—.._____...-_._...._._ ............._...__......_._........_._........._.__.__—._---......_I htt gFv gp6%6)rg/proptax/(fkohso55pofvhtgjlrcae245)/search.aspx?pareel_number--00... 4/5/2013 U b R E aXEUVED APR 2 3 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER �,,sgn(�jpA.qr http , &/(Putput/Assessor_pmz-arcims285249082723jpg 4/5/2013 i/�Ai 0 g/docs/sas/photos/0090/00906200000200R01I jpg 4/5/2013 rroperty ,3ur111nary 1 "6%+ 1 Vl L a Dnline Governmont information & Sorvices Washington Printable Version Home Other property Data Help ___- Property Search > Search Results > Property Summary Property Account Summary _ -- . _.._- Parcel Number (00906200000200 Property Address 405 3RD AVE N , EDMONDS, WA 98020 3111 J Parties -For changes use 'Other Property Data' menu_ -anti__._.-_-'----.. an ...... ....__.._._..... .........___-_----'_----._-_..---�----._.__.._.........__..__._...... _._._-.__._--�...................-.._-__-....._....__...___....-.._...._-_.._..__._......-�----..__--i Role Percent Name Mailing Address Taxpayer 100 LONGMIRE HATTIE/SHUBIC JACK . 140260 SKUNK BAY RD NE, HANSVILLE, WA 98340 Owner 100 LONGMIRE HATTIE & SHUBIC JACK 140260 SKUNK BAY RD NE, HANSVILLE, WA 98340 General Information -- ...---.... _._..._... -......_..-----.._..__-T_.__._..._._...- --'_------------.._......... --.._.......__..._..__..._... ---- ----- - -._...._....-__....................._.-......... --- -----.........._-...._. Property Section 24 Township 27 Range 03 403 3RD AVE CONDOMINIUM UNIT B TGW ASSIGNED PARKING AND A 1/2 INT IN COMMON AREAS & Description FACS AS DESC IN DECL REC AFN 200002290063 AMENDED PER AFN 200202015004 &200202011181 Property Land and Improvements Category..__ ........... _.... .... Status Active, Locally Assessed Tax Code Area 00210------ Property Characteristics --- Use Code 141 Single ...F.. ... mily Residence Condominium Detached RelatedProperties---......----.....------------.....__._....-----..........._._..............__----._.._.........._...._...._.....---.—_...----....._............_.._.................._..._._..._._.__...._..-_._-_._._.._-..-..._....___I - — .......__........_..._.-..._.......... . ...........-----.............. - ..__._...._.__..._.. ' -.._....__......._..._.._.__.....-._...._.__._...__... ............. --- ._....._.. -- -- -- _...._...._..--- -� ry- eexemptions.... -......._-_..........._-......_T.- ....... _...................--...._._........_.__._..._................ _..._---'------.............._.... ...... ..... _...._..... _ .......... _......... -.---..-..---....... _......... _.... , FA Exemptions Faund i _ _ ....... _... --------- _ ...____. _...... --- ................ . - --- .......... .__..------ ... __.....- _-- ..... -..... Interest and Penalty are due if paying after due date since web is available regardless of holidays or weekends. eCheck and Credit Card payments require interest and penalty after due dates. If unable to make payment by due date because of site maintenance; payment must 1 be postmarked by the next business day per RCW 1.12.070. If you wish to pay taxes online, select an option and click "Add To Payment List". If property is in "Foreclosure" - call 425.388.3236 for current total. If Special Assessments (not Surface Water, Soil, Forest Fire) - call 425.388.3750 for payoff totals. Make Check/Money Order to "Snohomish County Treasurer". Send to Snohomish County Treasurer, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, M/S 501, Everett, WA 98201 -- ---........ .............. ---.... ........ -.......... .__._...._.....--- ---- -- -----.........._........ - - --..__...... .... ....... ...__..__.._-_..._....._....-----.._...---...._-_._........... ------ ....-- ..... ?Installments Payable__......... _-.. _._.. .. -._................_........----............q........._..._.........._.._........_-_...._...._....................._._._._-....._-_...__...._......_........._.............._-. __._...._._..... _......._._.....__._._....._..'--- ITax Year Installment Due Date Principal! Interest, Penalties and Costs Total Due Cumulative Due Select to Pay j €2013 1 04/30/2013 2,630.34' 0.00 2,630.34 2,630.34 u i 12013 2 10/31/2013 2,630.35i 0.00 2,630.35 5,_60.69 --------- -- .._..._.....---......._..._.......__...--__....._....._-- - --- L--- -- - - ----._........---------..._.__ ........--...----....._..._....-......--...._._........- ......_.. - - ..._... ...--......_....__.. Add To Payment List I i View Detailed Statement Detailed Information about taxes and all other charges displayed above. Calculate Future Payoff Taxes, interest and penalty due on a specific future date. Statement of Payable/Paid For Tax Year: 2013 Distribution of Current Taxes i I Rate Amount; District 0.18 �- --, CITY OF EDMONDS ..................... -'---..............._._..__.... .........--._...._.__.._-.................._......... ---- ....._..._..-' - i-- ...._._._._.._... 26 ------.._...-..... ._-. CITY OF EDMONDS 4.97 T_ 4.97 2,244,83, 2,244.831 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 15 0.12 _ 54.30` PORT OF EDMONDS ---__ ; 0.11 51.37� PUB HOSP #2 0.50 225.65i SNO-ISLE INTERCOUNTY RURAL LIBRARY - ._............... __............_._................_..._...._.......__..._.........-_._....................-----._........_......_._ -_._....--- _._._..... '-? '- - -- _..._ _....... -..................._............ - ---' 486.10i SNOHOMISH COUNTY-CNT _ - _-__-': - - 2,43 1,098.081 STATE ------- - 1 11,66 - 5,260.6911 TOTALS �renum$) rruyn�ay vans_c3...........--__....----_........... ............... _.."_..-_...._._.__......__. ..... ....----....._....t__--_...._..--- .....--- .._----._.._.....-?----_....... . �Pendino Tax YearjMarket Land Value;Market Improvement Value1Market Total ValuelCurrent Use Land Value;Currennt Use Improvement`:. Current Use Total Value; ht*AVg W3§*gp&org/proptax/(xubkgt45wkxxmf45eznlcjmvn)/Search.aspx 4/5/2013 OF EL)4 N 0�o Parker Rezone n 403/405 3rd Ave. N 1 inch = 200 feet PLN20130030 Attachment 2 PLN20130030 Packet Page 325 of 660 RS-6 RM-3, i C� OF 4p� Parker Rezone 403/405 3rd Ave. N PLN20130030 RS-6 - �, Q' L 1 inch = 200 feet :E Attachment 3 PLN20130030 Packet Page 326 of 660 Site �` J� 4�p J_ ML i Multi-family Downtown Mixed ®eF Cou#rraercial ov Ev4' AIO�O Parker Rezone 403/405 3rd Ave. M PLN20130030 Q- L Single Faunal y Urban I Q' Q ' SAT ST -Z _W Comprehensive Plan, 2011 1 inch = 200 feet T Attachment 4 PLN20130030 Packet Page 327 of 660 403 3RD AVENUE CONDOMINIUM _3�aL 1/4. NW 1/4, SEC. 24, TWN. 27N, RGE. 3E, W.M. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON C & C SURVEYING FIRST AMENDMENT a t� '.s,, ..g.•• 45C9243id Fkce S.W. t1oieakeT6race, WA ��.-07J (425)673-7502 (206)523-1654 � UNIT NO. AREA BO FT NOTE R 39A2.5 ALL LA ITSCA16ED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SET FOR THIN THE DECLARATION. ORIlINTAI UNIT E—ARIEE ARE AS SHORN BY SOLI. LINES A. ARE PLANES IN SPACE. 2. PTICAL UNIT a OARIEE ARE PLANES INS um ARE FROM THE THE CENTER OF THE EARTH TO THE HEAVENS ABOVE. 3. SOVARE FGGTAGE OF EACH UNIT IS BASED OH THE AREA WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL BWNDARIES. ALLEY -- 90..09 2NO AVE NORTH .TISITIEB EASEMENT PE PLAT H T T AOOTTi0.N HE •SE UN Ia T6T WEHIOIAW -AE—tG 60.02 - SO G I - 2O AO �0 UNIT A AB>9.B BB FT G 3RD AVE. NORTH -7 rtrPT - 9E2.29 Imo``, APR 2 D 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER SHT 2 OF 2 Attachment 5 PLN20130030 Packet Page 328 of 660 City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Helena R Parker 403 3`d Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEOVEL'' t Re: Rezone Application, 403 3`d Ave N & 405 3`d Ave N In reference to the above mentioned properties, I am requesting a rezone from RM-3 to RM-2.4. Below I have addressed the subjects requested in the rezone application (P61). Criteria 1. Comprehensive Plan: Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The rezone request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan designation for the property is Multifamily Medium Density which permits both RM-3 and RM-2.4 zoning. The request is for RM-2.4 zoning. 2. Zoning Ordinance: Is the proposal consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the proposed zone district? The purpose of the RM zone is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. The proposal would provide additional housing on this site by providing an additional unit within the existing structure. The exterior of the structure will not be modified so it will still be maintaining a residential environment. Changing the zoning, from RM-3 to RM-2.4 will allow this modification to occur. 3. Surrounding Area: What is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and nearby property? This is a transitional property, with Downtown Mixed Residential Zoning literally right next door, and Downtown Mixed Commercial and Downtown Arts Corridor Zoning and the Arts Center less than a block away. To the north is RS-6 zoning. 4. Change: Has there been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone? The Downtown Waterfront Activities Center section of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan defines the Arts Center Corridor as an area where uses supporting the Arts Center should be encouraged. This is an important change in City policy in an area that abuts the subject property. Over the past 10 years, the area has become more diverse with formerly single Attachment 6 PLN20130030 Packet Page 329 of 660 family homes being transformed to live/work spaces, such as counseling and legal offices, and a beauty salon within the same block. 5. Suitability: Is the property economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning? The current structures are suitable for the existing use. It will not be necessary to alter the existing structures to add another housing unit; it can be accomplished within the current footprint and building height. Parking can be provided on -site in accord with the requirements. 6. Value: What is the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare (the public interest) compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners? The public interest will be served with the addition of an additional housing unit which will provide an option to a single family home for someone who wants to live close to the downtown but not in a typical multifamily structure. Since there will be no modification to the exterior of the structure and parking will be provided on -site, it is unlikely that the neighboring property values will be affected. Please use the following contact information when referencing this rezone: Helena Parker, Property Owner 206-784-7105 hellenarae@comcast.net Steven Cohn, Planning Consultant 206-789-0447 smcohn@speakeasy.net Thank You, Helena Parker, owner Packet Page 330 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 e Fax: 425.771.0221,o Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT e PLANNING DIVISION `4C. 1$9' May 21, 2013 Steve Cohn smcohn@speakeasy.net Subject: Letter of complete application, site -specific rezone at 403 3rd Avenue North File: PLN20130030 Dear Mr. Cohn, The City of Edmonds has reviewed your application for a site -specific rezone at 403 3rd Avenue North. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.02.002, the application has been determined to meet the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete; please accept this letter as the City's completeness notice in accordance with ECDC 20.02.003. The City will proceed with the public notice portion of the project and issue a SEPA determination as required by Chapter 20.03 of the ECDC. If you have any questions, please let me know either at 425-771-0220 or michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, Al Associate Planner Attachment 7 PLN20130030 Packet Page 331 of 660 oe Notice f Application and SEPA Determination PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicants propose to rezone a parcel addressed as 403 & 405 3rd Avenue North. There are two condominium units currently on the parcel which was rezoned in 1998 (PLN19980207) from Sin- gle -Family Residential (RS-6) to Multiple Residential (RM-3.0) with contract limitations. The current proposal seeks to rezone the parcel as Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) without contract limitations. Rezones are Type IV-B decisions where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. NAME OF APPLICANTS: Helena Parker; Jack Shubic and Hattie Longmire PROJECT LOCATION: 403 & 405 3rd Ave. North (Tax ID #s: 00906200000100 & 00906200000200) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 18, 2013 Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and partici- pate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Division be- tween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. only on Wednesdays) or online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link (search for permit PLN20130030). SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project requires SEPA review because it did not qualify for a categorical exemption under WAC 197-11-800. DATE OF ISSUANCE: June 4, 2013 SEPA COMMENTS: June /,12013. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 5th Ave- nue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below. SEPA APPEAL: To appeal this determination, submit a written request citing specific reasons for the appeal together with the re- quired fee no later than 4 p.m. on June/, 2013. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Project Planner: Mike Clugston michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov Packet Page 332 of 660 FILE NO.: PLN20130030 APPLICANT: PARKER DECLARATION OF APPLICATION AND SEPA DETERMINATION U4JUILIG On the 4th day of June, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 4th day of June, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: i {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Page 333 of 660 - • 1 11 1 �111103!pj I Isle. M_ 07-e]aZel��10 [�J On the 4th day of June, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and Determination of Nonsignificance was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 4th day of June, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Sig nedid A� Packet Page 334 of 660 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I S.S. Packet Page 335 of 660 r91 Notice of Public Hearing PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicants propose to rezone a parcel addressed as 403 & 405 3rd Ave- nue North. There are two condominium units currently on the parcel which was rezoned in 1998 (PLN19980207) from Single -Family Residential (RS-6) to Multiple Residential (RM-3.0) with contract limita- tions. The current proposal seeks to rezone the parcel as Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) without contract limi- tations. Rezones are Type IV-B decisions where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a rec- ommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. NAME OF APPLICANTS: Helena Parker; Jack Shubic and Hattie Longmire PROJECT LOCATION: 403 & 405 3rd Ave. North (Tax ID #s: 00906200000100 & 00906200000200) Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Planning Divi- sion between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. only on Wednesdays) or online through the city's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link (search for permit PLN20130030). City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Project Planner: Mike Clugston michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov Packet Page 336 of 660 FILE NO.: PLN20130030 APPLICANT: PARKER On the 12th day of June 2013, the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above - referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of June, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: hA, U-,k � "A {BFP747887.D0C;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Page 337 of 660 On the 12th day of June, 2013, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of June, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Sig ned:'A�Vxjr�L/t::� D Packet Page 338 of 660 STATE OF WASHINGTONI COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH 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 Notice of Planning Board Hearing June 26, 2013 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: June 12, 2013 q and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of June, 2013 Ota, , j L Notary Public in and for the State of County. Account Number: 101416 12th sidt g at Everett;'Sd cn PUBLIC p 2-17-2016 823561 Packet Page 339 of 660 m m 0 0 N qz CD \® wNw, W qry "/ iq®eg LO T— L 0R.p� ^0, `V V. \ cf)� 0 —1 m C) M n � d W � 0 d Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. NO gnature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this tday of E'g�0 �tt�aaaa Aye, �hr,r i+061t xYA5`�6atw`�a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at o Revised on 9130111 Packet Page 341 of 660 P2: Adjacent Property Owners List. doc Page 2 of 2 00434202600102 1/30/2013 00396200000400 1/30/2013 00396200000600 1/30/2013 EM WIL.COXON TRUST or RESIDENT MELLOR STEPHANIE or RESIDENT BALAS JENNIFER M or RESIDENT PO BOX 53290 300 2ND AVE N NO 1 E 602 2ND AVE N BELLEVUE, WA 98015 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00396200000800 1/30/2013 00396200000900 1/30/2013 00396200001100 1/30/2013 PARKS ANDERSON/ADELE or RESIDENT ESTRADA RICHARD L or RESIDENT CHIAPPA MURIEL J or RESIDENT 300 2ND AVE N #2A 300 2ND AVE N APT 2-B 300 2ND AVE N #2D EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00396200001500 1/30/2013 00396200001700 1/30/2013 00396200001800 1/30/2013 MIRZA ALI & ANNA or RESIDENT RIPLEY CAROL L or RESIDENT TAYLOR WILLIAM L or RESIDENT PO BOX 816 300 2ND AVE N 3B 300 2ND AVE N #3C EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00396200001900 1/30/2013 00396200002000 1/30/2013 00396200002100 1/30/2013 STEWART VIRGINIA S or RESIDENT KNEELAND GAYLE or RESIDENT MAISH DIANNA or RESIDENT 300 2ND AVENUE NORTH #3-D 300 2ND AVE N #3E 300 2ND AVE NORTH UNIT 3F EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00396200002300 1/30/2013 00434202600900 1/30/2013 00434202600901 1/30/2013 MOLLOY BILUJOHANNA or RESIDENT PHILLIPS JEFFREY & VIC or RESIDENT PHILLIPS JE REY & VIC or RESIDENT 300 2ND AVE N UNIT #3H 301 4TH AVE N 301 4TH • VE N EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434211903500 1/30/2013 00592200000200 1/30/2013 00592200000500 1/30/2013 HENRY VINCENT UARMOUR or RESIDENT MIDDLETON JAMES K or RESIDENT STRETCH GENE D or RESIDENT 315 DALEY ST 417 2ND AVE N 402 2ND N EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00592200000600 1/30/2013 00592200000700 1/30/2013 00592200000800 1/30/2013 MALONEY SHIRLEY or RESIDENT LORJAY INVESTMENTS LLC or RESIDENT KENSEL W HUDSON or RESIDENT 406 2ND AVENUE NORTH PO BOX 504 414 2ND AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00592200000900 1/30/2013 00592200001700 1/30/2013 00835500010100 1/30/2013 CARAKER AUDREY or RESIDENT SAVERY WINIFRED L or RESIDENT HEGGEN DOROTHY C or RESIDENT 418 2ND AVE N 411 3RD AVE N 323 3RD AVE N # 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00835500010200 1/30/2013 00835500010400 1/30/2013 00835500020400 1/30/2013 BAUSERMAN E I TH or RESIDENT GOODLETT FERN V or RESIDENT PEPIN EDWARD V or RESIDENT 32 #102 323 3RD AVE N #-104 323 3RD AVE N #204 ED S, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 27032300100600 1/30/2013 27032300100800 1/30/2013 27032300100900 1/30/2013 WASSALL FAMILY LIVING or RESIDENT ZAHNOW ALVIN D or RESIDENT THORNE DONALD L or RESIDENT 342 SUNSET AVENUE 923 MAPLE ST 332 SUNSET AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 Packet Page 342 of 660 27032300101700 1/30/2013 27032300101800 1/30/2013 27032300102000 1/30/2013 HIRSTAUDREY M or RESIDENT OSLIN ERIC R or RESIDENT GILBERT CONSTRUCTION L or RESIDENT 115 EDMONDS STREET 121 EDMNDS ST 23415 TIMBERLANE EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WOODWAY, WA 98020 27032400207000 1/30/2013 27032400207100 1/30/2013 00835500020100 1/30/2013 LOVEALL JAMES D/KRISTI or RESIDENT EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILIT or RESIDENT ERVICK DIXIE M or RESIDENT 428 3RD AVE N 121 5TH AVE N 1414 9TH AVE N UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-2654 27032300101900 1/30/2013 00592200000100 1/30/2013 00592200000400 1/30/2013 FIELDS MICHAEL R or RESIDENT MAGNUSON WILLARD 0 & M or RESIDENT BURDETT EARLEEN L or RESIDENT 327 2ND AVE N 423 2ND AVE N 403 2ND AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-3104 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3105 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3105 00592200001000 1/30/2013 27032300101600 1/30/2013 00434211903800 1/30/2013 HOLMBERG JOHN JR or RESIDENT KETZEL GAYLE J or RESIDENT STEWART LANCE or RESIDENT 422 2ND AVE N 401 2ND AVE N 408 3RD AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-3105 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3105 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3111 00592200001400 1/30/2013 00592200001500 1/30/2013 27032400206700 1/30/2013 SMITH VERA LAVADA or RESIDENT MARTINI SUSANNA L or RESIDENT RAY KATHLEEN or RESIDENT 423 3RD AVE N 419 3RD AVE N 434 3RD AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-3111 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3111 EDMONDS, WA 98020-311.1 27032400206900 1/30/2013 27032400208700 1/30/2013 00396200000100 1/30/2013 SHULER MARK J & MAURI or RESIDENT EDMONDS CI OF or RESIDENT HEISEY CHESTER R or RESIDENT 417 4TH AVE N 250 5TH fj. E N 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 1A EDMONDS, WA 98020-3119 EDMOS, WA 98020-3146 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 00396200000200 1/30/2013 00396200000300 1/30/2013 00396200000500 1/30/2013 JONG HAZEL or RESIDENT JOHNSON LAVONNE W or RESIDENT MURPHY KATHERINE E/JAM or RESIDENT 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 1 B 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 1 C 300 2ND'AVE N UNIT 1 F EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 00396200000700 1/30/2013 00396200001000 1/30/2013 00396200001200 1/30/2013 THOMSON WALTER W JR or RESIDENT READ MARGARET or RESIDENT FOS�MOLLYAIDENT 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 1 H 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 2C 30 2E EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 ED,0 3152 00396200001600 1/30/2013 00396200002200 1/30/2013 00835500020200 1/30/2013 TAVOULARIS LEE P & PAM or RESIDENT KIRBY BONNIE or RESIDENT RICHARDS GISELA or RESIDENT 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 3A 300 2ND AVE N UNIT 3G 323 3RD AVE N UNIT 202 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3152 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3188 00835500020300 1/30/2013 00592200000300 1/30/2013 00906200000100 1/30/2013 DRACOBLY FRED & DONNA or RESIDENT ZAHNOW ALVIN D & ESTHE or RESIDENT PARKER HELENA R or RESIDENT 323 3RD AVE N UNIT 203 923 MAPLE ST 403 3RD AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98020-3188 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3330 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Page 343 of 660 27032400206800 1/30/2013 00592200001600 1/30/2013 27032300102300 1/30/2013 ED GA,TESELVAIN LLC or RESIDENT LEMIEUX ADAM S & SUMME or RESIDENT ROSS JOSEPH C or RESIDENT 821'5 TALBOT RD 21719 84TH AVE W 6406 193RD ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026-7819 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 00434202600101 1/30/2013 PHILLIPS TRACY W or RESIDENT 3523 180TH PLACE S W LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 00434202600700 1130/2013 D'AGA/MGM or RESIDENT PO BOX 12 SEA E, WA 98111 f 00396200001400 1/30/2013 THOMAS FRED or RESIDENT 2128 NW 197TH SHORELINE, WA 98177 27032300100500 1/30/2013 HOVERTER M MICHELE TRU or RESIDENT PO BOX 2655 EVERETT, WA 98213 00906200000200 1/30/2013 OLSON CHRISTIAN A & SA or RESIDENT 3255 NE LINCOLN RD POULSBO, WA 98370 00396200001300 1/30/2013 COTTON MARY or RESIDENT 5917 166TH PL SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98037-8317 27032300102600 1/30/2013 D'AGA/MGM C or RESIDENT PO BO 812 SEA LE, WA 98111 00592200001800 1/30/2013 CHOI MARK J & YOUNG R or RESIDENT 19206 7TH PL NW SHORELINE, WA 98177 00434211903000 1/30/2013 MILHOLLAND JOHN L & JA or RESIDENT PO BOX 891 CLINTON, WA 98236 Steve Cohn 6535 Seaviewr Ave. NE #1128 Seattle, WA 98117 00434202600500 1/30/2013 D'AGA/MGM LLC or RESIDENT PO BOX 2812 SEATTLE, WA 98111 27032300102700 1/30/2013 D'AGA/Mor RESIDENT PO BOX 2 2 SE7 , WA GM LL 98111 27032300102100 1/30/2013 SNOHOMISH CO PROP MGMT or RESIDENT 3000 ROCKEFELLER AVE # 404 EVERETT, WA 98201 00835500010300 1/30/2013 JONES ROBERT H & NANCY or RESIDENT 128 AVENIDA DE ORO FRIDAY HARBOR, WA 98250 Jack 5hubic & Hattie LoNmire 405 3rd Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 344 of 660 3b. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A "CONTRACT REZONE" OF AN APPROXIMATELY 8,602 SQUARE FOOT LOT (.20 ACRES) FROM RS-6 TO RM-3 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SUBJECT SITE. THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE STIPULATES ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 403 3nn AVENUE NORTH (Applicant: Doug Herman / File No R 98 207) Contract Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers wished to make any disclosures. Councilmember Earling Rezone at advised his firm was the listing agent on behalf of Mr. Herman for the adjacent property 3-4 years ago os 3 Ave but did not feel this would impact his participation. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any challenges to the participation of any Councilmember. There were no challenges._ Planner Kate Galloway explained the applicant, Douglas Herman, submitted an application for a contract rezone for the property located at 403 3 `d Avenue North. The request is to upzone the property from single-family residential, one unit per 6,000 square feet, to multi -residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet, with the intent of constructing one additional single-family dwelling on the site that would be accessible from the alley. She advised this was reviewed by the Planning Board and a public hearing was held on April 28, 1999 (Exhibit 5). Following deliberation, the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezone on the basis of the conclusions listed in the Planning Advisory Report (pages 2-7 in Exhibit 2). She said the Planning Board found the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and although the character of the area has not changed significantly, the proposal would be consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Planning Board's recommendation, approve the contract rezone and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the zoning map. She advised a letter was received on May 13 from Agnes Beresford in opposition to this application. Ms. Galloway displayed a zoning map and identified the subject property and surrounding uses. She displayed a copy of the Comprehensive Plan designation, pointing out the multiple residential, high density designation. Mayor Fahey asked how a contract rezone affected the building setbacks and height restrictions. Ms. Galloway answered the current zoning would allow 5-foot, side setbacks;. 20-foot, front yard setback; and 15-foot, rear setback. The multifamily RM-3 zone allows a minimum setback of 15 feet, sideyard setback of 15 feet, rear setback of 15 feet, maximum height of 25 feet unless a modulated roof design is proposed, which would allow a maximum of 30 feet. She explained the maximum height in the existing zone is 25 feet. Applicant Douglas Herman, 403 3` Avenue N, Edmonds, clarified setbacks in the RM-3 zone are 5 on the side, 20 on the front and 15 for the rear. He said the RM-1.5 is 15 on the side and 15 on the rear and 25 on the front. He said the RM-3 zone gets the "benefit" of the RS-6 zone setbacks. He explained he did the project next door, a few on 3`d Avenue South, and several other houses in the City. He explained if the existing house was demolished, five houses could be constructed on this site. By using a contract rezone, the project will look like a detached duplex; the house in the rear will be new and the house in front will be remodeled to look similar to the house in the rear so that it looks like one project. The house on the rear portion is 261/2 feet high, 31/2 feet shorter than it could be. The house will be accessed from the alley and will create no more traffic than construction of a double car garage. He suggested the City consider creating a transition between high density and single family. Edmonds City Council A. Attachment 8 P LN20130030 Packet Page 345 of 660 Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience who wished to address the Council. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised he would prepare an ordinance -as well as a revised contract rezone - due to language changes that are necessary. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3245 DECLARING A ZONING MORATORIUM ON ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS Public Hear- Plannin Manager Rob Chave explained Ordinance No. 3248 was adopted on April 20, 1999 and ing, Zoning suspends, enforcement action that may be counter to the new regulations for a six-month period while Moratorium- the Council d6kberates the current animal regulations and provisions. A public hearing is required after the Council adop an interim zoning measure and no action is required other than taking testimony. City Attorney Scott Sn er explained the moratorium suspends current enforcement actions but does not undo any decisions or sta actions taken in the past. If the Council maintains the same regulations or enacts stricter regulations, en rcement actions will proceed. If different standards were adopted, those enforcement actions would cease t that time. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Henry Krist, 3 Park Place, Edmonds, exp ssed concern with the moratorium as it appears to have been put in place at Mr. Petosa's urging due to h' raising of chickens and turkeys. The Planning Board ruled against Mr. Petosa; he appealed their decisionand the original decision was upheld. Mr. Krist said last summer or fall, the problem was not merely with t\eh of fowl, although that has been illegal in Edmonds since the 1960's, but also the nuisance (odse) this was of concern to one neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholson. Mr. Krist said this has beenng problem for 6-9 months and now will be delayed further. He agreed with a moratorium on e of the number of domestic animals or household pets because three may be too few. Howectin appears to be a moratorium on the decision made against Mr. Petosa due to the nuisancey his rai 'ng of fowl in his yard. He said the packet materials indicate the moratorium does nouisances, e objected to another 60-day delay. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said Animal Control staff shobld be at the Council meeting to provide their recommendation. He was concerned the City was doing `a�,yay with animal control regulations and felt all processes in the City should be the same. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 1999 Page 4 Packet Page 346 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS - 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 TO: EDMOND PLANNING BOARD I, ug Kate Gailo ay./' Planner DATE: April 19, 1999 FILE: R-98-207 APRIL 28, l 999 AT 7:00 PM Edmonds City Hall Jr Floor Meeting-Roorn — "Great Room" 121 5`h Avenue North I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................:.................................. 2 A. Application............................................................................................. ................2 B. Decision.....................................................................................................................................................2 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 2 A. Site Decscription:....................................................::.::::............................................................................2 B. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA):...................................................................................................3 C. History: ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Complinance:............................................................3 E. Technical Committee: ................................................................................................................................ 5 F. Comprehensive Plan: ................................................................................................................................... 5 G. Public Comments: ...................................................................................................................................... 5 III. APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................7 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD..................................................................................................... 7 Packet Page 347 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 2 of 8 1. Applicant: Douglas J. Herman (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: The subject property is located at 403 P Avenue N (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: Application to rezone the subject property from Single -Family Residential (RS-6) with a density of one unit per 6,000 square feet to Multiple -Residential (RM-3) with a density of one unit per 3,000 square feet (see Attachments 2 and 3). The applicant has stated in the contract rezone that the intent is to construct a second dwelling unit on the site. 4. Review Process: Rezone - Planning Board conducts public hearing and issues a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 (REZONES). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend the Planning Board recommend approval of the applicant's request for a Contract Rezone for 403 P Avenue N from RS-6 to RM-3 to the City Council. 1 _ � lT.Yl7 3i 91�l711I:�►1 IYKl�s`[!1 Ilify [!]►!.`J A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (I) Land Use: The subject property is currently developed with a single- family residence. (2) Zonina: The subject site is currently zoned "RS-Single-Family Residential (RS-6)" (see Attachment 1). 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) North: The property is zoned "RS-Single-Family Residential (RS-6)" and is developed with a single-family residence (see Attachment 1). (2) . South: The property is zoned "Multiple Residential (RM-1.5),". and is developed with an eight -unit condominium. (see Attachment 1). (3) East: The area to the east is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6) and is developed with single-family residences (see Attachment 1). R-98-207. DOC 121-APR-99 REPORTS\STAFF REPORTS Packet Page 348 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 3 of 8 (4) West: The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-6) and is developed with a single-family residence (see Attachment 1). B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. a. Facts: (1) The Responsible SEPA Official issued a Determination of Non - significance on February 10, 1999. The Environmental Checklist and Determination are included as Attachments. (2) The appeal period for the Environmental Determination ended on February 25, 1999. No appeals were received. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. C. HISTORY 1. a. Fact: The property i`s within the original city boundaries, incorporated in 1890. b. Fact: The property is part of the Sunset Addition: the existing residence was built in 1955. D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Facts: The subject application is a request to rezone the subject property from the present "RS-6". to "RM-3." b. Facts- ECDC Section 20.40.010 states that at a minimum the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: (1) Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive PIa; and, (2) Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the proposed I one district; and, (3) The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (4) Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; and, (5) Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and, (6) The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property. R-98-20T DOCU I -APR-99 REPORMSTAFRREPORTS Packet Page 349 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 4 of 8 2. Analysis: a. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Concept Plan illustrates the subject property on the boundary between "Single -Family - Small Lot" and Multi -Family - High Density." b. The "Single -Family — Small Lot" designation is comparable to the RS-6 and RS- 8 zone classifications and the "Multi -Family — High Density" designation is comparable to the RM-1.5 and RM-2.4 zones classifications. C. The primary purpose of the Single -Family Residential zones is to reserve and regulate areas for family living in single-family dwellings. The purpose of the Multiple Residential zones is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types with a greater range of densities than available in the Single - Family Residential zones. d. As stated in section II.A.2 of this report, the subject property is adjacent to property zoned RM-1.5 to the south and RS-6 to the north. 3. Conclusions: a. The subject site is situated in the boundary between two Comprehensive Plan Conceptual Map boundaries. The proposed zone designation would create a transition between the maximum density multi -family zone and the single-family homes to the north, east and west. b. The proposed contract rezone is consistent with many of the residential goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed contract rezone is also consistent with the purposes of both the Single -Family Residential and Multiple Residential zones. The -contract specifically states that a second single-family dwelling will be constructed if the rezone is approved. d. The proposed RM-3 zone would allow a density halfway between the existing zone and maximum density allowed within those areas designated "Multi -Family — High Density" on the Comprehensive Concept Map. e. The City has regularly been approving short plat applications that allow for infill development. The subject application would provide the opportunity for an additional dwelling unit on an existing parcel within the City. The City has also changed over the past 10 years with the conversion of many single-family residences into larger condominium complexes throughout the downtown area, commonly referred to as the Bowl. f. Under the current zone designation only one single-family residence is permitted, however, if the applicant had proposed the property be rezoned to RM-1.5 the site could be developed with five multiple residential units. The RM-3 zone would create a transition between the maximum density for the multi -family zones and the maximum density for the single-family zone. The site is large enough to comfortably accommodate a second dwelling unit. g. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare is minimal in comparison to the potential adverse impacts to the adjacent properties sharing the alley for primary access. The applicant has stated that the proposed second dwelling unit would access from the alley. The impact to property value is R-98-207. D0021-APR-99 REPORMSTAFRREPORTS Packet Page 350 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 5 of 8 difficult to determine as the site is currently located on a Minor Arterial — Type 2, as defined in the Transportation Element. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Facts: a. The proposed project has been reviewed and evaluated by the Public Works Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Engineering Division, and the Fire Department. b. The Parks and Recreation Department commented that street tree plantings should to be continued on Yd Avenue. c. The Engineering Division has no comments regarding the proposed rezone, however, reserves the right to comment on subsequent permit submittals for the site. Future requirements will include: on -site vehicular turnaround and a storm water detention facility if over 2,000 square feet of area is made impervious. d. The Fire Department will require additional information regarding the alley with subsequent permit applications for the site. e. No comments were received by the Public Works Department. F< COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Facts: a. The subject property is on the boundary of the "Single -Family Residential Small Lot " and the "Multi -Family High Density" Conceptual Land Use designations. b. Specific goals and policies for residential development are contained on pages 30 through 32 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. These include: (1) Goal B: High quality residential development which is appropriate to the . diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. (2) Policy B.3: Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. (3) Policy BA: Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. (4) Policy B.5: Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: (a) Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. (b) Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. (c) Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. R-98-207.130021-APR-99 REPORTS\STAFFT EPORTS Packet Page 351 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 6 of 8 (d) Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. (5) Goal C: A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents. (6) Policy C.2: Multiple: The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. (a) RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets- (b) RM development should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. (c) The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone expect where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. (d) The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. 2. Conclusions: - - a. Although the Comprehensive Plan Conceptual Map does not designation the site as Multi -Family Medium Density, would require the RM-3 zone classification. The site is currently a transition parcel between the single family high density and multi -family high density. The proposed RM-3 zone, as specified in the contract, would be appropriate.to increase density on the site while preserving the single family residences to the north, east and west. b. The application is consistent with several of the goals "and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to: (1) The proposed contract rezone restricts the maximum density and height of future development on the site, compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. (2) The proposed contract rezone also includes the retention of an existing residence while providing the opportunity for another single family residence. (3) The subject contract rezone would allow for a greater density on the site, but will not the maximum density allowed by the zoning that is consistent with Conceptual Map designation of Multi -Family High Density. High density development of the site would be create a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood, however, the addition of a single-family residence, as proposed, should be minimal. (4) The subject property is located on a minor arterial. R-98-207. D0021-APR-99 REPORTS\STAFF\R EPORTS Packet Page 352 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 7 of 8 (5) The subsequent residence is similar in form, design, and height to the existing residences surrounding the subject site. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Letter received by Frances Blasko in opposition of the proposed rezone because it could negatively impact parking and she would like it to remain single-family. 2. Letter received by G.D. and Sylvia Stretch in opposition of the proposed rezone for the following reasons: a. The future development of the subject site would negatively impact their property with the loss of privacy. b. The value of their property could be negatively impacted. c. Concerned that approval of the rezone increase the development of condominiums into their neighborhood. 3. Letter submitted by Ed Pepin in opposition of the rezone because the traffic which would access the second unit on the site would be through the alley which is already heavily congested. 4. Staff response: The Engineering Division will allow primary access to the future residence from the alley. The applicant has illustrated that the proposed residence, resulting from the rezone, will include a two car garage. The addition of a single family residence should.not negatively impact the existing alley. As stated earlier in this report, it would be difficult to determine if the addition of one single-family residence would have a negative impact on the property value of surrounding residences. 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Concomitant Zoning Agreement —,- - 4. Environmental Determination 5. Environmental Checklist yjllff' : �$M 011CIJ-7 7 1. Mr. Douglas Herman 403 3`d Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 2. The City of Edmonds: Planning Division, Engineering Division, Fire Department, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Department. 3. Frances Blasko 323 3`d Avenue N, #102 Edmonds, WA 98020 4. G.D. and Sylvia Stretch 402 2nd Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 R-98-207. D0021-APR-99 REPORMSTAFRREPORTS Packet Page 353 of 660 Douglas Herman File No. R-98-207 Page 8 of 8 5. Ed Pepin 323 3rd Avenue N, #204 Edmonds, WA 98020 R-98-207. DOC\21-APR-99 R EPORTS\STAFF\R EPORTS Packet Page 354 of 660 0006.900000 WSS/aaf/gjz 05/21/99 R:6/14/99gjz ORDINANCE NO. 3259 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 403 3RD AVENUE NORTH WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COMM Q NLY KNOWN AS THE HERMAN REZONE, FILE NO. R8-207 FROM RS-6 (SINGLE FAMILY) TO RM-3 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Planning Board after a public hearing considering the amendment of the official zoning map of the City has made its findings and recommendations to approve such rezone, which were forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council after a public hearing and its review of the recommendations of the Planning Board, determines that the proposed amendment and Concomitant Zoning Agreement should be approved and for its findings and conclusions adopts the findings and conclusions of its Planning Board, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of certain real property, located at 403 - 3rd Avenue North, and -1- WSS233824.10 Attachment 9 PLN20130030 Packet Page 355 of 660 consisting of approximately 8,602 square feet (.20 acres) and described in File No. R-98-207, hereinafter described from RS-6 (single family residential) to RM-3 (multi -family residential), subject to the execution and recording of a Concomitant Zoning Agreement in substantially the form shown in Exhibit A hereto. The legal description of the property to be rezoned is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. The City Clerk and Planning Director are hereby authorized and instructed to effectuate the necessary amendments to the official zoning map to the City of Edmonds pursuant to this Ordinance. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest to a document entitled "Concomitant Zoning Agreement Submitted Pursuant to Application File R-98-207," attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The City Clerk is further directed to record said Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor as a covenant running with the land. The cost of such recordation shall be paid by the applicant property owner. Section 4. 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. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, BARBARA S. FAHEY -2- WSS233824.10 Packet Page 356 of 660 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : 16, CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THA CITY TTORNEY: W. SCOTT SNYDER, CIT TORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06/18/99 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/22/99 PUBLISHED: 06/29/99 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/04/99 -3- WSS233824.10 Packet Page 357 of 660 CONCOMITANT 1 SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO APPLICATION FILE 98 0- CITY OF 1• 1 S THIS AGREEMENT is made this date between Douglas J. Herman, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, the City, a non -charter code city under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63.RCW) and Article II, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has the authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, the Owner is owner of certain real property, hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property" located in the City and more particularly described as set forth herein, and WHEREAS, the Owner has applied for a change in the zoning classification of the Subject Property from Single Family Residential - 6,000 sq. ft. (RS-6) to Multi Family Residential - 3,000 sq. ft. (RM-3), and WHEREAS, the Owner voluntarily offered to limit the use of the property in the course of proposed development and has fully reviewed this contract incorporating the provisions of his offer of limitations, and WHEREAS, the City, through its City Attorney, has informed by this contract the Owners that certain of the limitations which he has proposed are beyond the authority of the City to enforce or require and, in certain instances the property owner, to fully implement, and the parties' desire to limit such offer and acceptance, only to lawful limitations authorized by state and federal law, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions hereafter contained, the Owner agrees that, in the event that the City reclassifies the property described herein from RS-6 to RM-3 and for so long as the property remains so classified, the Owner covenants and agrees to be bound by the terms, conditions and agreements set forth as follows: 1. Ownership. Owner is the owner of certain real property, hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property" situated in the City and legally described as set forth in, the attached Exhibit A.. 2. Limitation of Use. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code, as the same exists or may hereafter be amended or recodified, the Owner agrees to limit use of the subject property in the following respects: 2.1 The site development standards for RM-3 zoning shall be met, provided, however, that no more than two (2) residential units shall be permitted. In the event that the City 1 EXHIBIT A Packet Page 358 of 660 Ordinance shall at some future date be amended to reduce the number of units which may be constructed on the site below two (2) in number and the Owner has not vested his rights by fully completed building permit applications, such changes to city Ordinance shall be applicable to the subject property and no development right shall be deemed vested by this Agreement. 2.2 The primary permitted use of the Subject Property shall be detached single family dwellings. 2.3 Parking related to each unit shall be provided on -site. 2.4 Dwelling units constructed on the site shall meet the site development requirements of the RM zone, as stated in the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.30.030 (Site Development Standards). 2.5 The following uses shall not be permitted on site: 2.5.1 Community facilities. 2.5.2 Boarding houses and rooming houses. 2.5.3 Bus stops and shelters. 2.6 Recognizing the requirements of state and federal law under provisions such as the Fair Housing Act amendments, 42 U.S.C. 3-02 et. seq., as well as the provisions of RCW 70.128.175(2) and RCW 35A.63.215 and RCW 35.63.240, the Owner covenants in consultation with the applicable responsible officials of the state and federal government to enact by restrictive covenant only such limited restrictions on the commercial use of the property as may lawfully limit the use of the subject property for Family day care home, mini day care facilities, retirement homes, and group homes for the disabled uses. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to encourage the Owner to violate the provisions of the state or federal law nor that the City has induced the voluntary commitment of the Owner to enact limited lawful restrictions. The parties anticipate that any private covenant imposed upon the Subject Property, which limits its commercial use shall be developed in consultation with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and any other state or federal agencies under whose jurisdiction such covenants are regulated. In the event that the Owner or City are advised by a state or federal agency with jurisdiction that such provisions are in violation of the law in writing, this subparagraph 2.7 shall be null and void. 3. Amendment. Amendments to this Agreement may be made by the Owner or the City upon application filed in the same manner as a rezone application; provided, however., no application shall be made by the Owner or the City to amend this Agreement for a period of six (6) years from the date this Agreement is executed. Thereafter, either the Owner or the City may, upon application, apply to amend or terminate the provisions and covenants of the Agreement or to change the zoning on the subject property or any portion thereof. Such application shall be heard in the normal manner at appropriate public hearings as any other M Packet Page 359 of 660 application for the rezone of property in the City. 4. Permits. The City shall be under no obligation to issue to the Owner of its/his successors or assigns building permits, occupancy permits or other permits or approvals for improvements on or the use of the Subject Property unless such improvements or uses are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the applicable City Ordinances at the time of application for such permits or approval. As noted in Paragraph 2.6 above, certain provisions are limited by the provisions of state and federal law. Such laws shall be complied with at all times by the parties. 5. Run with Land. This Agreement, and each part of it, shall be considered a covenant running with the land covered hereby and shall be binding upon the Owner, its/his successors and assigns, and the City. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor and the Grantor/Grantee Index with the Owner being listed as Grantor and the City as Grantee. All costs of such recordation shall be paid by the Owner. Such recordation and payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the Owner exercising any rights under the terms of this Agreement. 6. Police Powers Unimpaired. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to restrict the authority of the City in the lawful exercise of its police powers. 7. Conflict. In the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term or clause of this Agreement conflicts with applicable law, such conflicts shall not affect other sections, paragraphs, sentences, terms or clauses of this Agreement which can be given effect without the conflicting provision and, to this end, the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to be severable. 8. Review on Conflict. In the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term or clause of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable law, the City shall have the right to bring the proposed development before the City Council for further review, and imposition of appropriate conditions to assure that the purposes for which this Agreement is entered into are in fact so accomplished. 9. Remedies. In addition to any remedies provided by law, the City or the Owner may, at its/his discretion, maintain a lawsuit to compel a specific performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement or to otherwise enforce its provisions through injunctive or other remedies, and which ever party prevails in such action, it shall be entitled to recover all costs of enforcement, including reasonable attorneys' fees by counsel of the parties' choosing. DATED this �9 day of . t A e- , 1999. 3 Packet Page 360 of 660 APPROVED: Barbara S. Fahey, Mayo ATTEST: Sandy C ase, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Doug s rman d- U, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that DouglasZ. Herman is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 6/21.j- S 11 nl.D 2 q 5 . C hf i1 °5 6- (print or type name) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: 9 ®MoND 5 W 4 My Commission expires: //• 9-® / WSS233992.1AGR/F0006.900000 In Packet Page 361 of 660 ON M II-111i Q a Sunset Addition to the City of Edmonds, Block 000 D-00, Lot 19. Tax Account Number: 5922-000-019-0003 Packet Page 362 of 660 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3259 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 22nd day of June, 1999, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3259. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 403 3RD AVENUE NORTH WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE HERMAN REZONE, FILE NO. R-28-207 FROM RS-6 (SINGLE FAMILY) TO RM-3 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AUTHORIZING . EXECUTION OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 23rd day of June, 1999. City Clerk, Sandra S. Chase ME WSS233824.10 I Packet Page 363 of 660 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOIAISH, 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. 3259 ................... •--.......... .......---......... ...--•-•.................... •.................................... ----•...... ____ .......... -...... ---------•---................. 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: June 29, 1999 ....................................................................................................................................•- .................•----------..-....--.......-..-...---...--..----.-.--....-------.---....-------------...........-----..-------....... and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. r................ ( Principal Clerk 29th Subscribed and sworn to before me this..-. ....................... ............ ..-.--.........-....., 19....9.9 ............ Notary Public In and for t e Stat of Washington, residing at Everett, Snoh mish C nty. r+°,aa er u a ao®® Al g S►ON NOTARY PUBLIC `C%��' B-2-) Packet Page 364 of 660 Drawing Index J B MINOGUE AIA (CONST. IN 1955) EXIST. BLOC. ROOF OUTLINE: 1,856 SjNC EXIST. DRIVEWAY: 495 S.FCONST. IN 1955)EXIST. PATIO: 112 S.FCONST. IN 1955)EXIST SIDEWALK: 88 S.F. ONST. IN 1955) HEIGHT CALCSPROPOSED ADDITION: 29 S.F. DD. ROOF AREA) 975' AVERAGE GRADE = 97.9' �PROPOSED fPROPOSED COVERED PORCH: 58 S.F. DD. ROOF AREA) 9T 25' HEIGHT LIA4IT = 122.9'P�rniOe'Of kuWG ro4ariac. APProvat LANDING 28 S.F.OVERED C 98.5' 4:12 ROOF 5' ADDITIONAL = 127.9' 115 S.F. INCREASE IPJ IMRVIOUS SURFACE D 98.5' TOTAL HEIGHT TO RIDGE = 126' . r« ' � a C_.h ft✓htb rockolm is Wchtww wkhn Bro City of Ed dt — ti _'tenL6e end N W t-4- eitueUom Per ECDC 18.40.020.' 13'-2 1/2" 36'-0" 20'-0* 28-3 1/2" 27'-6' DATUM POINT — '� P.L. 125 T.O. MANHOLE ' Ss — sS --��—- A W W— W Z W -iW 5' ETBA 97.5' ------ , METER VERIFY LOCATION Sal' E DOWNSPOUT D S B VERIFY LOCATION () ( � �) I � ro + I+97' NEW DOWNSPOUT (D.S.) SS `� I(E) PAVED DRIVEWAY ECK % ( DOWNSPOUTS TO REMAIN EXISTING AND BE)EXTENDED TO 1 1� SECOND FLOOR ROOF, NEW ALL[ XPGSEO SURFACES TO x DOWNSPOUTS TO BE ADDED AS eE ITgUFRED WITHIN 2 DAYS DOWNSPOUTS y I SHOWN - ALL I l I I I CONNECT TO (E) PERIMETER —1 FOOTING AND STORM (ST) I I x a I IRAN SYSTEM -PAVED DRIVEWAY IJ /iv I L m I ICI i — I EXISTING RESIDENCE — I N i'P (BUILDING #1) i> ffi w a o EXISTING RESIDENCE j (BUILDING #2) al I x z I TO RECEIVE 2nd "--' FLOOR ADDITION \ D NO CHANGES s [ x I I ;'s ' F FOOTPRINT: 1,440 S.F. FOOTPRINT: 1,621 S.F �� ����. ! w (INCL. 43 S.F. ADD010N) p 4'D X 8'W LANDING x x _ 0 \ N • I 1 0 'a I PROPOSED COVERED NEW DOWNSPOUT (D.S.) II PORCH LOWEST FOOTIN L = .5' I II PROPOSED ADDITION l I I (E) DOWNSPOUT (D.S.) L i [ VERIFY LOCATION is ST ST — (_I — I 5' SETBACK 1 + — 98.5 ST ST ST oz L---- ------------ — P.L. 128' 405 3rd AVE. N. 403 311AVE. N. 5' PRIVATE EASEMENT Site Plan SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" NORTH INFORMATION: LOT COVERAGE: ADDRESS: 403 3rd AVE. N. LOT AREA: 8,655 S.F. OWNER: HELENA PARKER LOT COVERAGE: 3,061 S.F. (35%) (206) 784-7105 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 24 TOWNSHIP 27 RANGE 03 403 3RD AVE CONDOMINIUM UNIT A TGW ASSIGNED PARKING AND A 1/2 INT IN COMMON AREAS & FACS AS DESC IN DECL REC AFN 200002290063 AMENDED PER AFN 200202015004 & 200202011181 A.P.N.: 00906200000100 A-1 SITE PLAN AND NOTES A-2 FIRST + SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-3 ROOF PLAN, NORTH + SOUTH ELEVATIONS A-4 EAST + WEST ELEVATIONS, DETAIL, + WINDOW SCHEDULE A-5 BUILDING SECTION S-1 STRUCTURAL NOTES S-2 FOUNDATION PLAN S-3 FRAMING PLANS S-4 SHEAR WALL PLANS 5-5 DETAILS Project Data BUILDING CODE: 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE ENERGY CODE: 2006 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE (RESIDENTIAL) MECHANICAL CODE: 2003 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE VENTILATION: 2006 CHAPTER 51-13 WAC VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY SQUARE FOOTAGES: FIRST FLOOR: 1,168 S.F. (EXISTING) FIRST FLOOR: 43 S.F. (ADDITION) SECOND FLOOR: 1,440 S.F. (ADDITION) TOTAL LIVING: 2,233 S.F. GARAGE: 410 S.F. (EXISTING) DECKS: 182 S.F. (ADDITION) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V—B OCCUPANCY: R-3 ZONING: RM-3 HEIGHT LIMIT: 25' Energy Code BASED ON OPTION IV PERSCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS GLAZING AREA % OF FLOOR: UNLIMITED GLAZING U—FACTOR VERTICAL: 0.35 OVERHEAD: 0.58 DOOR U—FACTOR 0.20 CEILING: R-38 VAULTED CEILING: R-30 APPROVED BY PLANNING ap,lzG; l� WALL ABOVE GRADE: R-21 WALL INT, BELOW GRADE: R-21 (err=3 _ COrncr clog—. WALL EXT. BELOW Setback, Rcmcted ..Actual GRADE: R-10 F—a _ 10 zo Skies FLOOR: R-30 Rzar Otter SLAB ON GRADE: R-10 Bi iehi 25"ri ( Ventilation + Indoor Air Quality Notes 1. HOUSE TO HAVE INTEGRATED DUCTED FORCED AIR HEATING SYSTEM THAT COMMUNICATES WITH ALL ROOMS. PER VENTILATION CODE SECTION 303.4.2 PERSCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERMITTENT WHOLE HOUSE VENTILATION INTEGRATED WITH A FORCED AIR SYSTEM 2. FRESH AIR TO BE DUCTED TO FURNACE RETURN AIR PLENUM WITH A DAMPER ALLOWING THE PROPER AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE AIR TO THE SYSTEM AND A CLOCK TIMER SET TO APPROPRIATE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS 11335 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98125 206 390 7910 canadal69@comcast.net Ptgett Parker Residence Remodel 403 3rd Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 24 HR. NOTICE REO. FOR If1SPE0ilON FOR Efk`� iNCimkP CPANADEEE V,NOTE(', 3V �nG!tiEc ?JG log Faaa REGISTERED C ITECT JOHN BW KII Mul- STATE OF %MSHINGTO`1 L90 Index, Notes, & Site Plan Date: 05-23-2007 Revisions. NO: DATE: DESCRIPTION: 1. 12-16-2007 PERMIT CORRECT104S sh-t STRFr-r rill A -A Attachment 10 PLN20130030 Packet Page 365 of 660 My CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS 12t .6TH AVENUE NO, EDMONDS, WA 98020 CONFORMED 200804141167 COPY PG 04114I2008 4:22 m $$42.00 SWAN COUNT�f , WASHINGTON STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: Edmonds, Washington Legal Description: &-V7M A:7 Assessor's Parcel Number: 000 00/ 00 t have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and understand that an accessory dwelling unit as defined in ECDC Section 21.05.015 is prohibited until an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit is approved, L`also understand that an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit cannot be approved unless all :the criteria in Chapter 20.21 are met, and all the necessary items are submitted, including :ah. idavit of occupancy and a covenant to be filed with the Snohomish County regarding the regulations imposed on Accessory Dwelling Units, Property Owner Signature: Property Owner Name (printed): Date: AP STATE. OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. �6s,}nust be smudged, Dated: :Notar�� s �\��SS�p�����i/ Signature of =� s -I A/)' otary Public; AS� Residing at; _ 62 Jill g.1 = ��' My Appointment F �G' Expires: THIS:DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH SNOHOMISH COU Attachment 11 P LN20130030 Packet Page.366 of 660 OV EDAj O CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 Fst. 18�� RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Description of proposal: The Applicants propose to rezone a parcel addressed as 403 & 405 3rd Avenue North. There are two condominium units currently on the parcel which was rezoned in 1998 (PLN19980207) from Single -Family Residential (RS-6) to Multiple Residential (RM-3.0) with contract limitations. The current proposal seeks to rezone the parcel as Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) without contract limitations. Rezones are Type IV-B decisions where the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. (File No. PLN20130030) Proponents: Helena Parker; Jack Shubic and Hattie Longmire Location of proposal, including street address if any: 403 & 506 3�d Avenue North Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21 C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by June 18, 2013. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 980201425-771-0220 Date: June 4, 2013 Signature: f 'ems XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than June 18, 2013 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the project planner to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on June 4, 2013 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(cDecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20130030. These materials are also available for viawinn of +ha Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 9802( Page 1 of 2 Attachment 12 PLN20130030 Mailed notice to the following: XX COMCAST Outside rlant Engineer, North Region 1525 75t St. SW Suite 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Jack Shubic and Hattie Longmire 405 3`d Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Steve Cohn 6535 Seaview Ave. NE, #1128 Seattle, WA 98117 cc: File No. / SEPA Notebook XX Snohomish County Health District Attn: Bruce Straughn 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98201-3900 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST -II W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 XX Heleng Parker 403 3` Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Betty Tobin Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Kojo Fordjour Department of Ferries Environmental Manager 2901 3`d Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3014 XX Kristin Kelly Snohomish Co/Skagit Co Program Director 1429 Avenue D, PMB 532 Snohomish, WA 98290 kristin@futurewise.org Page 2 of 2 OF ) DAI • APR 2 3 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Purpose of Checklist: COUNTER The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Parker 2. Name of applicant: Helena R Parker 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Edmonds WA 98020 4. Date checklist prepared: 411512013 5. Agency requesting checklist: QN o Edmonds Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 369 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page I of 25 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Rezone completed in 4 months (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None Known (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 370 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 25 I I 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. None (STAFF CO 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Rezone the site from RM3 to RM2.4• project site is 8654 sq ft; there is no intention to modify the exterior of the buildings (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 403 & 405 3Td Ave N Edmonds WA Unit A 403 3`d Ave N Edmonds WA a condominium according to the declaration thereof recorded under Snohomish County Recording # 2-00 and any amendments thereto,• said unit is located on survey map and plans recorded under recording n Snohomish County Washington Assessors Tax ID 00906200000100 lZ2C-t3fIP�A%� -� �®acoa2�9d U'G��j Unit B 408 3rd Ave N Edmonds WA a condominium according to the declaration thereof recorded under Snohomish County Recording # 20000229006-land any amendments thereto,• said unit is located on survey map and plans recorded under recording # 20 in Snohomish County Washington Assessors tax ID 00906200000200 (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 371 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 25 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? No Slope (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Clay, sand gravel (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 372 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS)_ e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None Proposed (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No change from current condition (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 373 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 374 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 375 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 7 of 25 (STAFF (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water flows into storm drains 9 (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 376 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 25 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 377 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 25 c.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None Proposed (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: X birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: X mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: racoons fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 378 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 10 of 25 C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. gas and electricity — no change from current use (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not proposing to change height of existing building (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 379 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page I of 25 C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None Proposed (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 380 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 12 of 25 b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Two residences on current site condo multi -family to the south; single family to the north; condo multi -family to the southwest; Single family across 3`d N to the east and to the west Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 381 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 13 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. 2 single family detached condominium homes (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RM 3 (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Multi family medium density Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 382 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 14 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Unit A-4 Unit B-2to4 (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 383 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 15 of 25 /:\ (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compliance with cityregulations (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Currently 2 units• with rezone 3 units on the site Middle (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 384 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 16 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? No changes are proposed to building A or B. Current height approx. 25ft Unit A — cement board exterior, Unit B — wood siding No change proposed (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No change from current situation (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 385 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 17 of 25 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENT C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMME d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Parks and schools ECA (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 386 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 18 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 387 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 19 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access point is 3rd Ave N for Unit A and Unit B has vehicle access via Edmonds street and into the alley (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes bus stops on third about a block north of the site (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 7 spaces - No change from existing (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 388 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 20 of 25 (STAFF COMME e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown likely no change to current situation (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 389 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 21 of 25 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No change (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Cable (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 390 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 22 of 25 C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature of Proponent Date Submitted I understand Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 391 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 23 of 25 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the prq©osal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No Change Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: N/A 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No Change - Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 392 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 24 of 25 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No buildings will be modified Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No change Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None necessary 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflict identified Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 393 of 660 Environmental Checklist Page 25 of 25 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.30.010 Chapter 16.30 ►l_M01 to 0 V I W 0 a r Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a vari- ety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-fam- ily residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 20071. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boardinghouses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); I S111C 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multiple -family buildings; 4. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 5. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in con- junction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsec- tion (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facili- ties; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums; Attachment 14 PLN20130030 Packet Page 395 of 660 16.30.020 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facili- ties as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the require- ments of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the require- ments of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Condi- tional Use Permit. Day-care facilities of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling structure operated primarily for the benefit of the resi- dents thereof; 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other fac- tors. These subdistricts shall be known as the RM-1.5, RM —Edmonds Way (RM-EW), RM- 2.4, and RNI-3 zones. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 20071. Minimum Lot Minimum3 Area Per Minimum Minimum Minimum Parking Dwelling Unit4 Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum (Spaces Subdistrict (Sq. Ft.) Setback2 Setback2 Setback Height Coverage Per Unit) RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25'1,5 45% 2 RM-EW 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25'5'6'7 45% 2 RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 25'1'5 45%''� 2 RM-3 3,000 15' 15' 15' 25'1'5 45% 2 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See Chapter 17.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 4 See definition of townhouse. 5 Maximum height for accessory structures of 15 feet. 6 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least 50 percent of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a building or buildings; (b) The subject property is at least five feet lower at its lowest elevation than any adjacent residentially (R) zoned property measured at its lowest elevation; and (c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this sub- section, "low impact development techniques" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. "Reasonably feasible" shall be determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not make the use of the impact development unreasonable or unfeasible. 7 In addition to any height bonus under note 6, the building may extend up to an additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit (after adding the height bonus under note 6) provide a minimum 15 percent slope or pitch. (Revised 7/07) 16-10.2 Packet Page 396 of 660 Edmonds Community Development Code 16.30.040 B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapters 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC for regulations. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. D. Landscaping. In addition to the land- scaping requirements set forth in Chapter 20.13 ECDC, any development in the RM — Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35 per- cent of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks of the devel- opment site. The applicant shall retain an arborist to determine the health of all signifi- cant trees within the side and rear setbacks. For the purposes of this section, "significant tree" shall be defined as any tree with a caliper greater than six inches measured at four feet above grade. Where it is not reasonably feasi- ble for the applicant to retain 35 percent of the existing healthy significant trees within the side and rear setbacks, the applicant may replace any significant trees below the 35 per- cent threshold as follows: each significant tree removed that reduces the percentage of retained significant healthy trees below 35 per- cent shall be replaced with three new trees, each of no less than three-inch caliper mea- sured at four feet above grade. [Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing projects for the elderly are eligible for special parking and density provisions. See Chapter 20.25 ECDC. B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. C. Setback Encroachments. 1. Eaves and chimneys may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. 2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unen- closed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. 3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street set- backs shall be side setbacks. [Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. UM Packet Page 397 of 660 (Revised 2/09) Parker Rezone Hearing 6/26/13 - addendum to Owner's application Proposal: To rezone an 8621 square foot site from RM-3 to RM-2.4 to permit one additional residential unit in an existing structure. The applicant plans no exterior changes to the structure. Rezone Criteria Does the application meet the rezone criteria established in the ECDC? The criteria are listed below: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is designated Multifamily -Medium Density. This designation permits both RM-3.0 and RM-2.4 zoning classifications. The proposal is consistent with a number of goals in the Housing Element, specifically: Goal H. Provide a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and compatible with the established character of the community. Goal H.2. Encourage infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Goal I: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal I.1. Promote development within Activity Centers (that) supports the centers' economic activities and transit service. This proposal will provide a choice for potential residents who want to live close to the Downtown but who do not want to be in a single family home or in a three- story apartment or condo. B. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The first listed purpose of the RM zone is: "To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment." Packet Page 398 of 660 This site is a transition zone, as noted in the staff report. The question before the Board is: will there be any real difference in impacts between development of this site in the existing RM-3.0 zone and impacts that might accrue from development in the proposed RM-2.4 zone? The RM-2.4 zone would permit one additional unit if the parking can be sited according to the regulations, and if other code requirements are met and if there will be no exterior changes to the structure, then the impacts would be negligible. C. 7-he relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. The intent of the rezone is to permit one additional dwelling on the property by creating a separate upstairs unit. As the staff report states, this would result in little change in the surrounding area. It is extremely unlikely that the property will be used for another use because a) The size and configuration of the existing structure does not lend itself to another use and b) Consolidation of the two condominium structures would be difficult and expensive given they have separate ownerships. In the unlikely event that a future owner decides to develop another use in the existing structure, the impacts will be minimal because the structure is relatively small. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area OR in city policy to justify the rezone. While there have been no physical changes in the surrounding area for many years, there have been a number of use changes. In the last 10 years, since Ms. Parker moved here, both a hair salon and a computer repair store (located about '/2-block away from the subject site) opened in vacant buildings and a lawyer's office opened in a former single family home. Of equal importance, a number of changes to city policy have occurred since the property was rezoned in 1999. 1. The Plan designation on the property was changed. At the time of the rezone it was designated SF according to the rezone hearing record. Since then it has been changed to Multifamily Medium Density, which allows both the existing and the proposed zoning designation. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the Arts Corridor. The edge of the Corridor District is less than a block away from the subject property. The purpose of the district is to support a vibrant downtown and arts uses in particular. The intent is to intensify the uses in the district that currently are largely residential. Packet Page 399 of 660 3. The designation of the Downtown as an Activity Area. This is important because of Housing Goals I and I.1 which encourage development in Activity Areas. E. Is the property suitable for development under the existing and proposed zoning? The main question raised in the staff report is whether the required parking could be situated on site given the street setback requirements. Ms. Parker believes that it is possible to configure additional parking to meet the requirements. E The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owner. There will be a gain to Ms. Parker and to the taxing districts if the rezone occurs and the property is used as a duplex. Other than that, there will no appreciable impacts to the public. Because we believe that the application complies with the criteria established in the Edmonds Community Development Code, we request that the Board recommend approval of this application. Packet Page 400 of 660 Portland and IslandWood where a trademark system has been developed for reclaiming water. She suggested that perhaps this same type of system could be implemented at Harbor Square. Vice Chair Stewart observed that there is a worldwide trend to use alternative materials to get away from Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) because of expected life and the environmental impacts that occur in the production of PVC. She said she hopes the City will consider using an alternative material. She noted that several studies have been done on the various types of materials, and she agreed to forward the information she collected to staff. She said it does not appear that Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) would cost significantly more than PVC, and it is more environmentally friendly. Board Member Ellis said it appears from the report that all of the treated water is currently discharged into Puget Sound. He asked if it would be possible for this water to be utilized for secondary uses. Mr. Delilla agreed that would be possible, but it would require a second level of infrastructure for storage and conveyance and space at the current treatment plan for additional infrastructure is limited. Board Member Ellis pointed out the water reclamation would also be seasonal in Edmonds. Board Member Lovell asked how the projects in the Capital Improvement Plan were prioritized. Mr. Delilla answered that cameras are placed inside the pipes to ascertain their condition and identify potential problems in each of the pipes. Each problem is given a score, and the projects with the worst scores are given a higher priority in the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that projects that address conveyance problems are typically given priority. Board Member Lovell commented on the good plan prepared by staff and said it is great to see a plan that can actually be funded and implemented. Chair Reed pointed out that the draft plan provided in the Staff Report did not include Section 10 (Operations and Maintenance Program) and Section I ((Wastewater Treatment Facility Financial Plan). However, Mr. Delilla did provide a summary of each of the sections, and the actual documents will be included in the draft plan that is presented to the City Council for approval. Vice Chair Stewart asked which pipes typically require the most repair and maintenance. Mr. Delilla said root intrusion is a serious problem and is more difficult to address. Many of the pipes are old, and people have planted trees on top or nearby. As the tree roots grow, they often find their way into the pipes, eventually blocking the flow. There are also areas in the City where soils are poor and can expand and contract based on moisture. This can complicate the construction and reconstruction of the pipe, as well. Vice Chair Stewart asked if broken pipes are removed and recycled. Mr. Delilla answered that the majority of the City's pipes are concrete, which is recyclable. Again, he summarized that the current conveyance system is old, and the City is working to address the problems and be more proactive in the future. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONE OF PARCELS LOCATED AT 403 AND 405 — 3RD AVENUE NORTH (FILE NUMBER PLN20130030) Chair Reed reminded the Board that the rezone application is a quasi-judicial matter. He invited Board Members to disclose any communications that might have had regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing. None of the Board Members indicated an ex parte communication. Mr. Clugston advised that a site -specific rezone is a Type IV-B application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 401 of 660 Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. After conducting a public hearing and reviewing the Staff Report, the Board can vote to adopt the findings in the Staff Report or modify the findings as appropriate. Mr. Clugston advised that the property is located at 403 and 405 — 3,d Avenue North and is currently developed with two single-family residential homes. The parcel is zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) 3.0 with a contract that was established in 1999. Prior to 1999, the parcel was zoned Single -Family Residential (RS) 6. The Edmonds Center for the Arts is located to the east of the subject property, and the downtown business (BD) zones are located to the south. The RS-6 zones to the east, west and north are primarily developed with single-family residences, while the RM and BD -zoned parcels to the south are developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The property immediately to the south is zoned RM-1.5 and is currently developed as an 8-unit condominium. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site as Multi -Family Medium Density, with Multi -Family High Density to the south. Board Member Lovell asked about the vehicular access for the two homes on the subject property. Mr. Clugston answered that one home is accessible from the street, and the other from an alleyway. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 13, which is an oblique aerial photograph of the subject property. He explained that the 1999 contract rezone limited development on the site to two, single-family units, and that is how the site is currently developed. The first home was constructed prior to the 1999 rezone, but was remodeled in 2007 to add a second story. The second structure was built after the rezone. Both the second structure and the addition on the first structure met the zoning code that was in place at the time of construction. Mr. Clugston explained that the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from RM-3 with a contract to RM-2.4 with no contract, and the stated intent of the rezone is to allow for an additional dwelling unit at 403 — 3'd Avenue North. He reviewed the six criteria that must be considered when reviewing rezone applications as follows: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston explained that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcel is Multi Family -Medium Density, and compatible zoning classifications for this designation include both RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. Therefore, the proposed RM-2.4 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district Mr. Clugston said the Board should keep in mind that, if approved, the rezone would eliminate the restrictions placed on development of the parcel in 1999, which specifically prohibits some RM-zone uses such as community facilities, boarding and rooming houses, bus stops and shelters. While these uses could be established if the subject property is rezoned, the applicant has indicated the intent now is to simply establish another dwelling unit within 403 — 3rd Avenue North. However, in the absence of a contract, there is nothing to prohibit the complete redevelopment of the site to RM-2.4 standards or the establishment of any of the permitted or conditionally -permitted uses allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. The purpose of the 1999 contract rezone was to create a "transition" or buffer between the RS-6 properties to the north and the RM- 1.5 zoned property to the south. The Planning Board and City Council found this transition to be compatible with the zoning ordinance at the time. If the rezone is approved, the applicant could redevelop the property into a residential triplex or some type of office building, both of which are allowed in the RM-2.4 zone, and the buffer for single-family residential properties would be lost. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Once again, Mr. Clugston said the applicant has indicated that the intent of the rezone is to create an additional dwelling unit within the 403 — 3rd Avenue North structure without altering the external appearance of the building and site. While this action would likely result in little change and fit fairly well with surrounding development, the rezone could alter the relationship of the subject site with respect to the surrounding area since the current or future owners could redevelop the site more fully in accordance with the standards from the RM-2.4 zone. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Clugston pointed out that with the exception of the remodel that was done on the 403 house and the addition of the 405 house, the character of the immediate and surrounding area has remained Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 402 of 660 unchanged since the 8-unit condominium was constructed in 1995 and the contract rezone was approved in 1999. There has not been significant change in City policy or the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the vicinity in the last 20 years, either. The 41" Avenue Cultural Corridor concept was developed in 2003-2005 and was subsequently included as an element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2006, but it applies to the parcels on 4�h Avenue, south of the Edmonds Center for the Arts and not on 3rd Avenue. The Downtown Business (BD) zones were created in 2007 to simply replace the Community Business (BC) classification on the zoning map. Board Member Ellis pointed out that although the property to the south is zoned RM-1.5, many of the lots are still developed with single-family homes. Mr. Clugston noted that some of the single-family homes have been remodeled to accommodate uses other than residential. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Clugston said it does not appear the property would be suitable under the proposed RM-2.4 zoning. RM-2.4 zoning would increase the required setback from 5 to 10 feet, making the north and south portions of the existing building nonconforming. In addition, it does not appear that adequate off-street parking can be obtained as the structures are currently configured. As per code, no parking spaces may be located within the street setback. The structure currently has a two -car garage that provides the required off-street parking spaces for the single-family dwelling unit. If a duplex was allowed through approval of the rezone, additional off-street spaces would be required. Based on the length of the driveway and the required size of off-street parking spaces, there is currently not enough room on the driveway to establish the additional required spaces and significant changes to the structure would have to be made. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. The property owner would realize increased value and income if the 403 unit were altered to be used as a duplex as envisioned by the proposed rezone. There would also be a small gain in tax valuation if the duplex use was established. Chair Reed recalled that the current contract restricts the uses on the site. He asked if staff discussed with the applicant the option of placing similar restriction on the proposed new zone. Mr. Clugston said the issue may have been briefly discussed at the counter, but when the application was submitted, it was for a straight RM-2.4 zone. Even if approved with contract restrictions, parking would still be a problem and the setbacks would be nonconforming. Because the front unit was recently remodeled and the back unit was constructed in 2002, he does not anticipate the applicant will want to redevelop the site to accommodate new uses. Chair Reed noted that the subject property is 8,621 square feet in size. Board Member Lovell referred to the existing site plan for the subject property (Attachment 10) and pointed out that the side setbacks for the existing buildings appear to be out of compliance with the setback table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 1630.030. As per the table, an RM-3 zone requires a side setback of 15 feet. Mr. Clugston advised that there is a caveat in the RM development standards that allows a developer to apply the RS setbacks to RS development in an RM-zone if the lot is less than 10,000 square feet. The side setback for RS zones is 5 feet. Board Member Ellis observed that the side setback would be nonconforming if the site is rezoned and the front unit is converted into a duplex because the property owner would no longer be able to apply the RS setback standards. Board Member Lovell said that, in a recent visit to the subject property, he found that the front unit appears to have been remodeled within the past year. Mr. Clugston said the remodel work was completed in 2008. A second story was added to transition the unit from a ramble to a two-story dwelling. Board Member Tibbott inquired about the size of the two structures. Mr. Clugston answered that the front unit is about 2,230 square feet, and the back unit is about 2,000 square feet. Board Member Tibbott asked how the size of the two structures compares with surrounding development. Mr. Clugston said the surrounding single-family homes are primarily ramblers that are between 1,400 and 1,600 square feet. Board Member Duncan pointed out that the subject property is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as being a single transition lot between RM-1.5 and RS-6 zones. He asked how this lot came to be designated as a transition lot. Mr. Chave explained that when the 1999 rezone was approved, the Comprehensive Plan was more general. It was later updated to be more parcel specific. It is likely the Comprehensive Plan was drawn to conform to the 1999 rezone decision. Since no other applicants had asked for a similar transition, the zoning remained the way it is. Board Member Duncan asked if neighboring property Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 403 of 660 owners would be allowed to rezone properties to become transition zones. Mr. Clugston explained that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended in order to rezone an RS-6 lot because the current land use is low -density residential. Board Member Ellis asked if the height limit for the subject property would change as a result of the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered that the height limit would remain the same. Board Member Ellis summarized that, if the rezone is granted, the applicant plans to convert the front unit to a duplex. However, an RM-2.4 zoning designation would also allow three single-family units or a triplex on the site. The side setbacks would remain in conformance if the site were redeveloped into three separate residential units, but the existing structures would be nonconforming if a duplex or triplex were constructed on the site. Steve Cohn, Applicant's Representative, said he has been a city planner for about 33 years, mostly working in King County suburban cities. He is semi -retired and has recently been doing consulting work for Sound Transit. He has known the applicant, Helena Parker, for 25 years, and agreed to help her with the rezone proposal. He focused his presentation on the six criteria that must be satisfied in order for the City Council to approve a rezone. He reviewed how the proposal is consistent with each of the criteria as follows: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cohn said the site is designated Multi Family -Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan, and this designation permits both RM-3.0 and RM-2.4 zoning classifications. In addition, the proposal is consistent with a number of goals in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan: • Goal H calls for providing a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and compatible with the established character of the community. • Goal I calls for providing housing opportunities within activity centers consistent with the land use, transportation and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cohn summarized that the proposal will provide a choice for potential residents who want to live close to the downtown but do not want to be in a single-family home or in a three-story apartment or condominium. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Cohn explained that the first listed purpose of the RM zone is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. As noted in the Staff Report, the site is a transition zone. The question before the Board is whether or not there will be any real difference in impacts between development of the site under the existing RM-3.0 zone versus the proposed RM-2.4 zone. He noted that the RM-2.4 zone would permit one additional unit. He expressed his belief that if parking can be sited according to the regulations, if other code requirements can be met, and if there will be no exterior changes to the structure, then the impacts would be negligible. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Mr. Cohn explained that the intent of the rezone is to permit one additional dwelling unit on the property. As the Staff Report states, this would result in little impact to the surrounding area. He expressed his belief that it is extremely unlikely that the property will be used for another use because the size and configuration of the existing front structure does not lend itself to another use and consolidation of the two structures would be difficult and expensive given they are under separate ownership. In the unlikely event that a future owner decides to develop another use in the existing structure, the impacts would be minimal because the structure is relatively small. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Cohn said the applicant agrees that there have been no physical changes in the surrounding area for many years, but there have been a number of use changes. In the last 10 years, both the hair salon and a computer repair store opened in vacant buildings near the subject property. Of equal importance are the changes that have occurred in City policy since the property was rezoned in 1999. For example, at the time of the rezone, the property was designated as Single Family Residential according to the rezone hearing record. Since then, it has been changed to Multi Family -Medium Density, which allows both the existing and the proposed zoning Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 404 of 660 designations. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide any direction as to whether RM-3.0 or RM-2.4 zoning would be most appropriate for the site. The designation for the arts corridor was also changed. The edge of the corridor district is less than a block away from the subject property. The purpose of the district is to support a vibrant downtown and art uses in particular. The intent is to intensify the uses in the district that currently are largely residential. Lastly, the downtown was designated as an activity area, which is important because Housing Goals I and I.1 encourage development in activity areas. The subject property is located within walking distance of the activity area. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Cohn said the main question raised in the Staff Report is whether the required parking could be situated on site given the street setback requirements. The applicant believes that it is possible to configure the parking to meet the requirements, but it will be tight. He agreed with staff that the side setbacks of the existing structures would become non -conforming if the property is rezoned to RM-2.4. The applicant would have to work with staff to modify the setback requirement or wait until the City changes its codes to allow a reduced setback. Another option would be to expand the multi- family zone further to the north. In any case, the applicant would be required to meet all of the City's current zoning requirements in order to create a third unit on the site. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Cohn expressed his belief that there would be a gain to the applicant and to the taxing districts if the rezone occurs and the property is used as a duplex. Other than that, there would be no appreciable impacts to the public. Helene Parker, Applicant, Edmonds, said she owns the property and building at 403 — 3`a Avenue North, but not the property and building at 405 — 3`d Avenue North. When she purchased her unit, it was listed in Snohomish County records as a condominium. Once again, Board Member Lovell referred to the site plan (Attachment 10), as well as a photograph taken in front of the building. He observed that if the front building is converted to two units, a total of four off-street parking spaces would be required, and they cannot be located within the street setback. Mr. Clugston clarified that the size of the units would indicate the number of parking spaces required, but it would likely be four. Board Member Lovell said it appears that only two vehicles can be accommodated in the current site configuration. Mr. Cohn explained that when the application was submitted, he did not realize that tandem parking would not be allowed. There are currently only two parking spaces on the site. He noted that the RM zone requires a 15-foot street setback, and the applicant could conceivably get two additional parking spaces in front of the unit. He acknowledged that parking would have to be addressed before the second unit would be allowed. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that there would be insufficient space to locate parking in front of the unit. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed rezone application and not focus on the specific layout of the site. Mr. Chave agreed that the purpose of the hearing is for the Board to consider whether or not the proposed rezone is consistent with land use patterns in the area. While suitability of the site is important, there may be multiple ways to address potential development other than keeping the property configured the way it is. Board Member Ellis expressed concern that changing the zoning would cause the existing structure to be nonconforming by way of setbacks. Mr. Cohn emphasized that the additional unit would only be allowed if the setback and parking requirements can be met. The applicant is asking for an opportunity to see if it can be done. Board Member Ellis summarized that changing the zoning would not make the building nonconforming. The structure would only be made nonconforming if it is converted into a duplex. Chair Reed recalled staff's earlier comment that if the zoning is changed as proposed, any of the primary and secondary uses allowed in RM zones would be allowed on the subject property with no restrictions. He asked if the applicant considered placing similar restrictions on the proposed rezone so the property would remain residential. Mr. Cohn said the applicant did not consider this option. As a long-time planner, he expressed his view that the unit is so small that most of the things that Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 405 of 660 are allowed in the current RM zone could not be accommodated on the site; and if the use were to change, the impact would be very small. Again, he reminded the Board that any change in use would require the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning code. He expressed his belief that zoning requirements would significantly limit the uses that could occur on the site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Reed pointed out that staff is recommending denial of the application. If the Board disagrees, they will need to modify the six findings contained in the Staff Report to support their recommendation. Board Member Lovell observed that changing the zoning to RM-2.4 does not appear to do any damage. Staff's findings indicate that the site could be redeveloped in accordance with RM-2.4 zoning, but the existing structures would have to be eliminated. Mr. Clugston said it is difficult to make this determination based on the current layout. It may be possible for the applicant to find adequate space to meet the parking requirement. Mr. Chave clarified that, at this time, the City does not know what the ultimate design proposal will be for the site. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern about the conceivable uses that would be allowed on the subject property if it is rezoned to RM-2.4 with no restrictions. The property seems like an appropriate location for a transition between single- family and multi -family zones. She asked if the applicant has considered converting the top floor of her unit to an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Clugston pointed out that accessory dwelling units are not allowed in multi -family zones. Board Member Ellis clarified that approval of the rezone would not actually create another dwelling unit on the property. The applicant would have to submit a development application to the City that complies with all of the setback, parking and other code requirements before a permit would be granted. He said that staff's recommendation of denial appears to be based mainly on the lack of apparent feasible on -site parking. Mr. Clugston agreed that is part of the reason for the recommendation for denial. But the recommendation is also based on the fact that there has not been a lot of change in surrounding area or in the Comprehensive Plan to warrant the rezone. With the exception of a few buildings that might have changed uses, there has not been a lot of new construction and no changes in zoning. The only change in the Comprehensive Plan was the development of the arts corridor a few blocks away from the subject property. The arts corridor is a site specific area that does not necessarily impact the subject property. Board Member Cloutier asked what transition an RM-3 zone would offer the surrounding properties that an RM-2.4 would not. Mr. Clugston pointed out that either zone would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Board Member Tibbott asked if an RM-3 zone would have more restrictions on use. Mr. Clugston answered that the uses allowed in either zone are the same. However, the property is currently zoned RM-3 with a contract that further limits the uses. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need to restrict the uses as outlined in the 1999 contract rezone. Chair Reed asked if the upper level of the front unit could be occupied by another family if the rezone is approved as presented. Board Member Cloutier advised that the applicant would be required to submit an application to establish the additional dwelling unit, and all the current code requirements would apply. The rezone, itself, will not establish another dwelling unit; all of the setback and parking requirements must be met. If the rezone is approved, the property owner would have the flexibility to make a proposal to adjust the use of the land. Although he concurred with some of staff s points, Board Member Cloutier said he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny the application simply because there has not significant change in the area to warrant the rezone (Criteria D). Board Members Tibbott and Ellis concurred. Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that changing the zoning from RM-3 to RM-2.4 would be a minor change. The applicant is not proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan or the uses allowed. He said he supports the proposed rezone. Board Member Ellis said that when he first read staffs recommendation, he was convinced that the rezone should be denied because he was concerned about creating nonconforming buildings and the problems associated with parking. However, the conversation has convinced him that it is not the Board's charge to resolve these points. The rezone would not create a nonconforming property, but it would allow the property owners to talk about changes in the future. He agreed with Board Member Tibbott that the proposed rezone represents a minor change. Instead of Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 406 of 660 a transition from eight units to two and then one, the transition would be from eight units to three and then to one. He expressed his belief that giving the property owner more flexibility is appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart concurred. Board Member Tibbott said he is still concerned that the rezone would allow for office uses, which is very different than the uses on the multi -family zone to the south. While this change is not likely, it would be possible, and nothing would prevent the property owners to the north, west and east from proposing to do the same thing. Introducing a new zone could result in a number of different uses that could spread to other lots. From his perspective there has not been a lot of change in the neighborhood to warrant a rezone of the subject property and it could set the tone for a different type of development in the future. CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBER AMD20130006 (REZONE OF PARCELS LOCATED AT 403 AND 405 3RD AVENUE NORTH) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the RM-2.4 zoning classification is one of the possible implementing zones for the Multi Family — Medium Density designations. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The proposal to rezone the parcel RM-2.4 in order to establish one additional dwelling unit within "Unit A" at 403 — 3d Avenue North is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances and the zoning district. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. The proposal would be appropriate in relation to the surrounding area. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. There has been sufficient change in the City's policy to justify the rezone. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. The site is currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit within the confines of Unit A at 403 — 34d Avenue North. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. There is a gain in public health/safety/welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Board Member Ellis noted that Criteria E should be included in the motion as written by staff since it points out that further process is necessary before the project envisioned by the applicant could actually occur. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO REPLACE CRITERIA E WITH THE FOLLOWING: E. Whether the property is economically andphysically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. The site is not currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit within the confines of Unit A at 403 — 34d Avenue North. Significant alternations would need to occur to Unit A in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. If the entire site were to be redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for it since the property is flat and located on an arterial. Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 407 of 660 BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED 5-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS DUNCAN AND TIBBOTT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for review and a public hearing. The applicant and other parties of record will be notified of the hearing date. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S PROCESS AND NAMING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SR- 104 MINI PARK (FILE NUMBER AMD20130007) Ms. Hite advised that the SR-104 Mini Park is located adjacent to the ferry holding lanes in downtown Edmonds. It is owned and operated by the City and has a variety of amenities, including a restroom, picnic tables and benches, and vending machines. It is heavily used during the peak season by people waiting in line for the ferry and by pedestrians enjoying a walk in the downtown area. At the request of the Planning Board, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff solicited naming proposals from the community, and 104 recommendations were received. The Planning Board formed a subcommittee to review the proposed names and present a recommendation to the Board. She referred to the complete list of proposed names, which was attached to the Staff Report. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to review the subcommittee's recommendation and solicit public feedback. Following the public hearing, the Board will make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Chair Reed referred to the City's Park Naming Policy, which was adopted approximately three years ago. He noted that staff has followed the policy procedures, as written. It is now up to the Board to review the recommendations, conduct a public hearing, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will take final action. Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, said that, out of respect for the Planning Board's time and energy, he was speaking on behalf of all of those present (fellow veterans, their wives and children). He was also present to speak on behalf of the Edmonds Rotary Day Breakers, the Edmonds Chamber, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and many citizens of Edmonds. He pointed out that there are over 40,000 residents in Edmonds. Most communities of this size across the United States have some type of memorial honoring veterans, but the City of Edmonds does not. They feel it is time that the City honor all those who have served in the armed forces. On behalf of over 1,000 members of the organizations he just outlined, they would like to thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to suggest a name for the SR-104 Mini Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. He urged the Board to recommend naming the park "Veterans Memorial Park." Mr. Clyborne shared a quote from his commander as follows, "It is our sacred obligation to honor and memorialize all our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of these men and women to sacrifice so much in the discharge of their duties, the dedication of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a symbol of the community's lasting gratitude. For those they honor, their duties are now done, and it is our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifice to our great nation." Mr. Clyborne said that, in the event the Board looks favorably upon the suggested, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion are prepared to work with the City to create a suitable commemorative memorial. He said he recently learned that the Edmonds Museum is planning to relocate the few memorials that are presently located in front of the museum in the near future. The VFW and American Legion have had discussions with the Museum to relocate the three items, including the stone that lists the names of all the Edmonds veterans that died in combat in the past. It is their intent to relocate the memorials to the Veterans Memorial Park. In addition, they would like to add an education component at the park. If the proposed name is approved and the City embraces the idea of a veterans memorial, the VFW and American Legion is planning to establish an interactive monument in the park that would educate thousands of Edmonds and Woodway youth, as well as those waiting for the ferry, about the history of the country and the important roll service men and women play in preserving the American way of life. He respectfully requested that the Planning Board enthusiastically recommend to the City Council the name Veterans Memorial Park. Michelle Clyborne, Edmonds, said she was present to read the following letter from Maria A. Montalvo, Executive Director, Our Family Foundation, into the record: Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 408 of 660 JL�WO 2)0)1 5. O o 00 V OOOtOOO OOOel" PLEASE P INA T LFG-M Y YOUR V\\AAPM, C'Obr r You MASH TO SPEAK r, HEAUNG-'S ON u H--IrS 'XITEPA. T HAFAC YOU. COMPLETE AWRIESS A UP VOLE VAOoo PLVA2013030 LARKIER REZONE Packet Page 409 of 660 AM-5852 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Finance Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. Recommendation Schedule a public hearing for the July 23, 2013 City Council meeting. 0 Previous Council Action On June 11, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee and the Finance committee reviewed this item and recommended it be presented to full Council at the July 16, 2013 Council meeting. Narrative The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection, conveyance and treatment system. Per the Washington State Growth Management Act, the City's current Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan written in 2006 and needs to be updated. The update will review and evaluate, the following elements of the City's Sanitary Sewer System: (1) Planning data and demand; (2) Sanitary Sewer System Analysis; (3) System Reliability; (4) Updates to the existing Sewer Model; (5) Regulatory Compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology; (6) Operations and Maintenance Program; (7) Capital Facilities Plan; (8) Financial Program. An analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will also be done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluate the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The comprehensive plan will conform to the Packet Page 410 of 660 applicable sections of Chapter 173-240 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and as further detailed in the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) document "Criteria for Sewage Works Design." In addition, the information from the 2010 City of Edmonds Inflow/Infiltration Study was incorporated. Table 9.2 and 9.3 identify improvement projects along with a priority ranking based on flow capacity, video inspections, staff input, and maintenance record data. Staff will use this ranking in the future years to identify which improvements will be made each year to provide the City with the flexibility to coordinate sewer main projects with street or other projects that may be planned for the same area. There may also be times when the priority ranking for a replacement may change due to subsequent inspections or deterioration conditions that require replacement sooner than anticipated. The need for sewer main easements may also have an impact on when improvements are scheduled since acquiring easements can be difficult and time consuming when working with reluctant property owners. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Board and a public hearing was held on June 26, 2013. The Planning Board recommended that it be forwarded to City Council for approval. Finally Chapter 10 covering Operations and Maintenance of the Sewer System and Chapter 11 covering the Financial Plan are in the process of being finalized. These two Chapters will be made available before the Council meeting. Fiscal Impact: A financial analysis is in the process of being finalized by the Financial Consulting Solutions (FCS) Group to analyze the future financial needs for the City's sewer system. Based on the financial analysis, FCS and City staff have determined that sewer system utility rate increases are necessary to implement the Plan and fund operations, maintenance, and the planned capital improvements. Factors that necessitate rate increases for the sewer system are: • Ongoing need to replace/repair aging City of Edmonds sewer mains and the need to increase the size of sewer mains, for sufficient flows in various locations as well as other capital improvements shown in the Plan; • Repairing or replacing existing pipes to decrease the amount of root intrusion in existing pipes so that blockages in the systems are mitigated; • Updates and repairs to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; • Mitigating groundwater Infiltration and Inflow from existing sewer pipes. Attachments DRAFT Sewer Comp Plan Financial Summary Planning Board Minutes on Sewer Comp Plan 6/26/13 Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Form Review Date 07/11/2013 03:51 PM 07/11/2013 03:53 PM 07/11/2013 03:54 PM 07/11/2013 04:59 PM 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/12/2013 02:24 PM Packet Page 411 of 660 Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Packet Page 412 of 660 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan June 2013 ■ S�L A N S 1601 5t" Ave Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 505-3400 Packet Page 413 of 660 City of Edmonds COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN June 2013 City Council Kristiana Johnson Strom Peterson Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Diane Buckshnis Joan Bloom Frank Yamamoto Lora Petso Public Works Director Phil Williams City Engineer Rob English Treatment Manager Sewer Supervisor Project Manager Pamela Randolph Jim Waite Mike DeLilla This Document was prepared Under the direct supervision of Craig P. Chambers, P.E. BHC Consultants Packet Page 414 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Planning Data 1-1 1.3 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads 1-2 1.4 Capital Improvement Projects 1-3 II. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Need for Plan 2-1 2.2 Ownership and Management 2-2 2.3 System History and Background 2-2 2.4 Service Area Characteristics 2-5 2.5 City Sewer Policies 2-5 III. LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 Service Area Description 3-1 3.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics 3-1 3.2.1 Topography 3-1 3.2.2 Geology 3-3 3.2.3 Water Resources 3-3 3.3 Land Use 3-7 3.3.1 Growth Management Act 3-7 3.4 Relationships with Adjacent Sewerage Agencies 3-9 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood 3-9 3.4.2 King County 3-12 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace 3-14 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District 3-14 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District 3-14 IV. DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 Performance and Design Criteria 4-1 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline 4-1 4.1.2 Manholes 4-2 4.1.3 Side Sewers 4-3 4.1.4 Pump Stations 4-3 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps 4-3 4.2 Easements 4-4 4.3 Standard Details and General Notes 4-4 V. EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 Drainage Basins 5-1 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin 5-1 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin 5-4 Packet Page 415 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.2 City Collection and Conveyance Facilities 5-6 5.3 Lift Stations 5-6 5.4 Edmonds WWTP 5-9 5.4.1 General 5-9 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings 5-10 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements 5-15 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow 5-15 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area 5-15 5.6.2 LS-1 Zone 5-15 5.6.3 MLT Zone 5-15 VI. EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 Population 6-1 6.1.1 General 6-1 6.1.2 Existing Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-1 6.1.3 Future Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-2 6.2 Flows 6-4 6.2.1 General 6-4 6.2.2 Recorded Flows 6-6 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows 6-10 6.3 WWTP Flows 6-11 VII. MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 Model Software 7-1 7.2 Model Construction 7-1 7.2.1 Data Sources 7-1 7.2.2 Model Coverage 7-1 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features 7-2 7.3 Loading 7-3 7.4 Model Calibration 7-4 7.5 Capacity Analysis and Model Results 7-4 7.5.1 Model Results 7-4 VIII. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 8.1 Introduction 8-1 ,V Packet Page 416 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.2 Treatment Requirements 8-1 8.3 Treatment Performance 8-2 8.4 NPDES Permitted Capacity and Historical Loadings 8-3 8.5 Violations and Bypasses 8-5 8.6 Future Capacity Evaluation 8-5 8.7 Future Regulatory Issues for WWTP 8-13 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration 8-13 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass 8-17 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8-17 8.8 Plant Improvements and Additional Needs 8-18 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan 8-18 8.8.2 Additional Improvements 8-21 IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 Capital Improvement Projects Ranking 9-1 9.2 Capacity Limitations in Existing Lines Identification of Reoccurring 9-3 9.3 Basis for CIP Cost Estimates 9-19 9.4 CIP Capacity Issues and Other Projects — 2013 thru 2019 9-24 9.5 CIP Capacity Issues — 2019 thru 2033 9-25 9.6 CIP Capacity Issues — 2033 thru Buildout 9-25 9.7 CMOM 9-25 9.8 Wastewater Reuse 9-25 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demands 9-26 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities 9-28 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution 9-28 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse 9-28 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System 9-29 X. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 10.1 District Management and Personnel 10-1 10.1.1 Organization 10-1 10.1.2 Certification and Training 10-2 10.2 Operations and Maintenance Activities and Programs 10-2 10.2.1 Collection System Maintenance 10-3 10.2.1.1 Lift Stations 10-3 10.2.1.2 Sanitary Sewers 10-3 10.2.2 WWTP Maintenance 10.3 Programs 10-4 10.3.1 Pretreatment Program 10-4 10.3.2 Water Reclamation and Reuse 10-5 10.3.3 Biosolids Recycling 10-5 10.3.4 Sewage Spill Response Plan 10-6 10.3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 10-7 10.4 Management System / Record Keeping 10-7 10.4.1 Collection System 10-7 Packet Page 417 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 10.4.2 NPDES Permit 10.5 Performance Indicators 10-8 10.5.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 10-8 10.6 Condition Assessment 10-8 10.6.1 Collection System 10-8 10.6.2 Lift Stations 10-8 10.7 Staffing Needs 10-9 XI. WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLAN 11.1 Introduction 11-1 11.2 Overview of the Financial Planning Process 11-1 11.3 Past financial History 11-2 11.4 Development of the Financial Plan 11-3 11.4.1 Internal Sources of Funds 11-6 11.4.2 External Sources of Funds 11-6 11.5 Summary of the Financial Projections 11-8 11.6 Rate Impacts 11-10 11.7 Review of District's Wastewater Rates 11-11 11.8 Summary of Wastewater Financial Plan 11-11 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES GLOSSARY ABBREVIATIONS APPENDICES A. Sub -basin Maps B. Model Calibration and Documentation C. Population Projections D. SEPA Checklist and Determination of Significance E. Cost Estimates for CIP F. Known Collection System Deficiencies G. Sewer Service Agreements H. Ordinances I. City's Development Guidelines and Standards for Developer Extensions J. Agency review Comments and Responses K. NPDES Permit L. Financial Analysis Support Documents M. FOG Resolution V1 Packet Page 418 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 2-1 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations 2-1 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory 5-6 5.2 Pump Station Inventory 5-7 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge 5-9 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity 5-10 6.1 Edmonds Existing Population 2010 6-2 6.2 Measured Flow by Meter 6-5 6.3 Population and Growth Projections 6-9 6.4 2019 Flow Projections 6-12 6.5 2033 Flow Projections 6-13 6.6 Build Out Flow Projections 6-14 6.7 WWTP Flow Projections - 2019 and 2033 6-15 7.1 Fields for Basic Model Construction 7-2 8.1 Current and Future Loadings to WWTP 8-6 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators 8-15 8.3 Capital Improvements at WWTP 8-24 9.1 Point Assignments for Capital Improvement Projects 9-2 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline CIP — Without Granite O&M 9-4 9.3 Capital Improvement Projects 9-20 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water 9-27 V; i Packet Page 419 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Vicinity Map 2-3 3.1 Municipal Boundaries 3-2 3.2 Water Features 3-4 3.3 Soils Map 3-5 3.4 Water System Schematic 3-6 3.5 Land Use Map 3-8 3.6 Adjacent Sewer Agencies 3-10 3.7 Lynnwood Treatment Service Area 3-11 3.8 Richmond Beach Agreement Area 3-13 3.9 Mountlake Terrace Agreement Area 3-15 3.10 Ronald Wastewater District Agreement Area 3-16 5.1 Sub -Basin Map 5-2 5.2 Schematic Flow Diagram 5-3 5.3 Lift Station Service Areas 5-8 5.4 WWTP Layout 5-14 6.1 Diurnal Flow 6-8 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows 6-10 7.X Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 7-5 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Effluent CBOD5/TSS Concentrations 8-2 8.2 Edmonds WWTP Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-3 8.3 Edmonds WWTP Influent Flows 8-4 8.4 Edmonds WWTP Influent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-5 vi; i Packet Page 420 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN GLOSSARY 100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100 years. Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table is high and precipitation is at its peak, generally the four wet weather months, from November to February. Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or endangered fish or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water for domestic use. Force Main: Pressurized discharge pipe from a lift station. Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage collection system through defective joints, pipes, and improperly sealed manholes. Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection system, typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected directly to sewer, cross connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows into broken sewers. Maximum Monthly Flow: Average daily flow during the highest flow month of the year. Mini -Basin: Drainage catchment areas within the North Creek, Swamp Creek, Picnic Point, Everett or Little Bear Creek Drainage Basins. Mini -basins followed the King County delineation to the extent of the County's effort to define the mini -basins. National Flood Insurance Program: Federally funded program providing flood insurance to property owners in flood plains provided the local government meets certain criteria for management of flood damage risk. Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour. Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental factors such as steep slopes, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat. Sewer Lateral: A sewer with no other common sewers discharging into it. Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more lateral sewers. Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains. Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers, force mains, etc. Urban Growth Area: Area in which urban development must be contained, as stipulated by the Growth Management Act. ,X Packet Page 421 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN ABBREVIATIONS AAF Average Annual Flow ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AWWD Alderwood Water and Wastewater District AWWF Average Wet Weather Flow BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DOH Washington State Department of Health DOE Washington State Department of Ecology EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERU Equivalent Residential Unit ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FOG Fats, Oils and Greases FPS Feet per second FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("The Clean Water Act") GMA Growth Management Act GPCD Gallons per capita per day GPAD Gallons per acre per day GPD Gallons per day HPA Hydraulic Project Approval 1/1 Infiltration and Inflow JARPA Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application KCDNR King County Department of Natural Resources MMF Maximum Month Flow MBR Membrane Bioreactor MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/I milligrams per liter NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCD Washington State Office of Community Development OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management ppd Pounds per day PVC Polyvinyl Chloride PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow RCW Revised Code of Washington SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SRF State Revolving Fund TSS Total Suspended Solids UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Packet Page 422 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER I — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection and conveyance system. The analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was also done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluated the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The plan was prepared in conformance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050. 1.2 PLANNING DATA Population, employment and student population forecasts were used to estimate the current and future loadings to the City's system. Planning data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) provides population forecasts based on U.S. Census data as broken down by Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZ). The PSRC data tends to be widely used throughout the region and is the data base that was used in developing and analyzing the flows. After discussions with the City staff, the values were used for the baseline population and GIS delineation was used for the distribution of growth between the Sub -basins. Student populations were derived from the School District's forecast. The service area is divided between eleven (11) Sub -basins. These 11 Sub -basins were used to encompass the entire service area boundary. The definition of the population that has sewer service is complicated by the fact that some Edmonds customers are served to the City of Lynnwood. Conversely the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant serves non -Edmonds customers. The population values and the methodology are presented in Chapter 6. There are three segments that comprise the served population: residential, student and employment. These three sectors are generally thought to capture all the sources expected in the Edmonds Service Area. This approach works well in largely developed, non -industrial service areas. Similar approaches were used in the Alderwood Water Packet Page 423 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN and Wastewater District's Comprehensive Plan in 2010 and in the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan in 2012. With these values of existing and projected users, a population equivalent was developed recognizing that a student or an employee contributes a fraction of a permanent resident. This ratio was established to be 5 to 1 for students, meaning that 5 students is equivalent to a resident and 3 to 1 for employees (i.e. 3 employees is equivalent to a resident). This ratio is consistent with textbook values. 1.3 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS A capacity analysis of the existing City sewer network was undertaken using the XP- SWMM hydraulic modeling program. Existing lift stations and their firm capacities also were included in the model. The flow data from the City's flow meters were largely used in calibrating the model. The location of the flow meters was instrumental in delineating the Sub -basin boundaries. These Sub -basin areas were consistent with the basin boundaries used in the previous 1/1 study. The model was developed using information from the City's GIS electronic database, supplemented by selected as -built drawings, pump records, flow monitoring data, and with other available data such as ground elevation LIDAR information. Models were constructed to represent the network in 2010, 2019, 2033, and build out. The year 2010 was used for calibration purposes utilizing flow metering data at a eight locations in the collection system and three flow meters at the plant. Various flow conditions were evaluated for the flow data from each of the meters. Flow data from 2006 through 2012 was evaluated and summarized in Appendix B. Data for calibration purposes focused on flow from the years 2010 through 2012. • Average Dry Weather Flow was defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no measureable rain was recorded. • Average Daily Flow was defined as the average flow over the entire year • Average Wet Weather Flow was defined as the average of the daily flows from the months of November through March • Maximum Month Flows are valuable particularly for the WWTP and are typically thought to be the design flow events for the plant. From the flow records, the maximum monthly average for the years 2010 through 2012 was selected. • Peak Day Flows are the measured maximum daily flows over the period of 2010 through 2012. • Peak Hour Flows used the measured peak day flows, applying a peak day to peak hour factor and by adding the diurnal flow variation to arrive at this estimated flow. 1-2 Packet Page 424 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN With the flows determined and the known population equivalence, a flow per population equivalence was determined. With the multiple flow meters and the extensive flow data that spanned several years, we saw consistent flow patterns in all the flow meter data. This historical flow data was used to project future and anticipated flows. There was an anomaly is the data measured in Meters 3 and the MLT meter at the WWTP. These two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. The 1/1 component is captured in and part of the peak day and peak hour per population equivalent flow values. It is important to recognize that the 1/1 component is reflective of current conditions and that, as the pipes continue to age and degrade, the volume of 1/1 entering the system will continue to increase. An allowance for that continued degradation is incorporated into the per population equivalent values for 2019, 2033 and build out conditions. The Engineering and Planning Subcommittee of Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee (MWPAAC) has defined this degradation of sewers as a 7-percent per decade increase in 1/I. Though it might be acceptable to allow conditional surcharging of the conveyance lines, for the purposes of this analysis it has been conservatively estimated that no surcharging will be allowed. This effectively means that there is added and reserve capacity within the surcharging volumes. Where pipe sections were identified as requiring an upgrade, the proposed upgrade was sized to provide capacity equal to or greater than the estimated build out flows and to prevent any conditional surcharging from occurring. At lift stations where the estimated peak hour flows were shown to exceed the current firm capacity, a suitable build out upgrade flow capacity was estimated. This capacity was incorporated into the model for the planning horizon showing evidence of capacity limitation. This enabled the impact of the increased flow on the downstream sewer network to be investigated. The actual mechanical and electrical improvements to the lift stations would not likely be sized for the build out conditions. The results of the capacity analysis were used to develop the capital improvement program detailed in Chapter 9. 1.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS The capital improvement projects (CIP) developed in Chapter 9 are presented by time period. It should be noted that this plan has neither proposed a routing to extend sewers to every lot within the service boundary, nor was it the intention of this plan to finance those line extensions. The CIP does not include the line extensions and pump stations needed to serve presently unsewered areas. These line extensions are 1-3 Packet Page 425 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN assumed to be initiated and financed by developers or through ULIDs. Consequently, no City financing mechanism is proposed for these lines. The CIP is limited to the following categories: • Existing lines that need to be upgraded/upsized to convey flows as population and flows increase • Existing lift stations that need to be upgraded to accommodate increasing flows. • Existing lift stations that need modifications or improvements. This might include equipment that has reached or are soon to reach their useful life, needed new features, and stations that are slated to be abandoned or rerouted. • Chronic maintenance areas that can be resolved with a capital project. • WWTP improvements to respond to increasing flows, loads or new regulations Cost estimates for each CIP was prepared based on current year (2013) pricing. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix E. These projects were assigned a target period for completion based on the anticipated added flows and the expectation that capacity would be exceeded by the end of that period. Those improvements shown as 2013 to 2019 projects are those projects that have current or soon anticipated capacity issues and should be pursued first. Those that are in subsequent periods of 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to Build out are projects that should be completed on or before that target year. Capital Improvements Projects to be financed through the Sewer Fund for those periods are presented in Table 9.3 and are summarized below: 2013-2019 2019-2033 2033 — Build out CIP financed from the Sewer Fund $ 1-4 Packet Page 426 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER II — INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN This 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan is prepared for the City to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 173-240-050 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The WAC requirements are outlined in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 Reference Paragraph Description of Requirement Location in Document 3a Purpose and need for proposed plan Section 2.1 3b Who will own, operate, and maintain system Section 2.2 3c Existing and proposed service boundaries Figure 3.1 3d Layout map showing boundaries; existing sewer facilities; proposed sewers; topography and elevations; streams, lakes; and other water bodies; water systems Figures 3.2 3e Population trends Chapter 6 3f Existing domestic and/or industrial wastewater facilities within 20 miles Figure 2.1 3g Infiltration and inflow problems Chapter 7 3h Treatment systems and adequacy of such treatment Chapter 5 3i Identify industrial wastewater sources Section 6.5 3k Discussion of collection alternatives Chapter 9 3k Discussion of treatment alternatives Chapter 8 3k Discussion of disposal alternatives Chapter 8 31 Define construction cost and O&M costs Chapter 8 and Appendix E 3m Compliance with management plan Section 9.3.6 3n SEPA compliance Appendix D In addition to the WAC requirements sited above, there are other recent state and local regulations that must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update. These additional requirements are outlined in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations Description of Requirement Location in Document Evaluation of wastewater reuse per Substitute Section 9.7 Secondary Senate House Bill 1338 Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance Section 9.X (CMOM). The Plan provides a comprehensive guide to assist the City with managing and operating the sewer system and coordinating expansions and upgrades to the 2-1 Packet Page 427 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN infrastructure for the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information on the City's plans for sewer system extensions within the City's service area. This approach allows the City to provide high quality service to its customers and to continue protecting environmental quality. The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity of the sewer system based on current and anticipated future wastewater flow rates. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from existing flow data and population growth projected within the sewer service area. An implementation plan is provided, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects. The financial analysis and the means by which the improvements were to be financed were addressed in Chapter 11. This chapter was prepared by FCS Group in close coordination with BHC and under direct contract with the City. 2.2 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT The City owns and maintains a public wastewater system and is governed by a City Council. The City has agreements for sewage collection and treatment with some of the surrounding municipalities and special purpose districts for reciprocal sewage treatment. These agreements are further explained in Chapter 3. The City's wastewater system is under the general management of Mr. Jim Waite. The Sewer Division consists of 7.5 Full-time equivalent workers while the Treatment Plant employs 17 full time workers. The treatment plant is operated and managed under the general direction of Pamela Randolph. Additional Engineering and Administrative and Engineering employees are not accounted for in the above employment numbers. 2.3 SYSTEM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The City of Edmonds is located in southwest portion of Snohomish County, immediately north of the King County — Snohomish County boundary, as shown on Figure 2.1, Vicinity Map. The City's service area extends outside of the municipality boundaries into Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline, to the East and to the South. The City also sends a portion of the sewage north to Lynnwood and ultimately to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles and but its service area is approximately 19.5 square miles. The area known as Esperence is an unincorporated area that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 but a sanitary sewer system was not developed until 1920. A primary sewage treatment plant was constructed in 1957. The treatment plant was further expanded to accommodate agreements sewage treatment for portions of Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District in 1959. 2-2 Packet Page 428 of 660 ;h1;cCeylsl d11AS -c-(Ha,:; C, - r , :es Lupien .�`ce'o�, --.. - F--'sort. Island Co .:dupe -die NOLF s A, [I � woo, _ camano - Gaca�„ is - Pori Townsend VJhidb�� Island Lake �. ontirrA'sperA - �� ftr _. son Cc r• j , � ,so _ ` 99 , ,Getchel . —%CkarFa s _ °" ♦ Snohomish Co f m_�Lm � iii ,F -_=-- ,Mke Stevens � Rock - 2e Poe %' Jefferson Co � j' Mukilt�eo •Pon L : , 1 no ado S-r_,sr. GrVen F - _ !II Suhan^y.Startup - I.• - It 1 F-- ,r �•.M1ionr�e_, �_-;/-=•-r+---,- \�,Gok Bar ' - i Mountlake Ce , r Richmc Highlands m ,B hell - - Pou1i IMwnoa Shoreline Woodinville uvall r i i _ KltSap CO Kir and- / R mond 4 %,Silserdale� .�inbridge sPnc J* �� n `So marrijilt F kscvYon Eat.. _ __.___ _• 99 oadttlP ell , mmmnis : ; !' lanchester ;,mr- . •Port1acnard� Boein �a Kin NDn gg •ro♦ King CO F'�Fa. cs': • -V' go ,South ♦ 4ft•_ 167 F-_=-:q-m'e ` Bremerton No r;w if enton t aer- Se-r„c: Eulien TOlo:il. y '.a_hcn - Mason Co o = 8C - Hobart , D oine5 ( Maple.valley -i -. Kent - - f;''r',•�;'+-W�--!'Y <• �. _st - JA' � mon beach Covington ; H= 99 167 Aubu Legend rn I. F eral \ ay Auburn , Black D,3 Treatment Facilities 67 ; W E 20 mile Radius hurston Co 01- P� g ,M1leltor. - Miles City of Edmonds Boundary 16; � r � o z.s a 10 ,;� This map is a geographic representation based on information available. No warranty is made concerning ,�1 Or wMo the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data p' ids depicted on this map. VICINITY MAP - . BHC Consultants, LLC ���••-xr Figure 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN - Seattle, Washington 98101 911- 206.505.3406(fai ` City of Edmonds C N S U LTA N S www.bhemnsultants.com 2.1 Inc. 1690 May 2012 COPYRIGHT 020128 C L N . A G VED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN In 1967, another treatment plant expansion took place as a result of increased service areas within the City and additional flows from Olympic View Sewer and Water District. Secondary treatment was designed subsequent to a 1986 report by CWC/HDR and was operational by 1991. The City provides sanitary sewer service to customers within its sewer service area. Wastewater ultimately flows to one of three locations: • Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City. • Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by King County Metro. The City has an agreement with the County (see Appendix F) to send a portion of Edmonds sewage to the County for treatment via the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. In turn, the City receives and treats the sewage from the Richmond Beach Service Area. This agreement is describe further in Section 3.4.2. • Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Lynnwood. The City has an agreement with Lynnwood to send a portion of the Edmonds sewage to Lynnwood for treatment. Wastewater that affects the total flows through the City's collection and conveyance system can be categorized into three sources: • Direct service. Flow from customers within the boundaries of the City that is also treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Lynnwood service. Flow that originates within City of Edmonds corporate boundaries and is sent to Lynnwood for treatment. The City maintains the sewer infrastructure (pump stations and sewer mains) and compensates Lynnwood for treatment. • Tributary Service. Flow that originates from areas outside the City boundaries from other sewering agencies. These tributary areas include flow from City of Mountlake Terrace, Ronald Wastewater District, Olympic View Water and Wastewater District and small portions of the City of Lynnwood. Inter -local agreements between the City and the neighboring sewering agencies define the terms by which sewer service is provided. It is possible that those agreements could be amended in the future but it is unlikely that flows would be routed differently than currently described. It is assumed for the purposes of this Plan that the flows will continue under the current routing mode and that there would be no change to the current inter -local agreements that govern these sewer services. Consideration should be given to investigate rerouting options. A recommendation for this study is included in Chapter 9. 2-4 Packet Page 430 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Planning for future wastewater operations requires the City to address the land use decisions within the City sewer service boundary as determined by the City of Edmonds, the City of Shoreline and the City of Mountlake Terrace. 2.4 SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City boundaries lie entirely within Snohomish County. However, the service area has portions that extend into the City of Shoreline (King County). The service area is generally built out and is characterized as a bedroom community largely comprising of single or multi -family residential units. The topography within the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly with steep slopes along the stream corridors and those properties immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands are found adjacent to the many creeks, small streams and lakes within the City service area (see Figure 3.2). Sewer service extensions presented in this report are planned only within the City's service area boundary. These boundaries are shown on Figure 3.1. Since the City is bounded by other sewering agencies on all sides, it is not anticipated that the service area boundaries would be expanded. Though not likely, it is possible that the City could re-route sewer infrastructure from the northern portion from Lynnwood WWTP back to Edmonds WWTP. Similarly, some flows within the City boundaries could be rerouted differently to avoid lines or pump stations that are shown to have capacity issues. The City could potentially also install a Lift Station upstream of Lake Ballinger Pump Station. While this would likely not increase flows to the WWTP it would eliminate the need for gravity main upsizing and would eliminate or reduce payments to King County for Lake Ballinger Operations and Maintenance. 2.5 CITY SEWER POLICIES Development of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plans from the adjacent agencies. The City's policy for sewer service recognizes that its function is not to plan land uses for the service area but to respond to land uses planned by the land use planning agencies. The public sewer system in the City may be extended by one of two methods. One being a developer extension agreement, where a developer, property owner or a group of property owners request and construct a sewer under the terms and conditions of a developer extension agreement. The second method is a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) process following RCW 35.43.040 and 35.43.042, where a group of property owners petition the City to extend sanitary sewers to their area and then are assessed for the sewer improvements. 2-5 Packet Page 431 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN It is the City's policy that the property owners desiring sewer service initiate a request for sanitary sewer service. After entering a Developer's Extension Agreement with the City, the proposed sewer design will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the standards and design criteria. Sewer extensions shall follow the current version of the City of Edmonds "Standard Specifications Manual" and the "Developer Extensions Manual" as provided in the Developer's Extension Agreement. Once the improvements have been constructed and confirmed through the City inspection to meet established standards, then it shall be deeded to the City. The City Council has the authority to set policies, ordinances, and zoning. The City may find it necessary from time to time to reevaluate their policies based on Snohomish County and adjacent City land use, policies and ordinances. 2-6 Packet Page 432 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER III — LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The existing sewer service area for the City can be described as comprising four different service areas as summarized below: City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds municipal boundaries comprise of 5,700 acres. Approximately 4,450 acres within the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. The City both owns and maintains this portion of the system and is responsible for treatment. Approximately 1,250 acres on the northern boundary the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. The City owns and maintains this portion of the system and Lynnwood is paid on an ERU basis for the sewage treatment. Additionally, Olympic View Water and Sewer District maintains a sewer system within Edmonds City limits. All Olympic wastewater is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. King County and City of Woodway. The City of Woodway is collected and conveyed to the Edmonds WWTP, together with the Richmond Beach Pump Station flow, via the Richmond Beach/Woodway sewer trunk. The sewers within this area are owned and maintained by Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The County operates the Richmond Beach Pump Station. An agreement was signed in 2000 for "reciprocal sewage treatment" with King County which is further explained in 3.4.2. City of Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace lies directly east of the City of Edmonds. The sewage from Mountlake Terrace is collected and conveyed by the Lake Ballinger Pump Station, near SR 104 or N 205th St. The sewer lines are owned and maintained by Mountlake Terrace and the Lake Ballinger Pump Station is owned and operated by King County. Operations of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station are described further in 3.4.2. Ronald Wastewater District and City of Shoreline. The southern portion of the City's service area is located in the City of Shoreline. Shoreline does not own or maintain any sanitary sewer system components; these portions are either owned by King County or Ronald Wastewater District. 3.2 SURROUNDING VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 Topography Figure 3.1 shows the City's service area boundary and the corporate boundaries of the cities described in Section 3.1. 3-1 Packet Page 433 of 660 Lake SerenQ'l � `N' 4 th = 1-5 r 40ih I,� a `PrOce 5 � � °' 40 42nd 41st �a'0je D Serene q3r 42nd �D �/ > 44Ih DD o DC D m �� (] a 461h 46Ih b J DDu ULJIJD 48Ih � �� � 47th ❑ 9Ih hgt 491h DD � D SOth yoI 99 52nd st ❑❑ Eon o 52nd _ _ � D y3td D 3rd L-ynnw ood� SSth LL D 54th .. 54th ` loi 54th 54th I \ II r !� 54th s4th lddS a S6Ih "' 0 6th f D56th yu �,�156th 56tt DDD��E 57th , o 57th o [s0th Oth 'r 60th DDD� 60th v D D 'Re fits7a 6zq d 62 d nd D 0.4ffi 62nd4t 64th�� DD N � f' rrJ 65th n Q `O 66[h ■i J� 5th r 6grh 661h O^ I` `'J 66th 66th�m 661 6.8 68th 6■■ 67Ih �DDDD d 68Ih � UUU ■ 69th 69m DD 70th ae\e _ D O §Iht LL 5'70Ih mDs D 9 D 1 Y I p� 73rd 74th ♦ ■ `7th • 8 ♦� dibo y�r 79th t — o o of 80th DD 81st D�� 61st Legend L� City of Edmonds Boundary Service Boundary Edmonds Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Woodway Brier Shoreline Lake Forest Park Seattle Unincorporated Snohomish County mt D aDD 46th 48th D �uu 56ltthh DD 41at � D r �N 47th 48th 48th D o h � DO 49t SOIh D50In s7s �DDDD st DD 52nd 53rd O 53rd SI �54thnr [ F=1 55th =IV V �D DLak 60th N 59� 60Ih�D� V�� FI: 61 st D� 66th O RU �� I 68Ih 68th��., �` D _ IDD o Et��Elf ' C7 h! F' U ST Sy DO 3atn F44T 45TH 45TH 44TH OAF Lake Washington Brl- -r 39 � � 2ND 39T 4pTjy g Q HT Ze Ged= 36Ty�D O5a3rdPiO�e �(e O�D �D�5D]2nrd Ns34r6d th DvR4N`I/M Ufir I is �noA'=� �1SGT 32ND 23D35ZTHH 29SN ■,=ie Z6rjN VDrZ�23RTD D�5T 3TTH �0O�� 0U33D20TN �� D��33RD3R�NN� 30TH 0TH 4911 a 8THHiD 0 D27�T50th N N�26T2TH N 24TH 54th 0H 2C ^yam 22ND [ errace �occc 5 20 H P o o 1 �� z � �N DAD ,STH ,6THDD D� �a � � � �D o 6TH f a H=� 2TH 1T�012THD PE DD Lake Ballinger ��uuuu I .11 2ND 1 T_ _ C r n Z c �L� CORLI, r 0LIl,ri STONE Elntcleo Lpnke i1 n J IJ o N III AURORA 99 It V ■'O s 86th 86t, h, 0 86th D� �_ _ `g6tn �D h 86tho DD��IIILI�N DEN o 0 uu ttryDEN LI Ni 88 Dth N SSth 87th 88th ■88th I��IUIJ�I LS 871h ■ ����❑=❑❑❑L1H �I E1 FREM ONT DD D Sunset 90m 89th �III��III II��J ttt.��_/// rJt JI nn '`.8 FIN . Q lst� m D �DD�DHillcresi OJa 90th " ■O ■ fl�l ■ D `� �❑ DL/ U��D� D�D DAYTON D L" ,J ` 92nd Sr _ D 121hD ■ 2� 92nd 92nd 92nd �' 9h 94th D93rd 12th� 93rd 93rd 93rd O P. N Q o Brtter Ln y, aDDO� D ' lh < a 951h 94th F' 0 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST ALATINE la �� 11 th 3 ti 95th D� Olympic m D O N■ N 2ND 2ND 1ST D� 1ST DD� 96th N 95th . 2ND 0 O 2ND D — D 96th DD RDD��D D 3RD In 101h _ UJLW�mL`JTLIL1LLEdmar>k 9g 98th LJULJ N 97th 97th a �LJ LIDD� ��Uln�fn �V a3RD a` D�JD� III 2 `,D DD�L1�1� �LJW LII LJLJD 9th 7 1D�fLJLID DDDDDDN ■ 6 H 6'(0 m 6TH �O UO y 1 STH DE:Eu, 0P BOUND P� [D6DDTDTTTmT�Tl HTTrTWDDDD � Pao 1 0 fit �Imm�II ^mmI^II I^p^II OTH N 1 DuL 7th LWLtJ �LtJWU��I��DD L p2nd ❑loam ■ Do O 44 Z yip 1 11TH '�- \O \O 1 •• IIr�s, ^mI m IInIInII Mtn 7th 12TH i en ke SS 61 1 ar OLJ��W�W ��LIL16th n 1Ty� SJy 1 '� C Y ¢•�. �� 1 — c D` 106th D 105th D 14TH SPRI O q 13TH i 1 6 `Va��L¢�Dz D� 5t� O ■ 106th O F �F 14TH 3Ty �F 1 7 �108t ti 1 7th STH 15TH12'OZ ` 411111, 17TH �s ,� Q 0 x � Tjy 16TH �♦ , �O ��o�� ,♦ ,, .D,, �/�I�—qa�\Edm�on s �d eetkn `♦♦, Timb PugetSound �♦ Mak0D111110tthh z� lsr� DD���4,* „6Ih 24THoo ,17TIH I"^ di � Highland 0���� III"Ir ��' uincor grated ��� Puget Sound 40 l� pF EDiypIV, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish &King County base data. _ NORTH G -w- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTkNTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet May 2012 3.1 COPYRIGHT©7jI12 QHC GQNSUELTq�LLG.,PJ TIGHTS RESERVED Itic 1S90 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The topography of the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly, with a few steep slopes along the stream corridors and property immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands, lakes and many creeks and small streams are found throughout the City (see Figure 3.2). 3.2.2 Geology The retreat of glaciers at the end of the last ice age formed the rolling terrain characteristic of the City. Erosion and flooding of low lying areas during that period resulted in soil deposits of two primary classifications as identified by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. These soil types are the Alderwood Series and the Everett Series, which are described below and displayed on Figure 3.3. The Alderwood Series is the most prevalent soil type in the City. The soil is moderately well drained and has a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper horizons but very slow in the consolidated substratum. These moderately well drained acidic forested soils formed in loamy glacial till and occur on rolling till plains and moraines. The Everett Series forms the soils located on outwash plains, terraces, and fans and occur on slopes ranging from 0 to 65 percent. These soils are glacial outwash, characterized as somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently undulating soil underlain by sand and gravel and found on terraces. 3.2.3 Water Resources The City's municipal water system provides service to approximately 80 percent of the population within the City limits or more than 10,050 customer accounts. The other 20 percent of the City's population receive water service from the Olympic View Water & Sewer District, which is located within the southwest portion of the City limits. All water supplied to the City customers is currently purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District and is conveyed through a single metered connection near the northeast corner of the water system. The City also has the capacity to serve a portion of its system with water purchased from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), but currently maintains this source of supply and the single metered connection on standby. Water purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District originates from the City of Everett Sultan River source. Water supplied by SPU originates from SPU's Tolt River source. Interties are also provided with the City of Lynnwood and Olympic View Water District (see Figure 3.4). 3-3 Packet Page 435 of 660 36ih 37m 38th = mf ry 361h / h� - t S`.�� `8t oh `^R 37ih N g Lake Serene I r� � � q 1 = 7. far 38 371h 38th Bri' r 390 / 1 40ih Pr° e s m 40ih 39th ` 39t 3 th 42ntl 4 �du ,r„9k 40ih Serene 43rtl • _ 42nd t 41st '- 44th 44ih _ ' 4Sr/i �� 45m `t c v 46th 46th 46ih 46th S - r 47[h 'P 47m N H m 461E 48thML d 48th �49th de 49th 50th ` ,°Oth B� 99 51atm 1st 50th 50th S7sr �,a Pies - 50th 52nd De onf 52nd ptLa/� £ st 51s p ♦ ,..53rd`` I L L nnwood i52"'nlll� �J 52nd 52nd m ` r�c-lN l"I •53rd 53rd rr3r ^ 53rd 53rd .. 53rd 53rd 55[. 54th _ _ 54th 111 54[h54th• 54t� 54ih 54th 54ih _ • 56th! If 0 56th « 56th Nq sr S6m ys ri r ake N56t 6 55th 55th _ ^r 57tn57n 1 57th l 57tn 1 r sq xarLa Mountlake Terrace 58ih 58th o ro _� 99 58th 59 i1 'u• °° \! I N - 58ih sptn not sam — 60th 60th '60ih 59th t 59ih 5th 7 G w 60th `� , 60th ' 60th 62n�! oa yap 62nd d ^ w 61st 61 st 615t 1st H 0ti 6 d y 63r 2ntl o RamP 64th $Ms� t 64yt S a H 63rd a" 64th 21 3 • • 64th �`v 4th \ kl f' = BSth v - r 661h ■% 5ih o a u`�i ® - �.a' 65th tiny o ., r SSrh 66th 66th r' m 66ih = c 66th��m N Eli .� 67tn 67tn -67th �` l� th U A y 10I ■ 's8m l�3R— sam satn 68th , 1 _ I m ■ ssm I ssm ;.ssm 6Brh m 70th a'W0\e -,%I ■ ac 9 70th 91h E a ^ r 70th w > ® I+\\ 70th t VaKealew 0e 17 �� mmol nd 7znd `\ Lake Ballii ■ ` 7zVV " 1st ■ �� 73r�� a r`n 72nd � �1 ■ ■ i7r?f �� � - Mrd lrer c �t.G � � `7 I - �- 1 �' 3rtl 5 M 73rd r 73rd 73rd . 5� 14rh 74th = N 74th t� 74 r• • ■ ■ �5� w J th `V �h� N�■■� ��. Ism I N N 78thlsm-7=7atn ■ q 7e 7atywlV lam 7sth h 07 80th o 80th N ' : • 81st 81st 81 st 81st 80th V N moo■ _ 83rd 82nd n 82nd" 2nd ■ N 82nd �q� `• 83rd I ®82nd 82nd ■ N m —S` B rd 84th s 4ih � ro' m ■ F 85m 85m ■.l�n�ncorporateil t S6th 86th °i N N n 5 $ _ 86th 86th 87m 86th = 87th 87 `D 88 ev 88m 8t " 88th ■88th `� xIr Sunset 90th 89th ro I 7gr illcresto\\Jm 90th = y0m Om �, r1 - ` 2n °.-° 12th 92nd ® Sr 92nd 92nd 93rd _ NtBh 94m �� 12th 3rd 93rd 93rd M 2th ` Is a 94m, -h t 11th 5% 1 0o 95m 95th I Vie > / Olympic m _ ssm / c 97th I `I m a 2I ■ -Edmond ssm 2b 9th loot III • , r8th 8th 8th 10 o A Cary e7 0 6th 6th 6t� m 106 Legend ♦ 4r T S J `5thEEE 6EE lost ser 3°. I 41h 41 � City of Edmonds Boundary �� , 2nd znd � o City Boundary Makah E .'p Service Boundary `'.,, 9 \ Nootka O°9w° ♦� Wetlands �� � ei I Highlind Woodway Water Bodies %4% ■ • * Water Courses `��� %CAMEMIEl ft IN MEN ST'M s Crek y0 w 44T t- yyon � 45TH J 4TH �F Lake Washington RA tE- BEAH J All Q� 8TH 39Ty 4p y C 1 37T 367H 7T 38jN 36TH _ - I � f• 37TH 36TH ory 35TH Lak Fore arc 35TH 35TH -O •32ND 33RD 34TH 33RD LAKE CITY 32ND 1ST �.,� = 32ND 31S 30TH 3otN 30TH /\ OTH 30TH 19m a 8TH 8TH 28TH 28TH ~ 2g'CN 281N = 27T 25TH 26TH 264N TH 26TH 26TH 2H 4T 23R ,s �G'. k2-1am D 2OTH P 22N v 5 0 20 O a a•(N = tx- 2OTH m 57t 19TN O �0 19TH N N H x 16'CN 17TH V 15TH 12TH 12TH 12TH 13TH • 14TH 12TH rx- 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 9 T I/ h 9TH I I 9TH 10TH Sly r f F 8TH N 6TH14 Cree STH STH kornton 4TH er I � 3RD 3RD 2ND 2ND 3RD x . o AT, 1ST 1ST 2 �i N ♦ n CORLISS x MERIDIAN BURKE BURKE o C � ENSMORE N V ASHWORTH w -\ �UzqIE+ I INTERLAK Z Echo La/c2 ,C Sh8'r line i STONE n O O 99 =URORA O� U N LINDEN ~o UNDEN a ^ LINDEN ) c� N �■ i FREMONT F ❑ -F x F ~ ro 2 DAYTON c 92ntl� x N r La F' X 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 2ND ALATINE 1ST �` v I� 1ST N■ N 2ND 2ND RD A 3RD In 2ND 3RD e �rn sa TH � 6TH POD Q� ♦ I � ■ 6TH ytN 8TH 9= n Q U OPT y BOUND P� I OTH • 11TH 10TH MOSS '0 TH •den O� Ih ■r SPRING,O 13TH 72rH th 1414TH 73TH 61F I Pth 5TH 9 15TH IN 7TH � vs � Prr!et Sound x 1 n _ 16T11 \ I 3 - Unincorpora�tei pF EDiyO . BHC Consultants, LLC Wetlands: Snohomish County, March 2004 GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH Gl� -�- WATER FEATURES - Seal Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 KingCounty, November 2004 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or - Seattle, Washington 98101 Wetland locations in the dataset are approximate. actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure This dataset contains polygons that represent the representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 206.505.3400 basic wetlands categories used r the King It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com (fax) County Stream and Wetlands Survey. is made concerning the accuracy, currency, www.bhcconsultants.com All wetland areas within this dataset should be or completeness of data depicted on this map. SCa/e In Feet May 2012 3.2 COPYRIGHT ©Wj g Cyi�NSUELTgQ LLG.,4J•4IGHTS RESERVED surveyed before land use changes are made. Inc is90 l Ln'ie Serene ■ s \� ca 'r v° a � Det Pond 1 r ga(t � 41� Qgt ga � ■ ■�■ �� Qgt Qgt Legend • lga • City of Edmonds Boundary go Service Boundary ♦` Water Bodies Water Courses Soils C3Qa - alluvium C3Qc(w) - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks (Whidbey) C3Qcg - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks, conglomerate C3 Qf - artificial fill, including modified land C4Qga - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qga(t) - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age (transitional) C3Qgo - continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qgpc - continental glacial drift, pre -Fraser, and nonglacial deposits C3Qgt - continental glacial till, Fraser -age C3 Qgu - glacial drift, undivided Qls - mass -wasting deposits, mostly landslides Qgt Trr.rt��� � Qgu Qg %, Qc� �, Qga(t) *4 SLefl Creel's `♦' �,`` Qc(w) 4;�, Qa Qga 1 1 Qa Lake Ballinger v� Qa creek 0^I McA�eer y♦ Qgo ' Qa Qga Qgo Lake Washington 1 -ho La 1 1 1 1 \W.-. ■. ■. r --,. /I\,--, �`� � Qc(w) � Qgt �— �.; f Qga' ) Puget Sound ■ Qgt Qgo -get 1 QI' �__ i 90 Qga" 00 Qf ��� — �' Puget Sound r r■ ,�1�, Qga; I Qg ♦' I® I� Bitter G~� OF EDMoIVS . BHC Consultants, LLC Soils Data: Washington State Department GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH -w- SOILS MAP 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 of Natural Resources 2005 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map ia geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTANTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this ma Scale in Feet 3 ■ P P P. Ine.is90 May 2012 COPYRIGHT ©7jI12 gHC CyijNSUELTgI�T4 LLG.,4J�l,�RIGHTS RESERVED IrQCIllT11'!g � 650 ALDERWOOD WATER & SEWER NORTH SOUTH 221 %Tit 21 tl!ff LY.T21 ZONE) 1 T 600 596 ZONE } I I CITY OF LYNNWOOD 573 ZONE PRV #2 PRV #5 550 PRV 010 PRV #14 PRV #15 & 13 PRV #9 -RV 09 TR V #16 PRV #17 500 500 ZONE I I 505 ZONE / OE=492.5' 0E=488' 1.5 MG RESERVOIR 450 -RV #18 DIAMETER: 80' LTTOM EL- 3.0 MG RESERVOIR 31.600 GAL/FT9 425 ZONE BOTTTTOMEEL: 1445' 420 ZONE 63.540 GAL/FT 400 T RV #3 T RV #6 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIRS & PUMP STATION / 'RV #7 350 325 ZONE 0E=325' 1.5 MG 1.5 MG OE=325' SEAVIEW RESERVOIR YOST RESERVOIR 300 PRESSURE RELIEF DIM: 1191x119'O. PRESSURE RELIEF g05924 DIM: 119'x119' STATION #4 GAL/FT STATION #19 1805,924 GAL/FT LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS 596 ZONE - PRESSURE REDUCING EL ELEVATION 505 ZONE STATION/VALVE FT FEET 500 ZONE MG MILLION GALLONS 486 ZONE H ISOLATION VALVE OE OVERFLOW ELEVATION 425 ZONE 14 CONTROL VALVE 420 ZONE y� 325 ZONE PRESSURE RELIEF STATION _----- ADJACENT SYSTEM O INTERTIE PUMP STATION Image Source:City of Edmonds �-' O FACILITIES AT SAME SITE Comprehensive Water System Plan, MSAAugust 2010 P:\Mapping\Maps_Generated\Edmonds\12-10265.00\maps\CompSewerPlan - March 2013\Fig 3.4 Water System Schematic 8.5x11.mxd 3/27/2013 ctolentino ra 650 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDBY SUPPLY (592 ZONE) 600 4-------------- 550 ---------------------- OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT LOW ZONE (540 Fr) 500 450 1 400 1 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 350 WOODWAY ZONE (353 FT) 300 1 OV EDA"IV BHC Consultants, LLC WATER SYSTEM SCHEMATIC • 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 4 jw �Seattle,Washington98101 i COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206.505.3400 # CONSULTAN S 206.505.340s(fax) City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.conn March 2013 3.4 nr. 1890 COPYRIGHT ©2013 BFj§&f.7j11,%wL&4;&LkJ2QLl,4IWq RESERVED e COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Surface Water— The two most dominant fresh water features in the sewer service area are Lake Ballinger and Echo Lake. Lake Ballinger is by far the larger of the two and is located in the central western portion of the City, near 1-5 between the City of Edmonds and City of Mountlake Terrace. It has an intermittent inlet and drains through McAleer Creek to Lake Washington. The lake has a surface area of 100 acres, a mean depth of 15 feet, and a maximum depth of 25 feet. Echo Lake is located in Shoreline, a few blocks east of Highway 99. Echo Lake has an area of 12 acres and a watershed area of 288 acres. Puget Sound borders the City on the west. Groundwater — A study done in 1997 by the US Geological Survey found that 94% of the groundwater in South Snohomish County was considered soft to moderately hard. No appreciable widespread groundwater contamination was found at the time of the study. Concentrations of arsenic, iron and manganese were the most widespread groundwater problems in the area. The population growth in Snohomish County has increased dramatically in the last 10 years and has affected the quantity and the quality of groundwater. Most groundwater recharge in Snohomish County is from infiltration of precipitation, and impervious surfaces caused by increased development prevent infiltration. Consequently, less groundwater is becoming available as land development increases. 3.3 LAND USE 3.3.1 Growth Management Act The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act with the intent of concentrating most new development and population gains within urban areas of the more populous and rapidly growing counties. These counties are required to define an urban growth boundary within which urban services like sewers are provided, and any new parcels created outside that boundary must be low density with sufficient acreage to support onsite sewage disposal systems conforming to State Health regulations. The entire service area is within the GMA boundaries of the City or the adjacent cities for urban development. Consequently, the limitations on extending sewer service to unsewered areas is a non -issue. Zoning within the service area can be classified as commercial/industrial, low density multi -family, high density multi -family, single family, and undeveloped lands such as public right of ways, parks, and open space. These zoning areas are depicted in Figure 3.5. Low density multi -family zoning allows a variety of low -density, multi -family housing including townhouses, multi -family structures and attached or detached homes on small lots. 3-7 Packet Page 439 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4 RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT SEWERAGE AGENCIES Neighboring agencies such as utility districts and municipalities provide sewer service adjacent to the City of Edmonds. Summaries of the agreements made between the City of Edmonds and the various agencies are described below, as well as background information on each of the adjacent service providers. Copies of the referenced interlocal agreements are included in Appendix G. • City of Lynnwood • King County Metro • City of Mountlake Terrace • Ronald Wastewater District • Olympic View Water and Wastewater District The geographical relationship between these agencies is represented on Figure 3.6. To better understand the current contractual agreements with the neighboring sewer utilities, refer to graphical presentations on Figures 3.7 to 3.10. 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood City of Lynnwood border the northeast portion of the City of Edmonds. A portion of the flows within Edmonds municipal boundaries are routed to the Lynnwood Sanitary System and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. This accounts for approximately 15% of the influent flow into the Lynnwood WWTP or about 300,000 gallons per day (Annual Average Flow). The City of Edmonds owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Lynnwood on a per customer basis for the treatment. As of 2010, there is an approximate sewered population of 6,200, and an employment population of 509. There are no schools in this zone. See Figures 3.7 and for a map of the area. City of Edmonds also receives a small portion of flow from Lynnwood boundaries that flows through the Meter 1 Sub -basin (see Figure 5.1). This is estimated at approximately 0.5% of the total flow tributary to Edmonds WWTP. 3-9 Packet Page 441 of 660 Lnkt� Styrene ❑ 40th a 42nd S❑ 4❑ III 44th 64th 36th t ❑ `ac chD 381h � 40th 39th 41st ❑ s � �! 42nd t N 41 st ❑ ❑❑� 44th ❑❑❑ o ya2e/ j 46th ❑❑PaJPL�E]6th 46th 47th 48th N 48th 48th s ❑ ❑ �� 1❑ 99 49th ❑❑❑❑❑❑ 59th O al q" 52nd 51 st � ^❑I \❑�❑ L��,j U I 56th n J 581h th 58t ❑❑� 60th ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑r❑❑ 44T 45TH ST �y0 /�'w.'w.I i (� I� Lake Washington b 37th 36^ ❑A r�r.D D�IIStri, v�iI �n—�1\ 45TH 44TH �F` g N U th 42ND ��n���JJ to N �LJ Llh�❑ ��rtih Ut�l: Ity gp'CN a I� / BEACH 9th i/ A N aon �IStI`li('t ��Gnn rin❑❑ll ��❑ _ ,.. �--,,�,—� s7TH ,❑s❑-Jl��ln❑/❑❑❑���V Af/❑❑�❑.� ,l�r\ � G 54th 55th O 56th 25TH 12TH TH i ❑ UUUV'0 ❑�m❑� 66th 66th-1 E� U"fl'A6�h—" LAg�"LLJ❑❑t�668th o 68{h ���❑ ❑� In ❑/o �rH—.7/TH�I� TH O 7rH ❑❑❑ m 70th e _ 69L �O m 9th �❑❑ e p� e 70th t 7 th 701h %L 701h 2keN ' = 0 7 Lake Ballinger 32N ❑a71 st ❑ N❑ g 2ND O U 72nd � O LOB ❑ ❑ TM to ❑� �� 5❑ z I ( UE 73� _ a �. 0 73rd 73r 73rd _ �r D❑ r� 741h IJ N 74th 74th N a 74th 74th IIL� N CORLISS = _ ❑ N m m lgth 761h ❑ N Q A ❑❑���❑ ❑ MERIDIAN ��� ` ❑❑��❑ m` GG Em ez� 7t `NiACh � rv' .�A � � BURKE ? BURKE 79th 'fie 78th Sth 78th 78th 78t `-' 78th 78th❑��❑❑�G00 °' �❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ o ❑ 0000 som BB See Ot . G� �❑❑❑❑❑❑ LD s alst aist s15t elst st s 01 �O U� � g d �82ndN 82nd 82d ❑� � ❑ 81s a����1111 �IIII'iI co«e❑ ❑��J�- ❑82n 2nd Lh7l =484th ❑�� ENE] � ❑ 85th 85th O O astn °' � ssm �, o ❑ � E t 86[h N B6th 8 ih �th o` / THL ❑❑= 87[hth w 88th 88th 88th � lll///JJ❑❑❑❑8t G�. 0 gunset 90th 891h /����I��i�rC����� ❑❑❑G❑❑�❑ c Q is/� 2n Ci,'•Iiy Otl Gdi�OC�.S'.Icres� Jm 90h s 9 t0 90th �v` ` ❑❑ 92nd 5 ep '� Q 92nd 92nd 92nd NtBh 94th D93rd 1 12th 3rd 93rd �I� LIB. rd O p. a OI m 1_c view = ❑ ?2SNT9 ❑GG 0 p 95th ❑ 95th / yi , ~ ti 1ST 1ST 1ST1ST m isVie Olym is ❑�Ic ����� \ 'o `} „�I . rlPit� `n 2ND96th Sewer Dl�s.tdct o❑❑❑3R���� y ❑❑a������j�m���z1 97th 98th��I 9/th 97th ��N �`am� 6THl I T I If1li IR1TT P' F _ ❑ I ❑�❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ G I( III ❑_ inn 6T n �<N �❑f � �� ��� Legend s City of Edmonds Olympic View Sewer District E City of Mountlake Terrace City of Lynnwood - AWWD Sewer District ° Highlands Sewer District 0 - Ronald Wastewater District City of Lake Forest Park - North Utility District _ E .1 Service Boundary o II^rnrn^IIII ^mmI^II IlIrrI yImnyITllIIlmI uu�JL JL�LJ ❑ :10THo❑o 7th ������ip2nd �dnpld7'1 //arQfT�TthTT[UTITW ^S��12T\ ( 'Ftil lelt L flsl Y KSe-werRl,Dstri❑6epF_ 106th N F 105th ❑U 3T 14TH /♦♦ S°'S ill �e T���'�JLJLJ❑� 5�� 108th❑ 106t7th STH v �<� 15TH �,�e ��❑� ❑ nd nd 110th O 17TH ,srH E o ¢ H Tmbe 11❑C� GG 20TH ,1� ,� `�aft Makah 3 ❑ 21 ST � � 21 ST � �' ootk y�ootl 11 I O� v D�a m 22ND ,, ♦ Qo TH IIILLLJJJIII B �� `� ,� a15 24TH ❑❑ ♦ ei Highland 38 i ❑l❑�� ♦♦��` ,��`� _ ram= Puget Sound Puget Sound ,A% , �#V L STONE C 99 O� tU�R OR7A� ❑ �EN � ■ GIS Data: City of Edmonds. ` OF EDAfC, ADJACENT SEWER - . BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. NORTH G 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 AGENCIES - Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure —[&—.0011 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 206 505 3406 (fax) It does not represent surveydata. No warrantyCity t Of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Feet y or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet March 201 3 3.6 COPYRIGHT ©�3�HC CyQNSUELTgNT LL�,HJ�I,�RIGHTS RESERVED Inc 1890 L �TL�E 0I0, COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4.2 King County The Richmond Beach Sub -basin area, as shown in Figures 3.8 and 5.1, is maintained and operated by Ronald Wastewater District and King County. Flow from the Richmond Beach Pump Station is ALWAYS sent to the City of Edmonds and treated at the City of Edmonds WWTP. King County also operates the Lake Ballinger Pump Station which serves a portion from Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District (Meter B Sub -basin). This area is also referred to as "Edmonds East" in the 2000 Agreement with King County. The Edmonds East catchment has a considerably more populated area than Richmond Beach and thus, produces higher flows. The City of Edmonds and King County executed an agreement on October 6, 2000 that addresses responsibilities for the flow. The responsibilities are described in brief below and the full agreement can be seen in Appendix G. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2012 The agreement recognizes an initial period, defined in the agreement as 2000 to 2012, where Edmonds was responsible for seasonal treatment from BOTH Richmond Beach and Lake Ballinger Pump Station. This was presumably done while King County increased treatment capacity within their system (i.e. build the Brightwater Wastewater Facilities). During this period, sewage from Richmond Beach ALWAYS was conveyed to and treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. All Lake Ballinger Flow was treated by Edmonds during the winter/spring months from November 1 until April 30. During the summer months, the flow swap was engaged and the County received a volumetric flow out of Lake Ballinger approximately equal to what the City is treating out of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin Area. There were limited periods that King County received all flows from Lake Ballinger, presumably when Edmonds needed to make repairs to their system. Edmonds was compensated $100,000 per year for this agreement. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036 In a subsequent agreement for the period January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036, King County is responsible for treating a volumetric flow from the Lake Ballinger Pump Station that is equal to the flow pumped into Edmonds from the Richmond Beach Sub -basin area for the ENTIRE year. The flow in excess of this volume is directed to and treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Edmonds is responsible for Operations and Maintenance costs of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station based on the amount of flow pumped into Edmonds system (See Appendix G). Theoretically, under the conditions of the flow swap, the flow from Richmond Beach Sub -basin should be within 5% of the flow sent to King County through the Ballinger Pump Station. Richmond Beach flow can be estimated by the influent parshall flume meter at the WWTP for Richmond Beach. The flow diverted out of Lake Ballinger can be estimated by subtracting the total flow into the Station (Meters A, B, D) from the downstream flow into the Edmonds system (Meter 3 minus Meter C). For the most part, in 2012, King County sent flow to Edmonds from the hours of 3 pm to 6 am. This 3-12 Packet Page 444 of 660 .7 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN indicates that they are matching the daily flow out of Richmond Beach in a 9 hour period, 6 am to 3 pm. In recent years and for the summer months it appears that the flow through Lake Ballinger Pump Station exceeds the flow through Richmond Beach Pump Station by approximately 1 MGD. 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace The City of Mountlake Terrace is adjacent to the southeast border of the City of Edmonds. Mountlake Terrace lies east of SR 99 and Edmonds to the west. A portion of the City of Mountlake Terrace's sewer system is routed to the Lake Ballinger Pump Station (approximately 2,265 acres). The sewage is then either routed south to King County Facilities or north to the Edmonds WWTP per the City of Edmonds/King County Agreement for Reciprocal Sewage Treatment. Regardless of where the sewage is routed, City of Mountlake Terrace is contractually bound to the City of Edmonds for treatment of the sewage flow. See Figure 3.9 for a map of the described area. 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District Ronald Wastewater District is located within City of Shoreline municipal boundaries and is directly south of the City of Edmonds. A May 17t", 1988 agreement between City of Edmonds and Ronald Wastewater allows a portion of Ronald's flow to be conveyed to and treated at Edmonds WWTP. Ronald Wastewater District owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Edmonds for conveyance and treatment. Some of the flow from Ronald is directed through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and may actually flow to King County per the Reciprocal Sewage Treatment Agreement. However, Ronald is still obligated to pay the City of Edmonds for all treatment costs. Figure 3.10 shows the portion of Ronald Wastewater District that flows north to Edmonds. 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District Olympic View Water and Wastewater District maintains and operates a sewage system within the City of Edmonds municipal boundaries. Generally, the District is responsible for an area at the southern side of the City boundaries. Olympic pays Edmonds for treatment and conveyance on a flow basis. 3-14 Packet Page 446 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IV — DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CRITERIA Sewer system design criteria and standards have been developed to maintain a consistent level of service throughout the City. These criteria and standards facilitate planning, design and construction of sewer system projects to achieve a predictable level of quality. These guidelines have been created to meet the increased need for sewer service in response to developments and population growth and the occasional updates to the land use regulations set forth by Cities or County. The following is a partial list of criteria which affect sizing and siting of facilities. The City's design and construction standards are presented in the City's Standard Details and supplemental specifications modifications. Plans and design shall meet the "Criteria for Sewage Works Design," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology, as revised December 1998, except where more stringent City requirements are noted. These standards are to be followed unless otherwise approved by the City. 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline • All sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed to provide gravity service for all adjacent lots. In rare occasions where gravity service is not feasible the City may allow the use of individual grinder pumps for a limited number of connections. The design use and ownership of grinder pumps shall be per Section 4.1.5. • Unless otherwise called for by the City, gravity sewers shall be constructed from PVC or concrete pipe. However, Ductile Iron or HDPE pipe materials may be required in certain applications. Pipe materials shall meet the following standards. Material Standard Plastic — PVC ASTM D3034-SDR 35 or F789 Concrete Class 2 unreinforeced ASTM C14 or AASHTO M 86 Concrete (reinforeced) ASTEM C76 or AASHTO M 170 Ductile Iron AWWA C151 HDPE ASTM D1248, Type III, Category 5, Class C, Grade P34 (See Section 2740 • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) and pipe anchors shall be required for all pipeline slopes of twenty percent (20%) and/or greater. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) shall be required where the depth of cover is 15- feet or greater. Developers may request the use of PVC at depths greater than 4-1 Packet Page 449 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 15-feet. If so requested, the Developer shall certify the brand of pipe material to be used and he/she shall provide documentation that the pipe material is applicable to the soil conditions of the site and the proposed depth. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) may be required where the depth of cover in traffic areas is less than 4 feet. • All sewer pipes shall have 5- foot minimum cover in rights -of -ways and 3-foot minimum cover in all other areas. • All pipes 8-inch and larger shall terminate at a manhole. • Where a smaller diameter upstream pipe meets a larger diameter downstream pipe, the inverts at the manhole shall be determined by matching pipe crowns. • Pressure sewer mains shall be ductile iron pipe or PVC meeting AWWA C-900. • Minimum grade for 8-inch sewer mains shall be 0.5%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade for dead-end sewer mains that will not be extended shall be 0.75%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade and design criteria shall be in accordance with "Criteria for Sewage Works Design, State of Washington, DOE", unless City standards are more stringent. 4.1.2 Manholes • Manhole numbers shall be obtained from the City. • All sewer which are 8-inches and larger shall terminate in a manhole. All pipes entering/leaving a manhole shall be aligned with the center of the manhole unless otherwise authorized by the City. • Manholes shall be 48" I.D. precast concrete, designed in accordance with the City's Standards and Details. All Manholes shall conform to ASTM C-478. Manhole frames and covers shall be locking type in accordance with City's Standards and Details and shall be supplied with stainless steel allen head cap screws. Manholes shall be a minimum of 5 feet deep unless otherwise approved by the City. See Standard Details 1 through 8. • Inside drop manholes shall be 54" I.D (minimum) precast concrete and have a minimum drop structure of 5 feet. • Where a drop manhole is required, the inside drop shall be per Detail No. E6.5 unless otherwise authorized or specified by the City. 4-2 Packet Page 450 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Manholes with incoming or outgoing sewer lines 15" or greater shall be 60" I.D. or greater, as directed by the City. • Manholes shall have a minimum one -tenth of a foot (0.10 foot) drop at the center of the manhole. • Manhole channels shall be shaped to allow placement and use of the City's television inspection equipment. Channels shall be constructed at the full depth and diameter of mainline. Manhole shelves shall have slopes of inch per foot. Channels and shelf shall be constructed plaster smooth. • Manholes shall be placed at each grade and direction change. Distances between manholes shall not exceed 500 feet. 4.1.3 Side Sewers • Side sewers laterals shall be constructed of SDR-35 PVC pipe, a minimum of 6- inches in diameter, and in accordance with ASTM D-3034. Installation shall follow Detail E6.4. • The grade for 6-inch side sewer stubs shall be a minimum of two percent (2%). • Approximate stub locations shall be shown on the plans. • Cleanouts shall be used and placed over every side sewer at the property line. • A side sewer stub shall be provided for each parcel on all new sewer extensions, regardless of whether the homeowner connects or not. The side sewer stub shall extend a minimum of 5-feet onto the property. The side sewer stub shall be located and terminate in accordance with Detail E6.4. 4.1.4 Pump Stations Developers/Owners of developments that may require a pump station to provide sewer service shall contact the City regarding the design requirements of the station and the current City Pump Policies. 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps The use of individual grinder pumps to serve residential connections shall be limited to connections in which a gravity alternative is not feasibly possible. The City shall make the determination as to which connections qualify for service by grinder pump. Grinder pumps shall meet the following standards. 4-3 Packet Page 451 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 1. Grinder pumps shall be owned and maintained by the property owner and shall only serve a single ERU. 2. Grinder pumps Systems shall be Environmental One Model 2010. 3. Minimum velocity for Grinder pump pipelines shall be 2 feet per second. 4. Pipelines shall be installed with cleanouts at the end of each line and at critical line size changes to facilitate cleaning. 5. Minimum storage volumes shall be 70 gallons. The Developer shall provided estimated flows to verify adequate storage capacity. 4.2 EASEMENTS Easements dedicated to the City of Edmonds shall be provided for the construction, maintenance and operation of sewer mains or any other related City owned facilities which lie outside of public street right-of-ways. Easement documents shall be drawn up from the City's standard forms and shall include drawings and legal descriptions for each easement. Drawings and legal descriptions shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor, currently registered in the State of Washington. Easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width, with the sewer located in the center of the easement. There shall be a separate easement provided for each lot that a sewer crosses. Easements must be approved and received by the City prior to side sewer connection. 4.3 STANDARD DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES The City's Sample Plans, General Notes and Standard Details are provided in the Appendix I. The Sample Plans and Standard Details shall be considered during design and shall be followed during construction. At minimum a copy of the applicable manhole detail(s), the side sewer detail and the typical trench detail shall be included on all developer plans sets. Copies of additional individual details may also be required to be on the plans. 4-4 Packet Page 452 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER V - EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 DRAINAGE BASINS The City's service area is divided into different Sub -basins as identified on Figure 5.1. The sub -basins were originally delineated as part of the 2010 1&1 Study by BHC Consultants, LLC. There are a total of 12 Sub -basins that either includes parts of the Edmonds corporate limits or areas that flow to and are treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Sub -basins In Edmonds Flow to Edmonds Flow to Lynnwood Flows to King City Limits WWTP WWTP County Meter 1 X X X Zone 1 X X X Zone 2 X X X X Meter A X X Meter B X X Meter C X Meter E X X MILT Zone X X Edmonds Zone X X LS #1 X X Richmond Beach Zone X Lynnwood Zone X X These Sub -basin boundaries are shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Sub -basins LS-1, Edmonds Zone, Meter C and the MLT Zone generally flow west towards Edmonds WWTP and Puget Sound. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin is conveyed directly to the Edmonds WWTP where it is separately metered. Meter 1, Zone 1, Zone 2, Meter A, Meter B and Meter E generally flow to the south end of Lake Ballinger and are either pumped into the Edmonds System or to King County Metro. The Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin includes portions of the City, but is pumped to the Lynnwood WWTP. A more detailed description of each basin is included below. The City operates ten different flow meters within the system. Sub -basin delineations are, for the most part, based on these meter locations. Relying on the flow data from these meters it is possible to identify flow in certain areas of the City. Similarly, per capita loadings and I&I contributions can be compared for each Sub -basin. This can be valuable information for identifying areas with high Inflow and Infiltration and for general information about the system. 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin The Meter 1 Zone consists of approximately 160 acres and is located on the eastern edge of City of Edmonds municipal boundary. 5-1 Packet Page 453 of 660 Lake Serene E" Sew 43rC� 64th 44th 7oth ��av OR— 1, 99 36th c a uO mt 361h N at° D Oath 259th O (-i 44th N tttlaa a 46th 47m ^^^^^^^ 47th ❑� 11h] 48th48th U 66th 66t w 66th "' 66th 67th `� 68th iLf 7otn t m m stn Er w � ,jai a 1st 73rd a O1 h 73rd 74t ■ lrJlC� O IN ILJI ■ fa FV e� Lie 'th 79t B U SOth 88�88� 5 81s1 81st 81 st 81 s[ m 83rtl 82n �^ 83rtl 841h i 86m 6' Sstn m = N o e P 888thu RRth 67th 90th 2❑ 8k D r o 92nd 12t Nign 94m D93rd 12th 1t C �LS-1 „th N Olym is d n 10th 53rd � 53rd Meter A�� 64th M-o�antlake Terrace 56th 67th 67th ooDo�a� o� 63th 59th two �Inn��lr���nn l. Meter' 1 ' i ' ■ TKJa L L6' Znoe1� 1 U Ua f86)Ea' 7th ■ M LT,Zo ■ , �j � �Zyg,��j I�jC�U �I:1 1�_ V Ij-I WD LVIIIC I � U(_J � 1 T��WI7W1 WfYW1 LVJ LJLJ� 9th � 100t 8t UD th 8 W' �La^mmJ �Lrr°J �111JLJLJ��U�U� 102nd 7th LtJ W�� w ff�TT�1 ID�IYI1I Cary c7 m ¢,oh W ��uLl 6th �E-1 5 1061h y Legend E `SG 9e d '. �'aar e���am�� 5th `�� g a Base Layers Sub -Basins Sub -Basins fWWTP 2n ♦ O nd ndv - r City of Edmonds Boundary Edmonds Zone MeterA Makah V City Boundary LS-1 Meter B ootk 9,N00 o , i 1 6 Service Boundary I 11 MILT Zone Meter C i�� S. `�' a Highland ■ Richmo Edmonds WWTP Zone 1 M Meter E � ■ • �♦ Woodway Lynnwood WWTP Zone 2 Richmond Beach Zone � Puget Sound `��� ♦`a_____�� _ Meter 1 jI Lynnwood Zone C::�4�tefrME � NFE�ch. Y _ 12TH 1ST 11TH 1041h � 12TH 105th SPRI 1 1�6Ih 14TH I ...IIIIIIIIILLL F 7th STH 17TH 17TH U� 21 sT 21ST F �22ND o00 no 2ND k 34 99 X Lake Washington 7; 1 7 ��_ II ia.M, o y ' GPr' gODNDPQ- �O ' /y S\OH�P y�`e\p 1 Richms n �m 70 Z Puget Sound GIS Data: City of Edmonds. 1� of EDMo,V BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. _ NORTH G -,�-� SUB -BASINS 1601 - Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206,505,3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 • CONSULTANT S 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this ma Scale in Feet 5.1 p p• p� April COPYRIGHT©7jI13 gHC CyijNSUELTgI�T�S LLG.,4J�4IGHTS RESERVED Inc 1890 l I S \CAD \EDMONDS\ 12-10265 COMP SWR PLAN\DWGS\F12-10265 FLOW DIA.DWG (GOC) I APR 23 2013 16:02:45 1 XREFS: METER 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-2 METER 1 ZONE 1 eo---------, I EDMONDS OVWD ZONE E-7 � ZONE O-1 `----1 I 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-21 METER 2 t----------- EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE L-3 � ZONE E-6 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-1 I 1 1 MILT 1 ZONE M-3 ZONE 2 METER A ZONE RB-1 METER E r�-- --- METER B r ----.1 r MILT MI LT EDMONDS RONALD I RICHMOND 1 ZONE M-2 I I ZONZONE E-9 I ZONE R-1 I BEACH P.S. I I METER E METER A METER B WOODWAY METER D BALLINGER PUMP STATION BALL APTS ZONE B-1 RONALD f OVWD ZONE R-2 I ZONE O 5 METER C l I METER C OVWD METER 3 EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE 0-2 I ZONE E-40 ZONE E-4 ----� OVWD — — — — — -- —= EDMONDS ZONE 0-3 WOODWAY 11 ZONE E-7A METER 4* ZONE W-2 I I EDMONDS 1 ZONE E-42 I 1 RONALD OVWD 1 ZONE R-3 ZONE O 4 I`--------------- M LT ZONE * FLOW METER DATA FROM 4 IS NOT AVAILABLE OR THOUGHT TO BE UNRELIABLE. BHC Consultants, LLC ` 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com RICHMOND BEACH INFLUENT METER AT WWTP PS #1 EDMONDS ZONE E-5 11 PS#7 ``---1) PS #2 WOODWAY I1 EDMONDS ZONE W-1 �DNDI 11 PS #8 11 �`--- ZONE E-51 II PS #3 EDMONDS 1 LS-01 ZONE E-52 ZONE -----� MILT INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Ir EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Schematic Flow Diagram Figure Comprehensive Sewer Plan 5.2 Edmonds, Washington April 2013 Packet Page 455 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Generally, flow from this Sub -basin flows south towards Lake Ballinger and can be measured by the readings at meter 1. 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin Zone 1 is comprised of approximately 324 acres and generally flows east to an outlet near SR 99. After it combines with flows from the Meter 1 Sub -basin, the flows are measured by meter 2. Therefore, Zone 1 Sub -basin flows can be measured by subtracting flow measured at meter 1 from meter 2. 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin Zone 2 Sub -basin has approximately 525 acres and flows south towards the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. Flow from this area is combined with Zone 1 Sub -basin and Meter 1 Sub -basin. This combined flow joins with flow from Meter E Sub -basin before it flows through Meter D, immediately before the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. The flow in Zone 2 Sub -basin can be measured by subtracting both meter 2 and meter E readings from the meter D readings. 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin Meter A Sub -basin is in Mountlake Terrace. Flow from this Sub -basin is directed toward the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. At that point the flow will either be pumped to the Edmonds system or to King County depending on the flow swap proportions. Meter A Sub -basin approximately 1,600 acres and all flow are measured at meter A. 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin Meter B Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 555 acres and lies outside of the Edmonds corporate boundaries. For the most part, flows from Meter B Sub -basin flow through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and are measured by meter B. The Ballinger Commons Apartments are part of this Sub -basin but are not routed through meter B. 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin Meter C Sub -basin consists of approximately 143 acres and is largely located outside the corporate boundaries of Edmonds. Flows are combined with a small area in Olympic View Wastewater District and are measured through meter C. 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin Meter E Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 663 acres and is located on west edge of the City of Mountlake Terrace, adjacent to the City of Edmonds municipal boundary. Flow from this Sub -basin is measured by flow meter E. 5-4 Packet Page 456 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin The MLT Zone Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 1,575 acres. Sewage from this area generally flows northwest and to the City's WWTP. The MLT influent meter at the WWTP measures all flows exiting the MLT Zone Sub -basin plus upstream contributions. MLT Zone Sub -basin flows can be determined by subtracting meter 3 from the MLT influent meter. 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin The Edmonds Zone is comprised of approximately 1,415 acres and lies directly east of the Edmonds WWTP. Flow from the Edmonds Zone is measured through the Edmonds Influent Meter at the WWTP. Since the LS #01 is tributary, it is necessary to subtract out LS #01 flows to estimate the flows originating in the Edmonds Zone Sub -basin. 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin The LS-1 Zone Sub -basin lies at the north side of the Edmonds service area and is comprised of approximately 1,107 acres. There are three lift stations operating within this Sub -basin, stations 1, 2 and 3. All flows in this Sub -basin are pumped through Lift Station #1. This station, however, does not have a flow meter. 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin The Richmond Beach Sub -basin lies in the southwest corner of the City of Edmonds service area. It is comprised of 4,054 acres. All flow from the Richmond Beach Sub - basin is pumped through the Richmond Beach Pump Station and flows through the Richmond Beach Influent Meter at the WWTP. King County operates and maintains the Richmond Beach Pump Station as part of the 2000 agreement for reciprocal sewage treatment. 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin City of Edmonds has an agreement to send a portion of sewage within the Edmonds municipal boundary to Lynnwood WWTP for sewage treatment. This area is at the northeast corner of the Edmonds municipal boundary and is comprised of approximately 1,241 acres. Edmonds owns and operates six different lift stations within the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flow from this Sub -basin does not influence conveyance to and capacity at the Edmonds WWTP. s-s Packet Page 457 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.2 CITY COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE FACILITIES The City's inventory of gravity sewer lines totals approximately 680,000 linear feet of pipes ranging from 6-inches to 36-inches in diameter. This accounts for the City owned pipe only and not adjacent sewer adjacencies which own and operate the sewer infrastructure, and send flow to Edmonds for treatment. Table 5.1 below presents the summarized inventory of the City -owned piping systems. Table 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory Pipe Size Total Length of City -owned Pipe feet 6-inch 19,678 8-inch 535,672 10-inch 34,145 12-inch 13,017 15-inch 9,612 18-inch 7,133 24-inch 21,937 30-inch 3,456 36-inch 3,237 Unknown 31,340 TOTAL 679,227 feet 5.3 LIFT STATIONS The City has a total of 14 active lift stations. Additionally, there are the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and the Richmond Beach Pump Station which are owned and maintained by King County. Several lift stations were upgraded in 2012. In addition, telemetry upgrades have been made at all of the lift stations. Most of the stations have alarm notifications which include: pump on/off; pump failure; power failure; high / low wet well level; generator run; operator in trouble; intrusion; and smoke detector. Table 5.2 summarizes the Pump Station inventory as well as some of the operating conditions. Figure 5.3 illustrates the relationship between each of the District's lift stations and give a representation of their location within the system. 5-6 Packet Page 458 of 660 Table 5.2 Pump Station Inventory Pump Station No. Pump Type Number of Pumps Pump Manufacturer Rated Capacity GPM @ TDH Force Main Size and Type Year Initially Installed PS Upgrades Year (if any) 1 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 1425 gpm @ 19 feet 10-inch AC & 12-inch DI 2002 2 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGFHX300 85 gpm @ 35 feet 3-inch DI 2011 3 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Allis Chalmers 114 @ 94 feet 4-inch DI 2012 4 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 308 gpm @ 164 feet 6-inch DI 2012 5 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 48 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 6 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Gormann Rupp 335 gpm @ 45 feet 6-inch DI 2005 7 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" Gormann Rupp 210 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch PVC 2008 8 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 137 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch DI 2008 9 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 2 - 4" WEMCO 2 - 5 WEMCO 332 gpm @ 38 feet 6-inch DI 2012 10 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 Hydromatic HPGFX 114 gpm @ 49 feet 4-inch DI 2012 11 Submersible 2 4" Gormann Rupp 95 gpm @ 73 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 12 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" KSB 308 gpm @ 142 feet 6-inch DI 2012 14 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 33 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 15 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGHX500 42 gpm @ 60 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 Packet Page 459 of 660 66th 55[h ■- "J �� =0��� N S w„JuV - '2 N N �9 r ssrh ssm s sstn sst s ssm o sstn 0 0 O�- o ■'1Q� 67th a Dlrl- Y68th �y _ H[]-t 99 / n o � � O Uus8tn DO�9s a sa LS #11u 0 69th Gem ssm � � � ♦ 69m 69th 6 s`9GS m lue Rid9° _ m 9th 70m ^ � ■ F69th71a70ih 72nd UL Z 72nd 72 ° a 71st - ■ 72nd •, ` � 3rd � � ♦♦ 0 2nd a5 ■ 74t 73rtl fO gJ` 3rd 73rd r' 1 ■ �%2� w 12°a 75t 73rd 73rd FT N ❑ 73rd1 73rd ■ �■ ` ��♦ ♦� � a qH° h°wtam ♦A � L 7atn �iA!• �� ■� 0#12 Tom 74t 0raemar u 74ih a ■ ■ ■ ■ [tttttt� ■ N E i L ° M r ! mt _ °� I `•♦ y� O'Oo�WWTP ■ �■■�� ■�°' � ��❑n � � � 7th 7th L N �' 77th ` \■ 78th 78t �] 78th 78th 78th ■ ■ ■ ..I F 79th O78th *N 78th v sul to s HBMBg� Ism t_ `� 0 �J h h ° no LS #14 �� �oaooO �B�❑� ■ soth N1 ■ 0 17 ♦ -6��m�N a0t 4S-#9 a9m 81st slst 80th 1st gO a o th 81 st e 2n 81 st 81? _ 82nd H 81 st 82nd 'YI 81s Btst a � 82nd ♦ FIE[� l� 83rd 82nd '82nd ■ 82nd t \#4 O O _83r 3rd 83rd 83rd 82nd nd ■ 82nd 82nd?nd N B 4"t c� `m n 83rd d` • Bath s d m 84tn �� �I _ ■ N s Q 99 5th 85th 85m SSm J 9� • 861h m j ' S6ih 85ih ■ 6ih 6m S6Ih 86th d Stith Summi .. tit = a ■ a 86th Stith S6ih ro ■ Stith 87th 86th N ` 87Ih N S7 ■ 7th ♦ 88th 88th '� 11 Bh Nth I go 88th 88th N ■ ` .. n oN e LS 1"0 Sunset h astn 89m asfs t3 to L sstn •�` fll 97sr 91st Maplewood o- Hillcrest o ,� 90th ■ O 90th �■�■y v ♦ afire 92nd rm 3 �■ 1st 91 st a 91s■ 92nd aiQ ■ �/� 92nd 92nd `■� "°A IN ■� 2nd 92nd ' rs 92n ' 93r 12th o hla % 93rd 93rd ■ 93r 93rd `.' 94th 9b� 1 th 0 12th 12t 40 ■ 94th 94m = 11th Q 95th 95th 95th ew 94thN &y� ♦ OIy. is Vi> _ lS s v DI`Lpic 95m ■ ♦ ~'♦ ` ♦ , ���� m �a' �`v}' r\ �� �� � N nn�pnn97th s9ih 961h sst 9th r 97t haIQ I�-7�hLt Oth []� 9ah Puget Sound AUTO 00th � 2vN TT F. j� rhlv 101st vh nt101st 101o oTQ �7na #3 III7n T]I=�7 F ttn a to2nd loznd ' v '♦ , M ■ #2 ��u ma Hood 10504 1th 6 UP��6��m F" �106ih W t ■ oa r V N v 106ih N■ �hLJLJ ��LJUL'nJ� r` Humber t 7th ■ 07ih =7 ♦. . , L ° Eilmon.ds� DD/ u W w - o` Wootlwav GreYsrone <\�:�f� n� °pa s _ �� ,� # P LS #5 2nd 2nd ■ n9m Q olo 111ih ro E Legend Makah 112th ��'�� ��� ° LS #�1� a �` ♦ food 0 0 Edmonds WWTP City of Edmonds Boundary Lift Station #1 Lift Station #6 � Lift Station #11 ♦ % o,of Nootka o6� o c o° 0 115th = �O Lynnwood WWTP Service Boundary Lift Station #2 Lift Station #7 Lift Station #12 �� , % qa�l 116th 0 Lift Station Lift Station #3 ' Lift Station #8 Lift Station #14 ----� Force Main Lift Station #4 ' Lift Station #9 Lift Station #15 •` �, ! �^�� N a� ■ , ` Rr°hmond Beac - Lift Station #5 Lift Station #10 `�� `�� ♦� 1 OF EDA10 Sewer Zones: City of Edmonds, December 2011 BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish County & King County. _ NORTH -w- LIFT STATION SERVICE AREAS 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure actual conditions. This map is a geographic 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. S 206 505 3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City ty of Edmonds CONSULTANTMMO■ www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Scale in Feet March 2013 COPYRIGHT© Wg g Cyi�NSl1ELT T LL RIGHTS RESERVED or completeness of data depicted on this map. Inc is90 1, ��� - G�.P�� COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.4 EDMONDS WWTP 5.4.1 General The Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) provides wastewater treatment service for residential, commercial, and industrial customers for the City of Edmonds sewer service boundary. The facility was initially built in 1957 and has undergone several modifications, updates and expansions. In 1991 the Edmonds WWTP was upgraded from a primary plant to secondary plant. Currently the plant is rated to treat 11.8 mgd maximum month flow. The plant is located at 200 2nd Ave South, Edmonds, WA, 98020. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates discharges to waters of the state through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. NPDES permits are developed based on federal and state water quality standards and treatment requirements. The existing system is permitted under the NPDES discharge permit number WA- 002405-8 (modified May 9, 2012). Effluent limitations are summarized in Table 5.3. The plant has been continuously compliant with these standards. Table 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge Average Monthly Average Weekly Maximum Parameter Limits' Limits' Daily Limits' Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen 25 mg/L, 2460 Ibs/day 40 mg/L, 3936 Ibs/day N/A Demand (5 day BOD) 85% removal of influent CBOD5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/L, 2952 Ibs/day 45 mg/L, 4430 Ibs/day N/A 85% removal of influent TSS Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200/100 mL 400/100 mL N/A pH Daily minimum >_ 6.0 and daily maximum of <_ 9.0 N/A Total Residual Chlorine 191 µg/L I N/A 442 µg/L Current load limits are based on the Maximum Month Design Flow MMDF of 11.80 m d. Biosolids (sludge) treatment and use are regulated under federal (40 CFR Part 503) and State (Chapter 173-308 WAC) regulations through the Statewide General Permit for Biosolids Management. Sludge from the Edmonds plant is dewatered using a belt filter press and incinerated using an on -site fluidized bed incinerator. The plant has been compliant with the regulations for sewage sludge incinerators based on air emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The air emissions standards have recently been expanded by the EPA. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI emission regulations in the Federal Register at Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. 5-9 Packet Page 461 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The previous and new air quality emission limits, how the plant's current emissions compare with the new standards and how the new regulations will affect the current incinerator equipment, operations and costs are discussed in Section 8.7.1. 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings The plant was originally constructed in 1957 and has been modified or upgraded several times since then. Table 5.4 summarizes the history of the WWTP. Though the historical perspective of the improvements and modifications to the plant is interesting, the current infrastructure is really the important issue. The following sections describe the current facilities. General: The current plant has a design maximum month flow of 11.8 mgd. The maximum month flow the plant currently treats is about 9.5 mgd. Flow is measured by three Parshall flume meters on the influent side of the WWTP and by an effluent meter. Table 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity Design Capacity Maximum Average Peak Project description Date Month Annual Hour (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Original Construction Grit removal, sewage grinding, primary settling, 1957 2 digestion, chlorination and outfall. Improvements and Modifications Capacity Expansion 1959 4 Two additional clarifiers, effluent pumping, sludge dewatering and incineration system. 1967 7.6 Removed grit and digestion. Secondary Treatment 1991 11.8 9.1 40 Headworks The headworks consists of three channels designated for measuring Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Richmond Beach basin flows. Before the flow is measured with parshall flumes, three 4-foot wide mechanical bar screens with '/4-inch openings screens the influent. The flow then enters a wet well where four 100 hp vertical non -clog raw sewage pumps, each with a capacity of 9,260 gpm, the process flow though two 24" pipes to a primary influent splitter box. The splitter box gravity feeds the flow to the primary clarifiers. 5-10 Packet Page 462 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Primary Clarifiers Edmonds has three primary clarifiers. Two of the clarifiers are center fed square tanks 60 feet by 60 feet with a surface area of 3,600 square feet each. The third clarifier is rectangular, 91 feet long by 45 feet wide for a surface area of 4,095 square feet. The total surface area of the three primary clarifiers is 11,295 square feet. The primary clarifiers provide quiescent conditions that reduces the flows velocity to the point that solids can be settled and removed. The clarifier also allows floatable material like plastics, oil, grease and scum to be skimmed off the surface and removed. Typically primary clarifier removals of the plant influent are 50 to 70 percent of suspended solids and 25 to 40 percent of BOD5. The primary sizing design criteria for clarifiers is the surface overflow rate, or the flow rate divided by the clarifier surface area; this is known as the vertical flow velocity. Typical design values for peak hourly flows are in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). At 3,000 gpd/sf, the existing primary clarifiers would have a maximum performance -based capacity of 11,295 sf x 3,000 gpd/sf = 33.885 mgd. Aeration Basins After leaving the primary clarifiers, the liquid stream enters a channel that can flow to one of the three aeration basins. The three aeration basins are each 75.3 feet wide by 58 feet long and 20.6 feet deep with a total volume of approximately 673,000 gallons each (2.0 million gallons total). The aeration basins provide biological treatment by increasing the dissolved oxygen in the basin with fine bubble diffusers that disperse forced air. The oxygenated water encourages the growth of bacteria and microorganisms which consumes the waste flow's organic solids. When the process flow enters the aeration basins it first goes through a premix box where return activated sludge (RAS) from the secondary clarifiers mixes with the influent. The return sludge is the settled solids from the clarifiers and they are returned to increase the mixed liquor concentration and solids retention time (SRT) in the aeration basins. Secondary Clarifiers The secondary clarifiers are necessary for separating treated effluent from the mixed liquor solids leaving the aeration basins. The three circular clarifiers are 90 feet in diameter with a 17.5 foot side water depth which provide quiescent conditions for gravity sludge settling to occur. The mixed liquor from the aeration basin is fed into the center of the clarifier and flows outward to the effluent launders. The projected annual average surface overflow rate, in year 2033 is 306 gpd/sf and is far less than the average performance design of 550 gpd/sf. The settled solids from the bottom of the clarifiers are the source for return sludge recycled back to the aeration basins. Secondary sludge pumps return the activated sludge from the clarifiers back to the to the individual premix boxes at each aeration basin. The waste activated sludge is wasted to a storage tank and then pumped to the belt presses for dewatering before incineration. 5-11 Packet Page 463 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chlorine Disinfection The plant effluent is disinfected using liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach). The sodium hypochlorite disinfection flash mix structure is provided to recombine effluent from the secondary clarifiers, however, current operation is to feed sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflows which increases the contact time. The structure also provides 12.5% concentration sodium hypochlorite solution injection to the secondary effluent. Sodium hypochlorite is bought in bulk and stored at the facility in two 3,000 gallon tanks. The purpose of the chlorine contact chamber is to provide a minimum of 20 minutes of detention time at peak hour flow rates, prior to discharge of the secondary effluent to the outfall, in order to allow the sodium hypochlorite solution time to react with the effluent. The current peak hour contact time using only the chlorine contact chamber is 14 minutes and is projected to be about the same in the year 2033. The practice of feeding sodium hypochlorite at the secondary weir overflow will continue. The plant is meeting the current disinfection criteria by increasing the chlorination dose and then dechlorinating. The plant is able to control the chlorine residual through dechlorination by using bisulfate. The bisulfate is a 38% NaHS03 solution that when added to water releases sulfur dioxide which reacts with free chlorine and chloramines reducing effluent concentrations. Sludge Dewatering Primary and WAS is combined before dewatering and averages about 1.0% total solids. The dewatering equipment consists of two belt presses where one operates at a time from 12 to 24 hours a day depending on the Edmonds Plant sludge production. The dewatered sludge is fed to the onsite fluidized bed incinerator. Incineration From the belt presses, the dewatered sludge cake is deposited by a belt conveyor into a hopper that delivers the dewatered sludge to the fluid bed incinerator by a hydraulic pump. The fats, oils, and greases (FOG) are collected in the Primary Sludge Tank and are mixed with raw and WAS as feed to the belt presses. Large influxes of FOG are not desirable for incineration because their high fuel value makes temperature control more difficult. Internally the incinerator has a reactor bed of sand that is fluidized by a controlled, pre- heated air supply that is blown through it. Here the dewatered sludge cake is fed into the fluidized sand bed where it is burned. In this bed the dewatered sludge is broken up by the sands fluidizing motion and is incinerated by the heat. Diesel fuel is pumped into the reactor to aid in combustion, as required. The amount of supplemental fuel required depends on the heat content of the combustion air (which is pre -heated by the primary flue gas heat exchanger), and the heat content of the sludge, which is dependent on the solids content of the dewatered sludge (% volatile solids). When the incinerator is operating at its design capacity with 27% dry solids (75% volatile), or greater, the incinerator should theoretically operate autogenously (thermally self-supporting), and supplemental fuel should only be required for start-up. 5-12 Packet Page 464 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The incinerated sludge byproducts are gases and ash. The gases and ash exit the top of the incinerator and pass through a heat exchanger. The heat exchanger pre -heats the incinerator fluidizing air. The exhausted gas and ashes pass through a wet Venturi cyclone scrubber for particulate removal, followed by a wet tray scrubber where the finer particulate is removed and the gas is cooled by passing the scrubbed gas (which is re- heated with diesel fuel) counter -current to a large quantity of water. Combustion air is routed to the stack at about 10% of total combustion air to prevent a visible steam plume when it is released through a stack to the atmosphere. The captured ash is thickened in a gravity thickener and dewatered in a vacuum filter. Current operations produce, on average, about 25 cubic yards of ash a week. Plant Effluent The treated and disinfected effluent is discharged approximately 1,250-feet off shore through a 36-inch outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. A layout of the Edmonds WWTP is shown in Figure 5.4. Historical loadings and anticipated plant improvements are discussed in Chapter 8. 5-13 Packet Page 465 of 660 ?" FM �••••••••••••• LIFT 9 2" FM . FM LIFT 11 1 ............. 0-1 LIFT 12 •••••••••••••0- ?" FM 4" FM .0••••••••••••• LIFT 4 1-0 ............- i LIFT 10 ?" FM LIFT 15 JENNE MENEM --*. LYNNWOOD GRAVITY TRUNK LYNNWOOD WWTP G�OV FD&,,,V BHC Consultants, LLC SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM • 1601 FiftWashington 98101 h Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, � COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206.505. 3400 S LAN S 206.505.3406(fax) City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com May 2012 5.4 nc. 1890 COPYRIGHT ©2012 B��Ad$wL��L�I.QL�.,�I�T� RESERVED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements Substitute Secondary House Bill 1338 — Wastewater Reuse While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. To be acceptable for reuse, effluent must meet the quality standards specified in the state's Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow The District maintains a pro -active approach to I and I reduction. In 1979, the City embarked on an aggressive program to reduce inflow by eliminating roof drain connections and other stormwater connections and by sealing manholes. Monitoring the peaking factors during large storm events in the 1980's and 1990's showed that the effort to reduce I&I appeared to be working. However, a storm in late January, 2006 raised new concerns. Flow measurements indicated higher than normal peaking factors and thus increased I&I for this storm. A 2010 1&1 study was performed by BHC Consultants in order to address these concerns. The study identified key areas within the system that are predicted to have higher I&I than other areas of the system. The areas and the efforts are explained further below: 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area The Zone 1 basin was predicted to have the highest I&I problems and is tagged as an area of concern. The prediction is based off of higher than normal peaking factors in gallons per acre day. It was recommended to T.V. inspect and smoke test areas within this basin to further identify the exact pipe sections and manholes that can be fixed. 5.6.2 LS-01 Zone LS-01 Zone was predicted to have the second worse I&I problem out of all the sub - basins. Out of the three storm events, analyzed in the study, the peaking factor from average dry weather flow was over 5. The study recommends further T.V. inspection and smoke testing in the LS-01 zone to identify the exact lengths of pipe and manholes that need to be fixed. 5.6.3 MLT Zone The MILT Zone was also identified as a higher than normal I&I area. The City will continue to take a pro -active approach to reducing I&I in the system and therefore avoiding larger than normal flows at the plant during high precipitation storm events. 5-15 Packet Page 467 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chapter VI — EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 POPULATION 6.1.1 General Baseline population (Population 2010) estimates per Sub -basin were calculated using 2010 Census data. A residential density was calculated for each census tract based on current residentially zoned acreage, and that density was applied to the total residential acreage within each Sub -basin. A further breakdown of the methodology used as well as resources can be found in Appendix C. 6.1.2 Existing Residential, Commercial and Student Populations Table 6.1 identifies the eleven Sub -basins that flow to the Edmonds WWTP and the twelfth Sub -basin presented on Figure 5.1 is the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flows from this area are within the Edmonds City limits but are treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the flows from the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin were analyzed and included the CIP. The sewer generating categories were classified into residential population, employees and students. Existing population for each of these categories was available through Snohomish County or the Edmonds School District. There are portions of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin that are not sewered and that percentage is reflected in the sewered population values on Table 6.1. Other than these large tracts, it has been assumed that virtually all parcels are sewered. It is recognized, however, that there might be an occasional and isolated parcel that is not served. These isolated parcels constitute a small percentage and are reflected in Table 6.1. All commercial (i.e. employees) and student populations were counted as sewered. Historical and textbook values of domestic wastewater (i.e. little or no 1/1 contribution) assigned to residential customers are typically found to be between 50 and 60 gals per capita per day (gpcd). Students and employees are generally found to be a fraction of the contribution of a full time resident. Historical values for students have been found to range from 10 to 15 gallons per student per day. Textbook values per employee can vary broadly depending on the nature of the commercial use. The typical per employee contribution ranges from 15 to 25 gallons per employee per day. This range is consistent with the values used by both the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District's Comprehensive plan dated 2009 and the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan dated 2012. Based on these values, a ratio for students and employees was established so a population equivalence could be developed. Five students generate the same volume of wastewater as a full time resident, or a 5 to1 ratio for students. Similarly, a 3 to 1 ratio is expected for employees. 6-1 Packet Page 468 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The development of the Population Equivalence (see Table 6.1) was based on these ratios. This means that a resident living in the Sub -basin would be counted as one and all students would be counted as 20% and all employees would be counted as 0.33 people. This formula was applied to the population, employees and students to determine the Population Equivalent. Table 6.1 City of Edmonds - Existing Population 2010 Student Population Employment Population Population Sub -Basins Total Total Sewered Total Total Equivalent Population Population Employment (1) Population (2) (#) City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,788 1,788 1,535 1,722 2,644 Zone 1 2,686 2,686 592 378 2,959 Zone 2 4,835 4,815 4,585 0 6,342 Meter A 12,075 12,075 1,657 1,691 12,965 Meter B 4,473 4,249 2,664 450 5,226 Meter C 1,486 1,412 182 0 1,472 Meter E 5,828 5,537 5,367 1,372 7,598 MILT Zone 10,626 10,095 1,604 1,177 10,864 Edmonds Zone 10,790 10,790 3,558 503 12,075 LS #1 6,410 6,090 508 1,181 6,495 Richmond Beach Zone 19,755 17,037 7,528 17,617 23,067 Lynnwood Zone 6,528 6,202 509 0 6,371 Notes 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). 2. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:5 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). These population numbers were assigned to the geographic Sub -basin. Furthermore, forecasted values of population, employment and students also followed these Sub -basin boundaries. 6.1.3 Future Residential, Commercial and School Populations The task of this Plan is to evaluate the performance of the sewer collection, conveyance and treatment components for baseline (existing), 6-year, 20-year and build out scenarios. To evaluate the conditions on these target years, the Plan determined the residential, commercial and student populations for the years 2019, 2033 and build out. Various sources of data were used to estimate these populations and employment figures. These sources include the following: 6-2 Packet Page 469 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • 2010 Census Data, by Census Block • 2010 Covered Employment Estimates, Washington State Employment Security Department, provided as custom estimates via PSRC • 2008-2010 Three -Year American Community Survey, Self -Employment Estimates for Edmonds • Office of Financial Management, Population Estimates for 2011 and 2012 • Snohomish County 2012 Buildable Lands Report • Snohomish County Draft Initial Growth Targets for 2035 King County 2007 Buildable Lands Report • City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Buildable Lands Capacity Update, 2012 • Shoreline Community College Unduplicated Annual Head Count • Edmonds School District Update of Long Range Enrollment Projections 2012 to 2032 • Conversations regarding local long-range planning efforts with City Staff in Edmonds, Shoreline, and Mountlake Terrace; the Snohomish County Demographics Team; and staff and facility planners at school districts and at individual schools. The population was then distributed to the 12 Sub -basins, described earlier, so the hydraulic model could be define that infrastructure that was at or approaching its maximum capacity. A detailed description of the protocol followed is presented in Appendix XXX. The City of Edmonds service area spans two counties and serves several cities or Special Service Districts. Consequently, there were several document sources that were used to determine the future population/employees. Residential population baselines have been established for each Sub -basin based on Census data. Employment baselines have been established for each Sub -basin from PSRC custom estimates for State -reported Covered Employment; self-employment estimates have been added to calculate baseline total employment for each Sub -basin. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin straddles the Snohomish -King County boundary. For the purpose of these forecast estimates, two separate evaluations, prepared for the portions of the Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin in each County, have been added together to compute a final estimate for the entire Sub -basin for each target year. King County Population and Employment Forecast. King County forecast estimates are based on the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, for Shoreline's primarily residential zoning, and on the 2012 Update to the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan, which included updated population and employment capacity estimates specifically along the Aurora/Highway 99 Corridor. The City of Shoreline is planning for significant increases in development along this corridor, impacting population and employment Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin, Meter C Sub -basin, and Meter B Sub -basin. The 2031 horizon for this 6-3 Packet Page 470 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN report has been used as an interpolation point from which to estimate forecasts for the target yeas; this interpolation has been extended to estimate a build out scenario as well. Snohomish County Population and Employment Forecast. Snohomish County 6-year population forecast estimates are based on the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, which offers detailed capacity analysis based on both underlying city zoning and market trends. The 20-year estimates are based on the County's 2035 Initial Growth Targets, aspirational estimates which are to be adopted into the countywide planning policies; these will assist with the next GMA-mandated round of comprehensive plan updates. However, Edmonds City Staff feels that these Initial Growth Targets are based on past market trends and do not account for a potential market shift favoring the significantly more dense, multi -story, mixed use development currently permitted in the zoning along Highway 99. The City of Edmonds has loosely approximated additional population and employment in selected sub -basins in order to approximate the scenario within which market conditions favor a shift towards this additional density along Highway 99 sometime within the next 20 years. The 2035 horizon for the Initial Growth Targets has been used as an interpolation point from which to extend forecast estimates out to a build out scenario for residential population. The employment capacity expressed in the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, with market reductions removed, stands in as the data point for the estimated employment buildout scenario Student Enrollment Baselines and Forecast Estimates Individual Schools and School Districts have been surveyed to gather baseline enrollment statistics. The Edmonds School District provided a long-range forecast report recommending consideration of a medium -growth scenario throughout the school district; these growth rates have been applied to the District schools within the Service Area. Shoreline School District . Private schools are generally assumed to retain stable student enrollment populations through time, and none within the Service Area reported plans for major expansions. Shoreline Community College, with no major plans for facility expansion, also expects a relatively stable on -campus student population in the future; anticipated increases in enrollment are likely to be offset by concurrent increases in student participation in distance learning programs. The summary of this analysis is presented in Table 6.2. 6.2 FLOWS 6.2.1 General Edmonds is fortunate to have ten functioning and reliable flow meters. These flow meters are presented schematically on Figure 5.2. An eleventh flow meter (Meter 4) has not been maintained or calibrated. Consequently, this data is not available or is thought to be unreliable. 6-4 Packet Page 471 of 660 Table 6.2 City of Edmonds - Population and Growth Projections 2019 2033 Buildout Total Population Total Population Total Population Sub -Basins Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,867 1,867 1,567 1,745 2,738 2,361 2,361 1,616 1,943 3,288 4,017 4,017 1,677 2,410 5,057 Zone 1 2,908 2,908 751 383 3,235 3,413 3,413 999 427 3,831 4,754 4,754 981 529 5,186 Zone 2 5,280 5,280 5,088 0 6,974 6,691 6,691 5,870 0 8,646 10,874 10,874 6,507 0 13,041 Meter 13,597 13,597 2,221 1,710 14,679 15,417 15,417 3,097 1,877 16,824 18,438 18,438 4,171 2,268 20,281 Meter B 6,471 6,471 3,714 440 7,796 11,056 11,056 5,347 443 12,925 20,880 20,880 8,847 450 23,916 Meter C 1,775 1,775 332 0 1,886 2,413 2,413 565 0 2,601 3,811 3,811 1,065 0 4,166 Meter E 6,170 6,170 5,674 1,390 8,337 6,579 6,579 6,152 1,548 8,937 7,258 7,258 6,738 1,920 9,886 MLT Zone 11,414 11,414 1,721 1,191 12,225 12,356 12,356 1,904 1,313 13,253 13,920 13,920 2,128 1,599 14,948 Edmonds Zone 11,752 11,752 3,842 509 13,133 12,901 12,901 4,284 561 14,440 14,810 14,810 4,826 685 16,554 LS #1 6,631 6,631 511 1,197 7,041 6,895 6,895 516 1,333 7,333 7,333 7,333 523 1,653 7,838 Richmond Beach Zone 24,933 22,440 9,232 15,540 28,622 34,430 32,709 11,883 16,347 39,935 54,141 54,141 17,486 17,817 63,527 Lynnwood Zone 6,754 6,754 514 0 6,925 7,024 7,024 521 0 7,197 7,473 7,473 531 0 7,650 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 and ratio of 1:5 for students (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). Packet Page 472 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Flow data from these ten meters was collected from July 2006 through November 2012. A graphical representation of this flow data is presented in Appendix XX. In order to capture different flow scenarios four flow conditions were graphed. These four flow conditions were the Average Dry Weather, Average Daily, Average Wet Weather and Maximum Month. Graphical presentation of the Peak Day and Peak Hour was not viewed as meaningful. Total daily flow data for this six and half year period was evaluated. • Average Dry Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no rainfall was recorded. As expected, the flow was very stable during this period. Any day with measureable rainfall was excluded from the data set. The intent of presenting this data is to capture the base domestic flow conditions with neither infiltration nor inflow. • Average Daily Flow — This flow condition captured all daily flows during the year. The average of all these flows would be considered the annual average flow. • Average Wet Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow from the months of November through March. All flows during this period were analyzed regardless of the amount of precipitation. The value of this data set was to understand the I&I contribution to the system. • Maximum Month Flow — The Maximum Month Flows are of particular interest for the WWTP. Since the NPDES permit is written with monthly discharge limitations, treatment plants are typically designed with this flow condition as the design flow. The determination of this value was based on the highest monthly average flow. • Peak Day Flow — The Peak Day Flow is the maximum total daily flow recorded at the meters during a 24-hour period. In December 2006 and December 2007, the area experienced an abnormally high rainfall event. This translated to record flows at the ten meters and at the WWTP. These rainfall events have not been replicated since that time. • Peak Hour Flow - Peak Hour Flow is defined as the peak sustained flow rate occurring during a one -hour period. It is typically used to size the collection and interceptor sewers, pump stations, piping, flow meters, and certain physical WWTP processes. The Peak Hour flows were determined from two factors: 1) the addition of diurnal flow patterns which were developed from 5-minute flow data for the year 2009 (see Figure 6.1) and 2) the peaking factor between peak day and peak hour which was derived from 5-minute data. 6.2.2 Recorded Flows The graphical presentation of the flow data starting in July 2006 through November 2012 is displayed in Appendix B and summarized on Table 6.3. It is meaningful to evaluate the entire period to understand the growth or trending during this six and half year period. However, averaging this entire time period was not representative of the current day flows. There are several factors that are effect the flow patterns at the meters. These 6-6 Packet Page 473 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN include: • City pipeline rehabilitation projects • New sewer line extensions • New customers and connections • Degradation of the pipelines. King County has concluded from their studies that there is a 7% degradation of the pipe, and hence a 7% increase in I&I, every decade. Viewing the flow graphs for this period, it appears that these factors are offsetting. There is not any trending patterns over the period. This is perhaps understandable since much of the service area is built out and largely sewered. Consequently, flow data for the years 2010 through 2012 were used to capture the current conditions. The components of wastewater flow evaluated include: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF), Annual Average Daily Flow (AAF), Average Wet Weather Flow (AWWF), Maximum Month Flow (MMF), Peak Day Flow (PDF) and Peak Hour Flows. A summary of the flow events was derived by summing the flows from the three influent meters (MILT, Edmonds and Richmond Beach) at the WWTP for the period of 2010 through 2012. It should be noted that these values are not necessarily the peak recorded flows for the plant. Significant storm events in 2007 and 2009 resulted in flows in excess of that which is presented below: Current Influent Flows' Edmonds WWTP Average dry weather flow (ADWF), mgd 3.97 Annual average flow (AAF), mgd 5.82 Average wet weather flow (AWWF)3, mgd 7.52 Maximum month flow (MMF)4, mgd 9.66 Peak day flows (PDF), mgd 21.65 Peak wet weather flow6 (PWWF), mgd 27.5 Notes: 1. Values represent flow events from 2010 to 2012. 2. ADWF is defined as the average of the days with zero rainfall during four dry weather months (July through Oct) for years 2010 to 2012. 3. AWWF is defined as the average of five wet weather months (November through March) for years 2010 to 2012. 4. Maximum month flow (MMF) is the average flow for the maximum month, as defined in the current NPDES permit. The MMF is sometimes referred to as peak month flow and is considered the design flow for the WWTP. 5. Peak Day Flow is from wet weather event on 12/12/2010. It should be noted that the historical high daily flow of 23.84 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6. PWWF is an estimate value using the peak hour to peak day ratio seen from the December 3, 2007. This factor was approximately 1.27. It should be noted that the historical high peak flow of 30.26 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6-7 Packet Page 474 of 660 Figure 6.1 Diurnal Flow I Al N 1.20 V) 1.00 0.80 0 0.60 " 0.40 �I 1 )I 11� Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa O� O� Oq O� O� O� O O O Packet Page 475 of 660 Table 6.3 City of Edmonds - Measured Flows by Meter Average Dry Weather I'I Average Daily Flow l21 Average Wet Weather (31 Maximum Month (2) Peak Day (2) Size in Population Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Meters Sub -basins Acres Equivalent ls) Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Meter 1 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 1 161.0 2,644 0.140 53 0.161 61 0.173 65 0.225 85 0.555 210 Meter 2 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 2485.3 5,603 0.249 44 0.335 60 0.422 75 0.605 108 1.74 311 Meter A Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Total Meter A 1602.4 1 12,965 0.703 54 1 0.974 75 1.214 94 1 1.602 124 3.723 287 Meter B Meter B 555.0 5,226 Total Meter B 555.0 5,226 0.257 49 0.304 58 0.352 67 0.448 86 1.33 254 Meter C = 143.3 1,472 Total Meter C 143.3 1,472 0.076 52 0.115 78 0.147 100 0.215 146 0.646 439 Meter D 663.0 7,598 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 EMeter 161.0 2,644 1673.8 19,543 1.250 64 1.449 74 1.628 83 1.949 100 4.293 220 Meter E 663.0 7,598 Total Meter E 663.0 7,598 0.498 66 0.563 74 0.617 81 0.896 118 2.441 321 Meter 3 ter C 143.3 1,472 Meter B 555.0 5,226 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Meter E 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 3 3974.5 39,206 1.031 26 1.937 49 2.911 74 3.665 93 5.273 134 MLT at WWTP MLT Zone 1573.9 10,864 143.3 1,472 Meter B 555.0 5,226 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Meter E 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total MLT at WWTP 5548.4 1 50,070 1.500 1 30 2.560 51 3.576 1 71 4.398 88 1 7.826 156 Edmonds hm Edmonds 1415.8 12,075 at WWTP LS-01 Zone 1106.6 6,495 Total Edmonds at WWTP 2522.4 18,570 1.406 76 1.715 92 1.982 107 2.455 132 6.22 335 Richmond B 4054.4 at WWTP Total RB at WWTP 4054.4 23,067 1.060 46 1.542 67 1.967 85 2.803 122 7.601 330 (1) Average Dry Weather Flow is defined as the average daily for months of July through October with days of zero rainfall for years 2010 - 2012. (2) Flow Data obtained from City provided information. Consolidated from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's), for years 2010 - 2012. (3) Average Wet Weather Flow is defined as the average flow from the months of November through March for years 2010 - 2012. (4) Peak Hour data derived from Peak day x 1.27 peaking factor at the WWTP which accounts for the diurnal flow patterns plus the peak storm event (5) Population Equivalent is 2010 values see Table 6.1 Packet Page 476 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN A graphical presentation of flow at the WWTP for the period of record (2007 through 2012) is presented in Figure 6.2. A visual comparison of the 2007 and 2010 storm events is evident. The flow per population equivalent as presented on Table 6.3, shows some slight variability in the values. In particular, the data measured in Meters 3 and the MILT meter at the WWTP reflects per population equivalent values that are unusually low. However, these two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. Figure 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows Edmonds WWTP Flows (mgd) Precipitation (inches) 35 0.0 1.0 30 2.0 3.0 25 4.0 W o 20 5.0 6.0 u i LL 7.0 c m 15 8.0 +° v 9.0 10 10.0 a 3 11.0 5 12.0 13.0 0 14.0 A A A A A 1 W W W W W�b 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O y y y y y y OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NNNNNN'y;y'y'y;y;y �J r as �J �t �t �J r as �J �� �� ¢t tJ t: Q �� �t ¢� tJ i� Q �A� �t ¢< tJ t� Q ,'� � ¢� � 'o Qe �j� 0 'o a P� ��o ��a���a� �o ��a �o �o �a �a P pc Q��o,� 2� �� Date 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows The application of the appropriate per population equivalent value is the basis for the future flow projections. With differing demographics and residential/commercial composition, each Sub -basin will have different per equivalent contribution. Therefore, it is recommended that the derived values be applied for the future growth conditions as presented below: • Sub -basin Meter 1 — use values from Meter 1 6-10 Packet Page 477 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Sub -basin Zone 1 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Zone 2 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Meter A — use values from Meter A • Sub -basin Meter B — use values from Meter B • Sub -basin Meter C — use values from Meter C • Sub -basin Meter E — use values from Meter E • Sub -basin MLT Zone — this sub -basin is influenced by the flow swap. The determination of the appropriate flows can be reach by either subtracting the Meter 3 data from the MLT meter data or by using data from a non -subtraction meter such Meters A, B, C or E. Subtracting Meter 3 data from MLT meter results in data that is very close to Meter B flow data. Therefore, the forecast has used values from Meter B. • Sub -basin Edmonds Zone — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin LS#1 — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin Redmond Beach Zone — use Richmond Beach meter at WWTP • Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone — this Sub -basin flows to the Lynnwood WWTP. The only flow records available for this Sub -basin are from the single effluent flow meter at the WWTP. The per population equivalent values used on Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 originate from the corresponding values in Table 6.3, as noted above, and have a 7% per decade pipe degradation factor for the increased 1/1. The 7% factor is applied to the 1/1 component for all the flow scenarios except the Average Dry Weather Flows, which by definition, has little or no 1/1 contribution. 6.3 WWTP FLOWS Comparing historical flows with forecasted flows requires an understanding of the King County Interlocal Agreement. Historically, as described in Section 3.4.2, a seasonal flow swap with King County was executed that sent all winter and spring flows from both Richmond Beach and the flows at the Lake Ballenger PS to Edmonds. The summer flows were swapped such that the volumetric flows from Richmond Beach were directed to King County. Effective in 2012, the agreement calls for all flow throughout the entire year to be swapped with King County. This means that the total volume of wastewater received by Edmonds will be reduced. Consequently, the WWTP flow projections reflect this change in operation. Table 6.7 presents the forecasted flows at the WWTP. These flows are the basis for the WWTP loadings shown on Table 8.1 6-11 Packet Page 478 of 660 Table 6.4 2019 Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 2,738 53 144,977 61 167,637 66 180,586 86 236,696 217 592,781 Zone 1 (4) 3,235 44 143,520 60 195,495 77 247,830 111 357,916 322 1,040,686 Zone 2 (5) 6,974 44 309,444 60 421,506 77 534,347 111 771,703 322 2,243,825 Meter 14,679 54 795,916 76 1,115,621 95 1,398,754 126 1,856,486 297 4,358,676 Meter B 7,796 49 383,374 59 456,429 68 531,040 87 680,260 263 2,051,222 Meter C 1,886 52 97,352 79 149,407 102 192,119 150 282,882 455 858,159 Meter E 8,337 66 546,466 74 620,787 82 682,531 120 1,001,542 332 2,768,108 MLT Zone (6) 12,225 49 601,206 59 715,771 68 832,775 87 1,066,782 263 3,216,721 Edmonds Zone 13,133 76 994,360 93 1,222,071 108 1,418,831 135 1,767,399 346 4,541,938 LS #1 (7) 7,041 76 533,066 93 655,139 108 760,620 135 947,484 346 2,434,885 Richmond Beach Zone 28,622 46 1,315,255 68 1,938,442 87 2,487,933 125 3,568,814 341 9,772,245 Lynnwood Zone (8) 6,925 76 524,316 1 93 644,386 1 108 748,136 135 1 931,932 346 2,394,919 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 479 of 660 Table 6.5 2033 - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Sub -Basins Total Population Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalence (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 3,288 53 174,100 62 203,871 67 220,883 90 294,602 232 762,433 Zone 1 (4) 3,831 44 169,981 62 237,328 80 305,142 117 447,787 348 1,332,495 Zone 2 (5) 8,646 44 383,615 62 535,605 80 688,649 117 1,010,571 348 3,007,191 Meter 16,824 54 912,230 78 1,313,118 99 1,668,148 133 2,242,113 320 5,379,691 Meter B 12,925 49 635,623 59 768,139 70 903,474 91 1,174,146 283 3,660,939 Meter C 2,601 52 134,298 82 212,863 107 277,326 159 414,310 493 1,282,548 Meter E 8,937 66 585,777 75 672,938 83 745,348 125 1,119,469 357 3,191,214 MLT Zone (6) 13,253 49 651,727 59 787,601 70 926,366 91 1,203,895 283 3,753,695 Edmonds Zone 14,440 76 1,093,286 95 1,367,198 111 1,603,880 140 2,023,170 371 5,360,647 LS #1 (7) 7,333 76 555,240 95 694,350 111 814,552 140 1,027,493 371 2,722,475 Richmond Beach Zone 39,935 46 1,835,116 70 2,786,399 91 3,625,185 132 5,275,128 369 14,744,535 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,197 76 544,910 95 681,432 111 799,398 140 1,008,378 371 2,671,827 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 480 of 660 Table 6.6 Build Out - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 5,057 53 267,792 63 316,396 68 344,170 92 464,523 243 1,228,304 Zone 1 (4) 5,186 44 230,119 63 326,891 82 424,336 121 629,304 366 1,900,560 Zone 2 (5) 13,041 44 578,610 63 821,933 82 1,066,946 121 1,582,319 366 4,778,754 Meter 20,281 54 1,099,670 80 1,612,604 102 2,066,863 138 2,801,249 336 6,815,764 Meter B 23,916 49 1,176,124 60 1,436,382 71 1,702,177 93 2,233,766 298 7,117,748 Meter C 4,166 52 215,074 84 348,618 110 458,193 166 691,039 520 2,166,871 Meter E 9,886 66 647,948 76 750,279 84 835,293 129 1,274,531 375 3,706,872 MLT Zone (6) 14,948 49 735,122 60 897,792 71 1,063,924 93 1,396,187 298 4,448,858 Edmonds Zone 16,554 76 1,253,366 96 1,586,667 113 1,874,665 144 2,384,863 389 6,445,956 LS #1 (7) 7,838 76 593,424 96 751,230 113 887,587 144 1,129,148 389 3,051,931 Richmond Beach Zone 63,527 46 2,919,245 71 4,525,435 94 5,941,682 137 8,727,523 389 24,716,116 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,650 76 579,208 96 733,234 113 866,324 144 1,102,098 389 2,978,820 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MILT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 481 of 660 Table 6.7 City of Edmonds - WWTP Flow Projections 2019 and 2033 2019 2033 Average Maximum Maximum Average Maximum Maximum Sub -Basins Annual (MGD) Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour Annual Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) (MGD) (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) MLT Meter at WWTP Meter 1 168,000 237,000 204,000 295,000 Zone 1 195,000 358,000 237,000 448,000 Zone 2 422,000 772,000 536,000 1,011,000 Meter A 1,116,000 1,856,000 1,313,000 2,242,000 Meter B 456,000 680,000 768,000 1,174,000 Meter C 149,000 283,000 213,000 414,000 Meter E 621,000 1,002,000 673,000 1,119,000 MLT Zone 716,000 1,067,000 1 788,000 1,204,000 3,843,000 6,254,000 0 0 4,731,000 7,907,000 0 0 Total MLT Meter Edmonds Meter at WWTP Edmonds Zone 1,222,000 1,767,000 1,367,000 2,023,000 LS #1 655,000 947,000 694,000 1,027,000 1,877,000 2,715,000 0 0 2,062,000 3,051,000 0 0 Total Edmond Meter Richmond Beach Meter at WWTP Richmond Beach Zone 1,938,000 3,569,000 1 2,786,000 5,275,000 1,938,000 3,569,000 2,786,000 5,275,000 Total Richmond Beach Meter Total Flow 7,658,000 12,538,000 0 0 9,579,000 16,233,000 0 0 Total Flow at WWTP Less King County 5,720,000 8,969,000 0 0 6,793,000 10,958,000 0 0 1. Values from Tables 6.4 and 6.5 2. Values for Maximum Day and Peak Hour were derived from the hydraulic model that accounts for short duration storms and flow attenuation Packet Page 482 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VII — MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 MODEL SOFTWARE A hydraulic capacity analysis of the City's existing sewer network was undertaken with the use of XPSWMM, version 14.10 by XPSolutions. This software was selected by the City, and have the following key features and advantages: • It offers dynamic modeling capability. • It uses a stable modeling platform. • License upgrades are available if additional model nodes are required or if models are to be connected. • XPSWMM software's is capable of reading and using GIS data files that facilitates data transfer and has shape file viewing capability. • It is widely used by the modeling community in the region including the author. • Licenses are owned by the author, facilitating multi-user development and review. 7.2 MODEL CONSTRUCTION 7.2.1 Data Sources The following information was obtained for use in constructing hydraulic models of the existing sewer network: • City provided GIS base access system including manhole/points, pipes/links, and lift station information • Lift station as -built, record drawings and plan drawings information were provided to supplement GIS data. • Lift Station data sheets were provided, as shown in Table 5.2. Information on planned modifications to the existing sewer network was provided by the City. 7.2.2 Model Coverage 7-1 Packet Page 483 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The City has 11 defined Sub -basins (Figure 5.1), 10 of which collect and convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP. The model only includes the City's physical system attributes (pipes, manholes and lift stations) that convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP, and does not include physical system attributes conveying flow to the City of Lynnwood WWTP. The scope of work limited the extent of importing pipes 8-inches and larger, however with the data available in GIS, it was easier and quicker to incorporate all pipes regardless of size. This allows the model to illustrate physical attributes throughout the City's service area. The modeled area includes all City -owned sewer pipes 8-inches in diameter or greater (with the exception of force mains which have a smaller diameter) within the city limits as determined by GIS shapefiles. The model also contains eight City lift stations (LS) as well as the King County Lake Ballinger Pump Station. 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features The system data obtained from the City's GIS mapping was imported into the model. Existing City GIS information provided used NAD 1983 datum. Manhole rim elevations were augmented using mapping software ArcGIS ArcMap by utilizing the 2-foot contour elevation attribute information provided by the City. Information was spatially joined to each manhole based upon its geographic locations via `closest' definition, and software output created a table matching the closest location elevation to the manhole location. Manhole inverts were calculated from the difference between spatially joined rim elevations, measure down depths and pipe diameters. Pipe/link information was imported from the existing City GIS. The upstream and downstream inverts were assigned via connecting manhole information. The hydraulics were checked for obvious data errors such as incorrect inverts, missing pipe sizes, and negatively sloped pipes. The hydraulics associated with the Lift Stations were investigated based on the most recent available as -built data. Hydraulic revisions included incorporating storage volume for wet well nodes, adding offline storage facilities, adding overflow locations, and adding force mains between the Lift Stations and gravity sewer connections. In XPSWMM, the ability to input base flow and a diurnal pattern is contained within the "Hydraulics" mode. This parameter combination was used in two different ways in subsequent modeling tasks. For model calibration, the average daily dry weather flow (see Table 6.3) was distributed evenly among the manholes in each respective meter basin. Then a diurnal pattern, as derived from meter data collected at the Edmonds treatment plant, was applied to the dry weather flow for the model to generate a 24-hour hydrograph. The RTK method was used in XPSWMM to generate the infiltration and inflow (1&1) component of the total flow. For future flows, the peak daily flow (see Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6) for different future scenarios was distributed among the manholes within each meter basin. In this case, a 7-2 Packet Page 484 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN pattern developed from the calibrated model to represent the I&I response in the pipes was applied. This is further discussed in the Model Calibration and Future Flow Comparison sections. Nine lift stations were modeled throughout the City service area. These stations were modeled as static head pumps based on capacity and the head data provided by the City. LS 2 was modeled as a dynamic head pump because a pump curve was available. It should be noted that three lift stations were rehabilitated late in 2012, which does not correspond to the available monitoring data. Therefore, the old capacity for these LS was used for the calibration exercise and the capacity was upgraded for the future flow analysis exercise. Table 7.1 below shows the pump capacity and provided head for each LS for the calibration period and for the future flow condition. Table 7.1 - Lift Station Modeling Data Calibration Period Future Flow Lift Station No. of Max Head Pumping Capacity' Max Head Pumping Capacity' Pumps (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) 1 2 40.0 1,425 40.0 1,425 2 2 46.7 128 46.7 128 32 2 180.0 90 190.0 114 52 2 60.0 35 100.0 37 6 2 90.0 335 90.0 335 7 2 45.0 210 45.0 210 8 2 45.0 137 45.0 137 142 2 25.5 33 70.0 37 'Represents pumping rate per pump According to available data, these LS were rehabilitated in 2012 which included increasing LS pumping capacity 3Updated PS curve required due to system backups under future flow estimate The Lake Ballinger PS is also included in the model which had several data unknowns. Most notably, the flow swapping between the City and King County presented a particular challenge because the circumstances of this are mostly unknown or unpredictable. For calibration purposes, the pump curve and a "dummy" overflow weir was used to depict the flow swap. In the future flow conditions, there are times when all the flow is directed to King County and times when all the flow is sent to the City. The flow swap between the City and King County is described in Section 3.4.2. Generally flows from the Lake Ballinger PS enter the City's system for 15 hours per day. However, there are times when flow to directed simultaneously to both agencies. And lastly, there are times when flow is sent exclusively to only the County's system. To capture the most severe flow scenario, the hydraulic analysis was configured with the assumption that all flow was being directed to and through the City's conveyance system. This worst flow condition scenario also assumed a concurrent storm event. This condition is very conservative and captures the most extreme conditions. For future scenarios, the pump curve had to be upsized to prevent backups in the upstream system due to insufficient pumping capacity and increase peak flows. This 7-3 Packet Page 485 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN assumption that calls for upsizing pumps to prevent backups would also apply to the King County Pump Station, even though the City has no control on the County's schedule to implement these modifications. 7.3 LOADING The model was loaded with peak day flow measured at each meter for the initial model calibration. Due to the location of meters throughout the system, some Sub -basin flow loading was calculated by subtraction of measured flow between two flow meters. Following Sub -basin flow calculations, the total Sub -basin flow was evenly distributed between manholes. The intent of the loadings into the sewer system is to determine the total flow along the conveyance system and at the WWTP. The area that flows to Lynnwood WWTP (Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone) enters a large diameter interceptor that is owned and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. This interceptor is the backbone of flows entering that plant. The majority of the Edmonds flow enters this interceptor through 8-inch diameter pipes. The remaining Edmonds' flow is collected and pumped through one of six Edmonds -owned lift stations. The hydraulic analysis of the Lynnwood Zone looks at the tributary area to each of these lift stations and applying the peak hour flow estimations to determine the suitability of the pumping capacity (refer to Table 7.2). 7.4 HYDROLOGIC MODELING In order to perform model calibration to observed flows, the "Runoff" (Rnf) mode of XPSWMM was utilized to introduce hydrologic flow into the model. The Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration (RDII) module of XPSWMM was used to represent wet weather response in the system. This module relies upon the RTK method of hydrograph generation. Three parameters (R, T, and K) for three different I&I response times (short-, medium-, and long-term) are required. The R parameter is the percentage of rainfall that makes its way into the sewer system, T is the time to peak for that volume of water, and the K determines the duration of the recession limb. The three sets of parameters compute three triangular hydrographs which are added by the method of convolution to generate the total hydrograph. Accepted values based on past engineering experience were used as initial values. These values were adjusted during model calibration so that the peaking factor and daily averages matched within reasonable values. 7-4 Packet Page 486 of 660 Table 7.2 Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 2010 2019 2033 Build Out Current Rated Lift Stations Capacity (gpm @ Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Population Peak Hour Flow TDH) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent Flow (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) LS #4 (2) 308 gpm @ 164 ft 645 179 675 188 702 195 731 203 LS #9 (5) 332 gpm @ 38 ft 838 233 877 244 912 253 950 264 LS #10 (2) 114 gpm @ 49 ft 204 57 214 59 222 62 231 64 LS #11 (3) 95 gpm @ 73 ft 19 5 20 6 21 6 22 6 LS #12 (3) 308 gpm @ 142 ft 672 187 704 195 731 203 762 212 LS #15 (4) 42 gpm @ 60 ft 22 6 23 6 24 7 25 7 Notes 1) Peak Hour flow rate from DOE Orange Book 2) LS #10 pumps to LS #4 which lifts to the WWTP. 3) LS #11 pumps to LS #12 which lifts to the WWTP. 4) LS #15 pumps directly to the WWTP. 5) LS #9 lifts into the gravity system that enters the Lynnwood Interceptor. Packet Page 487 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 7.5 MODEL CALIBRATION Model calibration is an iterative process to match model predicted values to measured real world data. Average daily flow (ADF) data collected at 10 meter locations between 2006 and 2012 was used during calibration. The purpose of the this modeling exercise was to examine system capacity for the comprehensive plan, therefore the peak daily flow (PDF) from the monitoring period was collected for each meter basin. This value was used as the calibration metric. Sewer system flow is made up of different components, most notably average dry weather flow (ADWF) and I&I. Following storm events, the I&I component is generally much larger than the ADWF component. For model calibration, the flow input into the model was separated into these two components. The ADWF per manhole was broken down for input into the model as follows: Meter ADWF ADWF = No. Tributary MHs In order to represent fluctuations in flow throughout the day, a diurnal pattern was applied to the ADWF component. This pattern was determined by processing 5 minute interval flow data at the Edmonds Treatment Plant for three contiguous dry months of a given year. Figure 6.1 shows this pattern. This same pattern was used for th entire service area. As mentioned in Section 7.4, the RDII module of XPSWMM was used to generate the I&I flow component. Only PDF values were presented in Table 6.3, which means that some portion of the day will have a flow that is lower than average and some portion will have a flow that is above average. The actual shape of this hydrograph for typical storm conditions for the City system is variable. The peak value of the hydrograph is very important because that is the portion of the flow that often causes capacity restrictions. Monitoring data collected at the treatment plant indicated that the peaking factor at the plant was approximately 1.27, meaning the peak flow for the day was approximately 27% higher than the peak day. It was assumed that for meters located upstream in the system the peaking factor would be greater to account for attenuation as the flow moved downstream. A rainfall time -series must be implemented in order to use the RDII module. A typical rainfall pattern for western Washington based on the total rainfall for the November 19, 2012 (2.4-inches of total rainfall and was the largest collected in the monitoring period) storm event was used. 7-6 Packet Page 488 of 660 Figure 7.1 - Rainfall Hyetograph used for Calibration 0.14 0.12 r 0.06 0.02 0 zz.00gM zZ.00aM COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 1�-00 1�'O0 1�'0O qM pM qM Time (hours) The model was run for two days to allow for some antecedent condition buildup. Figure 7.1 above shows the rainfall time series that was used for the calibration procedure. The first day had the same rainfall pattern applied with 1-inch of total rainfall, to build antecedent conditions, before the second day with 2.4-inches of total rainfall. The flow "swapping" situation at the KC Lake Ballinger Pump Station presented a considerable challenge during model calibration. Mass balance analysis determined that for the peak flow periods being considered, an average of approximately 4.2 MGD (6.5 cfs) of flow is sent towards Edmonds from the KC pump station. Thus, the total pumping capacity at the pump station was set to 6.5 cfs and a weir was added to allow additional flow to leave the model (this represented the flow being sent towards King County). A significant portion of the flow seen at the total MLT meter at the plant is being sent from the KC Lake Ballinger PS (refer to Figure 5.2 for meter schematic). The service area is divided up into Sub -basins. The flow from different "meter" areas had flow contributions that are measured directly at a meter location. The flows from the "zone" areas had to be determined from a mass balance exercise. These numbers can be somewhat unreliable. But in the absence of any other information, the modeled used this available data in the calibration exercise. Table 6.3 shows the mass balance results and the target PDF numbers used in calibration. Table 7.3 shows the PDF at each meter location, the model predicted average, the assumed peak hourly flow at each meter, and the model predicted peak hourly flow. 7-7 Packet Page 489 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 7.3 - Calibration Result Summary Model Model Assumed Diff Peak Peak Observed Diff Model Flow Meter Flow Peak Flow ° (�0) Day Peak Day ° Peak:Peak (�0) (cfs)' Flow Flow (cfs) Day (cfs) (cfs) Total Meter D 10.95 8.44 3.24 1 2.61 29.7% 6.74 6.64 1.89 2.06 1.5% 1.62 Total Meter B 24.3% -8.3% 1.72 Total Meter A 8.33 7.32 13.8% 5.07 5.76 -12.0% 1.64 Total Meter 2 3.80 3.42 11.0% 2.28 2.69 -15.3% 1.67 Total Meter 1 1.32 1.09 20.7% 0.79 0.86 -7.6% 1.66 Total Edmonds 14.01 12.22 14.6% 8.04 9.62 -16.5% 1.74 Total MLT Zone 15.47 15.38 0.6% 11.47 12.11 -5.3% 1.35 'Based on 1.27 peaking factor at the treatment plant The focus of calibration was at the Edmonds Treatment Plant with the meters Total MLT Zone and Total Edmonds having the most emphasis as they are nearest the treatment plant. The Total Edmonds meter is heavily influenced by a nearby LS and this greatly impacted the average flow. Because limited data is available for calibration, a percent difference between model predicted PDF and the monitoring PDF of +/- 20% was determined to be satisfactory. The assumed peak flow shown in Table 3 was determined by multiplying the monitored PDF value by 1.27 (the peaking factor at the plant). This value was not explicitly used as a calibration metric, but was tracked to ensure peak values predicted by the model were within acceptable ranges compared to the PDF values. 7.6 MODELING ANALYSIS AND RESULTS CAPACITY ANALYSIS The capacity analysis was used to determine which pipes may require upsizing due to current lack of capacity or population growth and deterioration of existing infrastructure. Four conditions for capacity analysis were looked at; 2013 (existing), 2019, 2033, and Buildout. Table 6.3 presents the PDF for each meter basin. Considering the relative uncertainty involved in using the RDII module for predicting future flows, it was decided to directly input into the model future PDF values distributed among respective meter basins, replacing the ADWF was input during the calibration task. This allows for a methodology that controls exactly how much flow is being entered into the system. Therefore, the RNF mode of XPSWMM and rainfall time series utilized in the calibration exercise were no longer required for capacity analysis. However, hydrograph shape determined during calibration was used to develop a unit hydrograph representing wet weather system response for each meter basin. This diurnal pattern was applied to future flows in determining the peak flow predicted by the model. 7-8 Packet Page 490 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The PDF for each year are shown below in Table 7.4 and the unit hydrograph for meter MLT Zone is shown in Figure 7.2 as an example. Table 7.4 - Peak Average Daily Flow for Capacity Analysis No. '1Lu Tributary " XV "'1" "'1' "'1' GVJJ GVJJ LUIILLVUI LU1114Vu1 in PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF PDF MHsAcres MHs (mgd) (cfs) (mgd) (cfs) (mgd) (cfs) (mgd) (cfs) WTotalMes 161 95 0.56 0.86 0.59 0.92 0.76 1.18 1.23 1.90 Zone 1 324 9 1.19 1.83 1.04 1.61 1.33 2.06 1.90 2.94 Total Meter A 1,602 5 3.72 5.76 4.36 6.74 5.38 8.32 6.82 10.55 Total Meter B 555 2 1.33 2.06 2.05 3.17 3.66 5.66 7.12 11.01 Total Meter C 143 1 0.65 1.00 0.86 1.33 1.28 1.98 2.17 3.35 Zone 2 526 342 0.11 0.17 2.24 3.47 3.01 4.65 4.78 7.39 Total Meter E 663 1 2.44 3.78 2.77 4.28 3.19 4.94 3.71 5.74 MLT Zone 1,574 142 2.55 3.95 3.22 4.98 3.75 5.81 4.45 6.88 Edmonds 1,416 961 4.04 6.26 4.54 7.03 5.36 8.29 6.45 9.97 LS-01 Zone 1,107 821 2.18 3.37 2.43 3.77 2.72 4.21 3.05 4.72 Figure 7.2 - Calibrated Model Diurnal Pattern 1.50 1.25 - 1.00 - 3 0 Y 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0 1 2 3 MLT ZONE: Unit Hydrograph 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Time (hour) 7-9 Packet Page 491 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN To determine which pipes needed to be upsized, the PDF for the Buildout condition was input into the model as outlined above. The simulated ratio of depth of flow to pipe diameter (d/D) was used as the original basis for upsizing. Several iterations were required to upsize pipes in order to create a free flow condition. The model with the upsized pipes that produced a free flow condition for the Buildout scenario was also run with the PDF for the 2013, 2019, and 2033 scenarios. This produced the peak flow that would be going through each pipe for each future flow scenario (Qyear). These values were then compared to each pipe's existing hydraulic capacity (Qcap). When the ratio of Qyear/Qcap exceeded 0.93, the pipe for that scenario was considered surcharged. The following criteria were used to determine which pipes would require upsizing: • Upsize pipes whose capacity is limited (Qbuildout/Qcap > 0.93) • Pipes < 10-inch in diameter whose capacity is limited were upsized to 12-inch • Pipes > 10-inch whose capacity is limited were upsized in 6-inch increments • Some exceptions were made if the pipe was only slightly surcharged and then an increase of 3-inch was applied based on engineering judgment • If any pipes that were not identified as having a Qbuildout / Qcap > 0.93 but have pipes upstream and downstream that were upsized, then these pipes were also upsized for continuity • No pipe offsets were adjusted • No forcemains were upsized • Qyear/Qcap ratio of intermediate scenarios was used to phase the upsizing. Several iterations of this procedure were conducted. In some cases surcharging was allowed, based on engineering judgment, if the pipe was an isolated case. No Flooding was observed in this system. In summary, the pipe diameters were upsized for the Buildout peak flows and phasing was determined using the intermediate scenarios. See Figure 7.3 that summarizes the pipe upsizing results on a map showing existing and proposed pipe diameters color - coded by year in which upsizing will be required. The corresponding table of pipe diameters is also included in Appendix B.1. The proposed pipe diameters are preliminary estimates and should be scrutinized further during design engineering. 7-10 Packet Page 492 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN INSERT FIGURE 7.3 — Map with needed upgrades 7-11 Packet Page 493 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN FUTURE FLOW COMPARISON The predicted flow was compared to the calculated value at each flow meter for the Buildout scenario as shown in Table 7.5. Table 7.5 - Model Results Comparison for Buildout Condition Flow Meter Model Peak Flow (cfs) Assumed Peak Flow (cfs)' Diff (o ) Model Peak Day Flow (cfs) Model Peak:Peak Da Total Meter D 26.93 22.82 18.0% 17.70 1.52 Total Meter B 17.07 13.99 22.0% 11.02 1.55 Total Meter A 15.82 13.39 18.1% 10.54 1.50 Total Meter 2 7.49 6.15 21.9% 4.81 1.56 Total Meter 1 2.94 2.41 22.0% 1.88 1.57 Total LS-01 Zone 6.36 6.00 6.0% 4.76 1.34 Total Edmonds 18.99 18.66 1.8% 14.5021.31 Total MLT Zone 73.62 63.20 16.5% 49.09 1.50 'Based on 1.27 peaking factor at the treatment plant 2Model predicted portion of flow leaving system through diversion weir at LS-01. Accounted for by adding hydrograph through diversion weir to hydrograph at Total Edmonds Flow Meter in Model Peak and Average Flow in Table. The methodology outlined above allowed for the phasing sequence of the pipe upsizing for each of the flow scenario. The list of the pipes to be updated along with the year of update is provided in Appendix B. Table 7.6 below summarizes the total pipes in the model in addition to those requiring upsizing phased over the four scenarios. Table 7.6 - Modeled Pipe Summary Upsized Pipe Summary Total Model Pipes 2,390 Total Pipes Upsized 227 Pipes Upsized 2013 115 Pipes Upsized 2019 34 Pipes Upsized 2033 46 Pipes Upsized Buildout 32 Minimum Existing Diameter (in) Maximum Existing Diameter (in) Maximum Future Diameter (in) 8 36 42 7-12 Packet Page 494 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 7.7 MODEL LIMITATIONS The list below summarizes the model limitations encountered during this project and should be noted when reviewing or using the results generated by this model. • LS information provided in the form of pumping capacity and corresponding head was assumed to be correct. • The limited information available at KC Lake Ballinger PS including detailed configuration of adjacent pipe networks, the flow swapping with King County, and exact pump operation at this facility introduces uncertainties that could affect model results. Every effort was made to ensure information input into the model was sufficient to perform modeling tasks. 7-13 Packet Page 495 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VIII — EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 8.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to evaluate the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant for its ability to meet treatment objectives over the planning period. The Edmonds treatment plant liquid stream consists of a headworks with three mechanical screens, three rectangular primary clarifiers, three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact tank. The disinfected plant effluent is discharged through a single 36-inch diameter outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. The solids stream includes belt press dewatering and incineration of the sludge cake using a fluidized bed incinerator. A detailed description of the existing facilities is presented in Section 5.4. The original Edmonds WWTP was completed in 1957 to treat 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Edmonds expanded the primary plant to a design flow of 4.0 MGD in 1959, and for a third time in 1967, to a design flow of 7.6 MGD, by adding two clarifiers and effluent pumping. The third expansion also included dewatering equipment and an incinerator for solids handling. In 1991 the plant was expanded to secondary treatment with a capacity of 11.8 mgd for maximum month loading. A conventional secondary treatment process was implemented consisting of three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact basin. Additionally, new operations and solids handing buildings were constructed. The Edmonds Plant layout is shown in Figure 5.4. 8.2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The Edmonds wastewater treatment plant operates under the terms of NPDES Permit No. WA-002405-8 last modified May 9, 2012. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix K. The treatment plant effluent requirements established by the permit are a maximum monthly concentration of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), 30 mg/L for total suspended solids (TSS) and 200/ 100 mL for fecal coliform bacteria density. CBOD5 and TSS effluent limits are also held to an 85% minimum removal. The facility is subject to whichever discharge limit is more stringent when reporting: concentration mg/L or 85% removal. Based on a maximum month design flow of 11.8 million gallons per day (mgd), the average monthly mass discharge limit of 25 mg/L for BOD5 and 30 mg/L for TSS is 2,460 and 2,952 pounds per day respectively. The permit also limits the chlorine residual concentration to 0.191 mg/L. Packet Page 496 of 660 8 1 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE Figure 8.1 is a plot of the effluent CBOD5 and TSS concentration over the last 10 years. The Edmonds plant is consistently under the monthly average of 25 and 30 mg/L limit for CBOD5 and TSS respectively as stipulated in the NPDES Permit. 35.0 U111l 25.0 tuo E N 20.0 3 w N 15.0 s a 0 10.0 5.0 0.0 4- 1/2002 Figure 8.1 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent CBOD5/TSS Conc. +Efluent CBOD f Effluent TSS Effluent CBOD Conc. Effluent TSS Conc. 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 The determination of the effluent mass discharge is calculated by multiplying the concentration times the daily flow: mg). (million gallons lb _ lbs \ L / \ day ) ' 8.34 (—gal) day This formula uses the measured effluent concentrations from limited composite samples and the continuously measured flow values. The results yield the total mass BOD and TSS being discharged from the plant. It should be noted, however, that such calculations tend to over -state the total mass. This is referred to as `flow biasing'. During the wet weather months when extreme flow conditions occur, the extrapolation of those flow conditions throughout the entire month tends to overestimate the total mass discharge. Figure 8.2 is the effluent mass loading. Packet Page 497 of 660 8 Z COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3,500 3,000 2,500 co 2,000 c 1,500 W T s G 1,000 500 Figure 8.2 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS Efluent CBOD CBOD NPDES limit — 85% NPDES CBOD Limit f Effluent TSS TSS NPDES Limt — 85% NPDES TSS Limit 0 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.4 NPDES PERMITTED CAPACITY & HISTORICAL LOADING The NPDES permit specifies the permitted capacity of the plant. The Edmonds WWTP is permitted to treat a maximum monthly flow of 11.8 mgd. The "maximum month" criterion is the highest monthly average loading in one calendar year. Section S4.B: Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity, states that the City of Edmonds needs to submit a plan and schedule to Ecology to maintain capacity if the influent flow reaches 85% of the design criteria for three consecutive months. When flows reach 10.03 mgd for three months in a row the City will be subject to this condition. There are three parshall flumes that measures flow at the Edmonds WWTP. As stated in Section 3.4.2, the loading to Edmonds has been largely influenced by the flow swapping agreement with King County through the Lake Ballinger pump station. Figure 8.3 shows a plot of the influent flow over the last 10 years. As shown the flows are well below the plant design flow, or the level that would trigger a plant expansion study. Packet Page 498 of 660 8 3 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 14.0 12.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 T 1/2002 Figure 8.3 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Flow NPDES Limit 85% NPDES Limit 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 Average monthly flows through the 10 year period of record show consistent seasonal patterns. Other than one large event in 2006 the influent flow has been far below the NPDES permit. Past flows look to be approaching the 85% limit but this figure does not reflect the new reciprocating flow agreement with King County concerning the Lake Ballinger pump station. The NPDES permitted average BOD and TSS loading design criteria for the plant in section S4.A is 20,000 and 19,200 Ibs/day respectively for maximum month loads. When BOD loads reach 17,000 pounds per day or TSS loads reach 16,320 pounds per day Edmonds will be subject to the 85% planning criteria. Figure 8.4 shows a plot of the influent mass BOD and TSS over the last 10 years. Packet Page 499 of 660 8 4 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 3 10,000 8,000 s O 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 8.4 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Mass BOD/TSS i Ili 1Wt7VF1X1r'1Fd1Wt =,win mim IU711 IMMMMLILI WIGiLF-J, Influent BOD InfluentTSS -�Mmm 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.5 VIOLATIONS AND BYPASSES In April 2009 the Edmonds plant received a warning letter from the Department of Ecology (DOE) for being out of compliance with their wastewater discharge permit. The violation was for February 2009 because the discharged TSS did not meet the minimum 85% removal because of some temporary process problems. No further action was taken. Aside from the warning letter, Edmonds has had no violations in the last decade concerning treatment or bypasses. 8.6 FUTURE CAPACITY EVALUATION A capacity analysis has been conducted as part of this comprehensive plan to predict what equipment or processes, if any, are likely to exceed their ability to handle plant flows and loads during the planning period. The capacity analysis is presented as Table 8.1. Taking into consideration the Lake Ballinger pump station flow swap, projections for future flows and loads were made based on predicted population growth for the Edmonds service area. The flow projections calculated for the Edmonds plant gave a maximum monthly flow of 5.72 mgd in the year 2019 and 6.79 mgd in year 2033. Packet Page 500 of 660 8 5 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Population Equivalent Flow, mgd Average Annual 6.7 9.1 5.79 5.72 6.79 Maximum Month 8.7 11.8 9.66 11.8 8.97 10.96 Peak Hour 31.3 40.0 30.30 28.4 30.6 Max Day 16.8 21.6 21.60 21.5 20.3 21.8 Max flow to secondary 22.9 22.9 22.90 22.9 22.9 BODs, Ibs/day Annual AVG 11,200 15,300 9,611 9,490 11,265 Max Month AVG 14,100 19,200 12,647 20,000 11,744 14,349 Max day 22,400 30,500 16,276 15,275 16,425 TSS, Ibs/day Annual AVG 8,300 11,300 8,051 7,949 9,436 Max month AVG 11,600 15,900 9,615 19,200 8,929 10,909 Max day 21,600 29,400 11,321 10,625 11,425 Per Capita, Ibs/cap/day Annual AVG BOD Annual AVG TSS Effluent Limits CBODS, Ibs/day AVG month, 25 mg/L (NPDES) 2,460 or AVG week, 40 mg/L (NPDES) 3,936 TSS, Ibs/day AVG month, 30 mg/L (NPDES) 2,952 or AVG week, 45 mg/L (NPDES) 4,429 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monthly geometric mean 200 Weekly geometric mean 400 Chlorine, Ibs/day AVG month (0.191 mg/L, NPDES) 18.8 Max Day (0.442 mg/L, NPDES) 43.5 Headworks Mechanical Bar Screens Number 3 Width, ft 4 Packet Page 501 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design bar spacing, in Parshall Flumes Number Throat, ft 0.5 3 2 Raw Sewage Pumps Number 4 Type vertical, non -clog Capacity, each, gpm 9,260 HP, each 100 Drive type 2 variable, 2 consant Primary Clarifiers Primary Sedimentation Tanks Number 3 3 3 3 3 Clarifiers 1&2 Width, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Length, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Clarifiers 3 Width, ft 45 45 45 45 45 Length, ft 91 91 91 91 91 Average Depth, ft 10 10 10 10 10 Total Surface Area, square feet 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 Surface Load Rate, gpd/sf Annual Average 593 806 513 506 601 1,000 800 to 1,200 Max month 770 1,045 855 794 970 Peak hour 2,771 3,541 2,683 2,518 2,707 2,500 2,000 to 3,000 Detention time, hrs Annual Average 3.0 2.2 3.5 3.5 3.0 Max month 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 2 1.5 to 2.0 Peak hour 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Max Day 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 BOD Removal, % Annual Average flow 39% 36% 37% 37% 35% 25 to 40 Maximum month flow 36% 33% 31% 32% 30% Max Day 29% 26% 28% 26% 25% TSS Removal, % Annual Average flow 61% 58% 62% 62% 61% 50 to 70 Maximum month flow 58% 54% 57% 58% 55% Max Day 49% 45% 40% 41% 40% Packet Page 502 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Aeration Basins Number Width, ft 3 3 3 3 3 58 58 58 58 58 Length, ft 75.3 75.3 75.3 75.3 75.3 Side water depth, feet 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 Volume total, gal 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 Contact zone volume, gal 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 CMAS Mode Total Detention Time, hr Annual Average 7.2 5.3 8.4 8.5 7.1 Max month 5.6 4.1 5.0 5.4 4.4 3 to 5 Max Day 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,800 1,800 1,708 1,800 1,800 1,500-4,000 QR/Q, mgd/mgd 0.25 to 0.5 F:M Ratio Annual Average 0.23 0.33 0.42 0.20 0.24 Max month 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.26 0.33 0.2 to 0.6 Max Day 0.53 0.75 0.61 0.37 0.40 SRT, days Annual Average 9.3 6.3 9.4 10.0 8.1 Max month 6.2 4.2 6.9 8.0 6.2 3 to 15 Max Day 2.8 1.9 4.2 4.8 4.4 Oxygen Demand, Ib/hr Annual Average 315 452 278 275 333 Max month 413 591 400 367 463 Max Day 733 1041 537 516 562 Contact Stabilization Mode Contact MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,000-3,000 Contact time, min Annual Average 75 55 87 88 74 Max month 58 42 52 56 46 30 to 60 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 16 13 17 18 16 Peak hour, w/ bypass 22 22 22 22 22 Max Day 30 23 23 25 23 Stabiilization MLSS Conc, mg/L 6,000-10,000 Stabilization time, hrs Annual Average 12.0 8.8 13.8 14.0 11.8 Max month 9.2 6.8 8.3 8.9 7.3 Max Day 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 Peak hour, w/ bypass 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.6 to 4 Packet Page 503 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design QR/Q, mgd/mgd Blowers Number 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 to 1.50 4 Type multi -stage, centrifugal Capacity, each, 3,300 HP, each, cfm 250 RAS Pumps Number 4 Type Horizontal, non -clog centrifugal Capacity, each,gpm 2,100 HP, each 25 Secondary Clarificaters Number 3 3 3 3 3 Diameter, ft 90 90 90 90 90 Side water Depth, ft 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Total surface area, sq ft 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 Surface loading rate, gpd/sq ft/d Annual average flow 351 477 304 300 356 400 to 700 Maximum month flow 456 618 506 470 574 Peak to secondary (w/out bypass) 1,640 2,096 1,588 1,490 1,602 1,000 1,600 Peak To secondary (w/ bypass) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 to Total weir length, ft Solids loading, Ib/hr/sf Annual average flow 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Maximum month flow 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 to 1.2 Peak hour 1.2 1.57 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 Chlorine Contact Chamber Number of Tanks 2 2 2 2 2 Length, ft 251 251 251 251 251 Width, ft 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Side water depth, ft 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Total volume, gal 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 Dentention Time, min Annual Average 69 51 80 81 68 30 to 120 min 60-120 Maximum month 53 39 48 51 42 Peak hour 15 12 15 16 15 15 to 90 min > 20 Number of Chlorinators Packet Page 504 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design *including portion of outfall Chlorination Equipment Number of Chlorinators 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity, lb/day 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Size, Ibs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Storage Number 8 8 8 8 8 Average Daily Demand, Ibs 380 380 380 380 380 Effluent Pumps Number 5 Type Vertical, mixed flow Capacity, each,gpm 7,000 HP, each 100 Drive type (2) VFD, (3) constant Primary Sludge Production Annual Average 4,627 4,932 5,715 Max month 5,733 6,135 6,328 Sludge avg TS, % 3.44% 2-6% Secondary Sludge Production Annual Average 5,484 5,413 6,631 Max month 8,476 7,780 9,915 Sludge avg TS, % 0.65% 0.5 to 1.5% Primary Sludge and Scum Pumps Number 6 16,243 63,647 Type Air operated, diaphram Capacity, gpm 150 Primary Sludge Storage Tanks Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.5 Maximum month 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 Max day 0.8 0.8 0.8 Mixer type and HP Packet Page 505 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year Current 1991 Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Primary Sludge Transfer Pumps Number Type Capacity, gpm 2 Air operated diaphram 150 WAS and Secondary Pumps Number 5 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 50 HP, each 5 Drive type Constant WAS Storage Tank Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Maximum month 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 Max day 0.6 Mixer type and HP WAS Transfer Pumps Number 2 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 150 HP, each 7.5 Drive type VFD Belt Filter Press Number 2 2 2 2 Width,ft 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Capacity, each, gpm 150 Hours operated/Day Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Loading, gpm, one BP for hours operated Annual Average 108 162 162 197 Max month 116 172 161 200 Max Day 130 173 215 Loading, lb dry solids/hr 509 509 509 Packet Page 506 of 660 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Incinerator Number Type 1 1 1 1 Fluidized bed Diameter, ft 10 10 10 9.7 10 9.7 Capacity, mmbtu 9.7 9.7 Hours Operated Daily Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Capacity, Ib/hr 942 Loading, lb dry solids/hrs operated Annual Average 843 862 1,029 Max month 836 819 955 Ash Thickening Number 1 Type gravity Diameter, ft 8 Ash Dewatering Number 1 Type vacuum filter Capacity, Ib/hr 200 Ash Production, cy/d Annual Average 2.1 2.1 2.1 Max month 3.2 3.2 3.2 Max Day 4.0 4.0 4.0 Packet Page 507 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These projected flows are far less than the overall rated capacity of 11.8 mgd for the plant and do not exceed the 85% criteria (10.03 mgd) within the planning period. The projected maximum month BOD loadings for the plant are 11,744 pounds per day in 2019 and 14,349 pounds per day in year 2033. The BOD loading in 2033 is far less than the 85% design criteria let alone the NPDES permitted limit of 20,000 Ibs/day. The projected TSS Ibs/day maximum month loading for the Edmonds plant is 8,949 and 10,909 Ibs/day, in years 2019 and 2033, respectively. The projected TSS load in year 2033 is less than half of the NPDES permitted limit of 19,200 Ibs/day. In addition to the overall plant capacity analysis, the capacity of the plant's individual unit processes were evaluated against typical design values, as shown in literature that is widely consulted in the wastewater engineering field, including "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse", by Metcalf & Eddy; "Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" prepared jointly by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); and "Criteria for Sewage Works Design" (the Orange Book) by the Washington State Department of Ecology Using these projections the capacities of the unit processes were compared with commonly accepted design values, as shown on Table 8.1. The capacity for the mechanical equipment used was based on the manufacturer's rating and the plant design data. None of the unit processes are projected to be significantly overloaded during the planning period. The only unit process that is not meeting typical design criteria is the chlorine contact chamber detention time. The facility, already aware of this, maintains elevated disinfection levels as explained in the Section 5.4.2. Furthermore, the current operation feeds sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflow which increases the contact time. 8.7 FUTURE REGULATORY ISSUES FOR WWTP The existing liquid stream processing at the Edmonds facility regularly produces compliant effluent and the capacity of the plant can easily handle the projected flows and loads. However, there are three potential regulatory issues that could impact the plant requirements in the future. The potential regulatory issues are: • Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Air Emissions • Secondary Treatment Bypass • Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) - Air Emissions The most pressing issue is the requirement of new sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) air quality standards. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI Packet Page 508 of 660 8-13 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN emission regulations in the Federal Register Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". These new standards supplement the older Clean Water Act (CWA 40 CFR, Part 503) regulations. The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. The regulations dictate different emission limits for new (or substantially modified) incinerators and for existing sewage sludge incinerators; as well as different limits for multiple hearth incinerators and fluidized bed incinerators. Existing SSI units will have 5 years to comply from the effective date of the regulations, or until May 19, 2016. The new CAA regulations will require a Title V air permit. Previous regulations for sewage sludge incinerators (SSI) were based on emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The previous air quality emission limits were as follows, and the City has been in compliance with these limits: • Particulate matter emission limit of 0.18 g/m3 (0.08 grams/cu ft) dry gas at standard temperature and pressure corrected to 12% carbon dioxide. • Beryllium emission of 10 g per 24-hour period. • Mercury emission limit of 3,200 g per 24-hour period. • Lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel feed cake limits based on ambient air quality and health risk specific concentrations. • Total Hydrocarbons monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. • Carbon monoxide monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. The new emission limits that apply to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant are given in Table 8.2 below. The existing SSI regulation is for incinerators that were in operation before the new regulations. New SSI's built, or substantially modified, will be held to more stringent emission limits. Substantial modification includes any revisions to the feed system, reactor, ash system and energy recovery systems; but not the emission control equipment or routine maintenance. In addition to new emission limits, the new regulations will require that compliance tests be conducted annually. The "2007" column in Table 8.2 summarizes data received from the plant for their source emissions evaluation by Am Test -Air Quality, LLC, which was conducted in late May of 2007 and finalized into a report in July 31, 2007. The 2007 evaluation was based on the old regulations, so there are several pollutants (hydrogen chloride, dioxins and furans) that are currently regulated that were not sampled or tested. Packet Page 509 of 660 8-14 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators Pollutant Units Existing SSI New SSI 2007 Cd m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0016 0.0011 0.00031 CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 64 27 1.6 HCI ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.51 0.24 - Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.037 0.0010 0.053 NOX ppmvd @ 7% 02 150 30 24 Pb m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0074 0.00062 0.180 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ n /dscm @ 7% 02 0.10 0.0044 - PCDD/PCDF, TMB n /dscm @ 7% 02 1.2 0.013 - PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 18 9.6 34.8 S02 ppmvd @ 7% 02 15 5.3 10.5 Where: Cd - Cadmium CO - Carbon Monoxide HCI - Hydrogen Chloride Hg - Mercury NOX - Nitrogen Oxides Pb - Lead PCDD/PCDF - Polychlorinated Dibenzo -P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans PM - Particulate Matter S02 - Sulfur Dioxide TEQ -Toxic Equivalency TMB - Total Mass Balance Stack gas emission records are limited. Assuming that this one test is representative of Edmond's sludge, improvements to the existing emission control equipment will be required. However, it should be noted that sludge quality can vary significantly between samples and one sample is not necessarily representative. A significant sampling and testing program is recommended before any modifications are made to the emissions control system. The 2007 report conducted three runs for each of the tests and the sludge was further analyzed during each run. In Table 8.2, the 2007 column has three pollutants that exceed the new regulations for existing SSI's; mercury, lead, and particulate matter. Particulate matter and most metals (except mercury) are removed as solids by the plant's existing Venturi scrubber. Because of its extremely high vapor pressure, mercury is 100% vaporized during the incineration process. so it is not removed by the existing wet scrubber. If mercury cannot be removed by source controls, a new packed -bed carbon scrubber will be required. The particulate matter concentration is above the new regulated threshold. The EnviroCare International VenturiPakTM scrubber system at Edmonds has been widely tested at other locations and generally complies with the new particulate matter regulations for existing incinerators. The VenturiPakT"', if operated optimally, is typically in compliance with the new regulations for existing SSI for Cd, HCI, Pb, PM, and S02. Packet Page 510 of 660 8-15 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The 2007 concentrations are likely the results of the scrubber system not operating optimally. An evaluation of the system was conducted in 2012 which resulted in a new venturi throat and additional sprays were added. A compliance test was conducted in 2013 and all new standards were met. If further optimization of the existing scrubber is needed to meet the new regulations, then additional treatment to remove small (sub -micron) particulates will be required. EnviroCare makes a wet electrostatic precipitator (StarTm ESP) that can be retro-fit with the existing scrubber. The estimated cost of the retro-fit would be about $0.8 million. A pilot test of this equipment is scheduled in 2013. Lead emissions appear to be very high but this is misleading. The first two emission test runs were in compliance but the third test run was 400 times the concentration of the first two. Considering that the lead concentration in the bio-solids varied by only 9% (at one standard deviation) suggests that the concentration found in the third emissions run was invalid. The skewed emissions test run was perhaps a recording, operations, or lab error but it is not likely representative of typical emission levels. A new stack test would confirm this. Mercury emissions are not reduced by the existing scrubber system and other actions will likely be necessary for lowering this emissions concentration. Edmonds has two choices to control mercury emissions: • Require amalgam separators at dental offices • Implement mercury emission removal equipment Amalgams are the mercury fillings used in dentistry. Requiring dentists in the service area to use amalgam separators would decrease the amount of mercury in the waste stream. Amalgam separators would be preferred for Edmonds because of the costs of mercury removal treatment processes. The City has already begun a campaign to reduce these discharges, but results are not yet known. Mercury emission removal equipment, such as that provided by Kombisorbon® would remove 99% of mercury, dioxins, furans and more. The system works by directing the flume gas through a sulfur impregnated activated carbon filter. The adsorbent (activated carbon) can be divided into several layers and removes mercury in all forms through adsorption and chemical reactions. The removal system includes a dust protection layer to extend the life of the activated carbon. The service life of the dust protection and adsorbent layers is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. A budgetary proposal has been received for the Edmonds facility and the system would cost about $1.4 million. Dust protection and adsorbent material replacement cost is roughly $30,000. Before any actions are further considered Edmonds needs to perform at least one more stack test. The incinerated solids may have changed dramatically due to plant influent changes. The estimated cost to conduct these annual tests is about $25,000. Packet Page 511 of 660 8-16 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass The Edmonds treatment plant has the ability to route peak flows around the secondary treatment units (aeration basins and secondary clarifiers). The plant has never used this bypass, and the flow projections shown in Table 8.1 predict that the future peak day flow will not exceed the plant peak day design capacity of 21.5 mgd. Therefore the current permit does not allow for bypassing and blending of secondary effluent. However, for long-range planning purposes this may be necessary in the future. The practice of bypassing peak wet weather flows around secondary treatment processes, and blending the bypass with secondary effluent, has been commonly used in the past throughout the US. In recent years this practice has become more controversial, and the EPA was asked to formalize a bypass regulation that specifically authorizes these bypasses. In December, 2005 the EPA published the provisions that allow for bypasses in the Federal Register at 40 CFR 122.41(m). The key provisions include: • Discharges must meet secondary effluent limitations, including the 85% removal requirement, or any other more stringent requirements that are necessary to meet water quality standards • All flows diverted from secondary treatment units must receive a minimum of primary treatment and any supplemental treatment or technology shown to be feasible. The policy does not authorize diversions around any other treatment units, including primary treatment units • The availability of feasible alternatives will be determined on a plant -by -plant basis, and the authority to bypass the secondary process will be incorporated into the plant's NPDES permit. • The permittee is responsible for submitting a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of eliminating the secondary bypass • If the DOE determines that there is no feasible alternative to secondary bypass flow diversion, then they may approve secondary flow diversion 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits Nitrogen is a nutrient which is believed to be one of the main causes of oxygen depletion in South Puget Sound (south of Tacoma Narrows). As a result, the Department of Ecology is conducting a TMDL Study of all of the sources of nitrogen entering Puget Sound (including the effects from discharges north of the Narrows). Ecology is adding nitrogen monitoring requirements to all permits for plants discharging to Puget Sound, in order to gather data for the study. Packet Page 512 of 660 8 17 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Although not imminent, for long-range planning purposes, consideration should be given as to how Edmonds plants would meet a future total nitrogen limit. Total nitrogen (TN) removal is normally accomplished by biological nitrification and de - nitrification, just as carbonaceous BOD removal is currently accomplished in the aeration basins. However, the slower growing nitrifying micro-organisms require about three times the minimum detention time that is recommended for carbonaceous BOD removal. In addition anoxic (without dissolved oxygen) basins are needed to provide biological de -nitrification. De -nitrification is the conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas through bacteria stripping the nitrates of their oxygen; the nitrogen gas then releases to the atmosphere. The total additional tankage required would be about 6 million gallons. The only space available for new aeration and anoxic basins would be to expand the plant to the parking lot across 2nd Avenue S. east of the facility; which is the facilities property. This site is not large enough to accommodate conventional activated sludge tanks Edmonds other option would be converting the plant's activated sludge process to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system. This choice is the most logical for plants with space restraints. Whereas conventional activated sludge plants operate at a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration of 2,000 to 4,000 mg/L, MBRs operate at a concentration of 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L. This higher concentration reduces the required aeration basin size proportionately, so the required basins would be reduced to about 2.0 million gallons, or about the volume of the existing aeration basins. In addition, with the MBR process the liquid and solids are separated by a membrane, not by gravity settling, so the need for secondary clarifiers is eliminated. This, in turn, would allow space for the required membrane basins and membrane support building. Additionally the MBR plant would have to improve the headworks screening for the MBR system. Screening requirement is 3 mm (1/8") sized openings, current bar screens have 6 mm (1/4") openings. 8.8 PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL NEEDS 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan Since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the City has completed or is in the process of completing the following improvements at the WWTP. 1. 2007-Electrical Improvement Project. #C-251 i. Replace the three main switch gear breakers with draw -out style breakers to allow us to service the breakers without a total plant power outage. ii. Add a 600 amp breaker to the "B" side distribution panel for a feeder to the 100 building. Packet Page 513 of 660 8 18 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2. 2007-MCC Feeder Installation. #M-009 i. Added a new MCC to the 100 building for the new screenings equipment and to move some of the load from the existing MCC due to under size cables between the existing MCC breaker and the MCC bus bars. 3. 2007-Screenings System Improvement. #C-161 i. Replaced the influent bar screens with Headworks bar screens (3). ii. Replaced the screenings pump with two Wemco pumps. iii. Modified the screenings hopper feed water to use raw sewage from the influent pumps iv. Added flow meters on the hopper make up water and the screenings transfer flow. v. Added a JWC Macho Monster grinder between the screenings conveyer and the screenings hopper. vi. Replaced the old screenings de -watering unit with a Headworks washer compactor. 4. 2009-Odor Control Improvement Project. #C-311 i. Install duct work, a VFD controlled fan, and carbon scrubber on the three Aeration Basins. ii. Install duct work, a two speed fan and a carbon scrubber on the secondary clarifier #2. iii. Enclose secondary clarifier #2 iv. Remove the ventilation louvers and the window between the incinerator room and the belt press room. v. Install two fans and duct work to bring outside air into the belt press room. vi. Install a fan and duct work to allow us to route the foul air from the Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) storage tank to the incinerator while the incinerator is running. Or route it to the chemical scrubber when the incinerator is down vii. Added duct work to route the air from the Raw Sludge storage tank through fan #FIC-654. 5. 2009-Secondary Clarifier #2 Refurbishment. #C-316 i. Strip and repaint all the steel in secondary clarifier #2. 6. 2009-Clay Feeder Project. #C-317 i. Install a platform over the Sludge Hopper in the incinerator room. ii. Install a kaolin clay feeder on the platform that will feed Kaolin clay into the sludge hopper. iii. Install a control panel for the feeder with a VFD and timers for the vibrator. Packet Page 514 of 660 8 19 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN iv. This system allows us to control the undesirable effects of high sodium content in the sludge. When we feed clay we can control the melting point of the ash. 7. 2009-Aration Basin Control Up -grade. #M-050 i. Install new Dissolved Oxygen probes on all three Basins. ii. Install new Total Suspended Solids probes on all three basins. iii. Install three instrument transmitters and three radio transmitters on the basins. iv. Install a radio receiver in the CP-301 and hook it into the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). v. Program the PLC to trend the TSS of the basins. 8. 2010-Energy Efficiency Up -grade. #C-322 i. Replace the course air diffuser in the WAS storage tank with Sanitair membrane style fine bubble diffusers. ii. Replace the centrifugal aeration blower 304 with a high efficiency turbo style blower. 9. 2010-300 PLC Upgrade. #C-328 i. Replace the old Input/Output (1/0) PLC cards with new model cards. 10. 2010-Sludge Pump Replacement. #M-054 i. Replace air operated RAW Sludge Transfer pump #RST-608 with an electric driven duel diaphragm Penn Valley pump. This will save electricity usage by reducing the demand on the air compressors. 11. 2011-Lighting Up -grade. C-366 i. Replace all the florescent lighting and some outside lighting with high efficiency lighting. ii. Install motion sensors in various locations around the plant. 12. 2011-Outfall Diffuser Project. #C-367 i. Have the diffuser orifice plates removed to allow less head lose through the diffusers ii. Perform a new mixing zone analysis. 13. 2012-A Basin Up -grade. #C-365 i. Remove all the diffusers and piping grids in Aeration Basin #1. ii. Install two baffle walls to convert the complete mix basin to a plug flow basin. iii. Install Sanitair's new panel style diffusers. iv. Replace the existing single air control valve to the basin with two control valves, one on each grid section. 14. 2012-VFD Replacement. C-384 Packet Page 515 of 660 8 Z0 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN i. Replace three, obsolete Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) with new VFDs. ii. Install two new VFDs on pumps DSP-615 and BDW-401. 15. 2012-Switch Gear Access Platform. i. Install a platform over secondary clarifier #1 behind the plants main electrical switch gear to allow personnel access to the rear panels of the switch gear. 16. 2012-Fiber Optic Network. C-387 i. Replace the existing plant PLC and SCADA network cables with Fiber Optic cable. 17. 2012-Non-Potable Water Pump Up -grade. C-322 i. Replace one 50 HP non -potable water pump with a 30 HP pump and a VFD. ii. Install a booster pump, in the belt press room, for the high pressure applications, 18. 2012-Hypochlorite Pump Relocation. C-386 i. Relocate the sodium hypochlorite pumps from the hypo room to the caustic storage area down stairs. ii. Install an uninterruptible power supply to the power circuit for the disinfection pumps iii. Add a fourth pump for disinfection. 19. 2012-Roof Replacement. C-383 i. Replace aging roofs on buildings 100, 300, and 600. 20. 2012-Underground Storage Tank (UST) Monitoring Up -grade. i. Up -grade the level indicator on the UST to have the ability to perform statistical inventory control. This will bring us into compliance with the Department of Ecology. ii. Up -grade the leak monitoring system to a more reliable model. 8.8.2 Additional WWTP Improvements Current or future modifications at the WWTP, due to obsolescence, operator preferences, or energy upgrades include the following (refer to Table 9.5): WWTP-1 Variable Frequency Drive Upgrade. Replaces three old drives and installs two new drives WWTP-2 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment to improve data retrieval accuracy. Packet Page 516 of 660 8 21 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-3 Switchgear Upgrade. The existing automatic transfer switch is corroded and failing. This improvement will insure reliable emergency power. WWTP-4 Incinerator Testing and Compliance. Install new air emissions and monitoring equipment on the existing incinerator, modify pre -heat burner fuel source from diesel to natural gas and install a secondary heat exchanger to preheat air for plume suppression. WWTP-5 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating. WWTP-6 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment and Concrete Repair. WWTP-7 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3. WWTP-8 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating. WWTP-9 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403. WWTP-10 Joint/Concrete Repair. WWTP-11 Control System Upgrades, Phase 1. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-12 Energy Project. Replace the water feature pump and install a VFD. Install thermostat and controls on Shop heater. Evaluate replacement of Sludge Pump. WWTP-13 In Plant Hatches. Evaluate the risks and determine the best course of action for each hatch. WWTP-14 Facility Improvements. This would include upgrades and expansion of the facilities, including the Men's Locker room. WWTP-15 Polymer Make up Equipment. Equipment has past its useful life. WWTP-16 Control System Upgrades, Phase 2. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-17 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements and Repairs. WWTP-18 Convert 200 HP Blower to Turbo Blower. Energy saving measure. WWTP-19 Upgrade the Control Valve Actuators on the Effluent Pumps. WWTP-20 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700. Energy saving measure. Packet Page 517 of 660 8 22 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-21 Screenings Improvements. Evaluate options for better handling of screening materials. WWTP-22 Belt Filter Press Energy Project. Evaluate the best solids handling options to maximize solids capture and cake. WWTP-23 Diesel Day Tank. Obsolete day tank. WWTP-24 Automatic Flow Shearing Process. Energy Saving measure. WWTP-25 Chemical Use Area. Improve access to eyewash and maneuverability. WWTP-26 Electronic O&M Documentation. This will allow linking assets, documents and SOPs to better manage the system. WWTP-27 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow Packet Page 518 of 660 8 23 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IX — COMPREHENESIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RANKING Three major components make up the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), 1) those reoccurring maintenance issues, 2) that infrastructure that has known deficiencies or integrity issues and 3) that infrastructure that needs to be upsized resulting from population growth and the associated increase in flow values. Together these three components comprise the CIP. The City has an extensive and detailed categorization of the entire system. Each fault/problem was assigned a point value which reflects the City staff's assessment and judgment. The City has three main categories of deficiencies: a) the Red Area, which are chronic O&M issues that require the frequent and repeated attention of the City O&M Staff. The City has identified line segments that require regular flushing. This flushing schedule prioritizes the severity of the condition by the frequency of flushing. The location of these segments is presented in Appendix F.1 and also included in the I&I Study. Reportedly some problem segments have been removed from the trouble list due to actions implemented by the maintenance staff. The source of many of these problems stem from either low flow or grease accumulations. In the latter case, most of the property owners have been notified of pre-treatment requirements and the City's Fats, Oils and Grease policy. b) the Granite system. Areas of know deficiencies have been identified through the City's Granite Software. This is a very comprehensive listing of known problems. These problems are categorized using approximately 28 descriptors. These descriptors have been aggregated into issues that are O&M in nature and which generally are individually minor, but collectively may warrant a CIP. The second Granite category are those CIP that could be rectified using trenchless technologies and the last category are those issues that likely would require major construction including digging up and replacement of the line segment. c) Capacity Issues. With forecasted population and development, the anticipated future flows were applied to the existing piping infrastructure to determine which pipes are currently or, in the future, will be over capacity and surcharging the system. A comprehensive listing of the Capital Improvement Projects considered all three of these factors. Isolated reports of minor faults or problems generally do not warrant a CIP. However, when several reoccurring maintenance issues are found in a single pipe reach, that segment might become a candidate for replacement or repair. Consequently, all faults/problems have been listed by pipe reach to aggregate the 9-1 Packet Page 519 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN problem areas. The detailed presentation of the individual problems is listed in Appendix F (Tables F.1 — Red Areas; Table F.2 — Granite O&M segments; Table F.3 — Granite Known Deficiencies -Trench less; Table FA — Granite Known Deficiencies -Dig up and Replace). The assignment of points is summarized in Table 9 TABLE 9.1 Point Assignment for Capital Improvement Projects Category Red Areas Granite - O&M Granite - Trenchless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity Grease 5 Dirt, Grease, Grit 5 Girt 5 Black Water 5 None 0 Grit, Black Water 5 Grit (a lot) 6 N/A 0 Clean Flume 1 Brush Sensor 1 Depressions in Pipe 4 Problem Laterals - Abandoned 6 Debris and Deposits 0 Grease - Medium 0 Problem Laterals - Connections 5 Medium Root Problems 2 Light Root Problems 1 Roots 1 Joint Gasket Exposed - Severe 2 Problem Joint - Offset Medium 2 Joint Separation - Medium 2 Joint Separation - Small 1 Joint Separation 1 Crack 5 Heavy Root Problem 3 Hole in Pipe - Medium 9 Hole in Pipe - Small 8 Hole in Pie 8 Joint Separated - Large 3 Infiltration in Joint 5 Deformed 7 Broken 4 Broken Hole 4 Pipe Repair 10 Hole in Pipe - Large 10 Joint Offset - Large 3 Capacity - Model 10 Known Surcharging Pipe Segments 20 9-2 Packet Page 520 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These point assignments were made to each fault/problem and then summed by pipe segment. Ranking of the most severe segments were done both including and excluding the `Granite -O&M' problems. Both rankings are listed in Appendix F (Table F.6 — All categories and Table F.7 — without Granite O&M). The pipe segment ranking presented in Table 9.2 represents the ranking without the `Granite -O&M' components. It was felt that this ranking best reflects the problems that can be resolved by a CIP project. The exclusion of the `Granite -O&M' problems were viewed to be reoccurring maintenance issues such as flushing and root cutting and were viewed as maintenance issues that are not easily solved with a CIP. Those areas will require continued vigilance and follow up to intercept fats, oils and grease before they enter the City's system. Those problems noted to have `low flow' are typically associated with new developments that have not completely built out. With time, these problems may resolve themselves without a CIP. In addition, there were other Granite descriptors that were entries which were unassociated with any deficiency. These codings included camera out of water, cleanout, continue against flow, continue with flow, continue TV after jetting, end of pipe, end of push camera, end of run, infiltration, inside drop, lateral, outside drop, pipe continue, pipe diameter change, pipe direction change, pipe type, start against flow, start with flow, status, stop, and TV from other end. 9.2 CAPACITY LIMITATIONS IN EXISTING LINES Based on the future estimated population growth presented in Chapter 6 and the flow projections and modeling results found in Chapter 7, certain deficiencies were anticipated in the collection and conveyance system. The population projections and corresponding flow projections were based on four time periods: 2013 (current), 2019, 2033 and build out. The CIP is presented in three time periods: 2013 to 2019, 2019 to 2033 and lastly 2033 to build out. The identification of the capacity issues for each of these three periods is presented in Table F.5 (Appendix F). The line capacity issues together with the other known and scheduled projects and are presented in an expanded CIP for the next six year period in Table 9.3. The more distant CIPs, such as those shown for 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to build out, are based on extended population and flow forecasts and will tend to be less precise. None -the -less, they are presented for informational purposes and as an indicator of future potential capacity issues while providing the level of service presented in Chapter 4. 9-3 Packet Page 521 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance f Run fi Comments Table Red Are Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Obse SUM of Reach 8-75-8-57 0 38 0 0 38 SUM of Reach 8-50-8-52 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 0 15 8 10 33 SUM of Reach 8-58-8-57 0 30 0 0 30 SUM of Reach 17-61-17-84 484 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 SUM of Reach 8-265-8-266 438 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-47-17-48 500 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-48-17-59 506 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-60-17-61 179 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-84-17-85 457 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-85-17-86 111 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-86-17-87 43 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 Metro SUM of Reach 17-87-17-88 35 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 20 30 SUM of Reach 9-224-9-202 Increase 8" to 15" F.5 10 10 0 10 30 SUM of Reach 8-244-8-243 305 Increase 10" W 12" F.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 SUM of Reach 12-75-8-14 0 0 28 0 28 SUM of Reach 11-8-11-7 0 26 0 0 26 SUM of Reach 12-143-12-142 0 25 0 0 25 SUM of Reach 13-53-9-212 0 25 0 0 25 SUM of Reach 8-249-8-265 98 0 3 0 0 20 23 SUM of Reach 12-109-12-110 0 20 0 0 20 SUM of Reach 8-332-8-331 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 16-128-16-129 0 Increase 24"t436" F.3 0 0 10 10 20 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 12-73-12-75 Increase 8 to 12" F.3 and F.5 0 0 10 10 20 Edmonds W WTP SUM of Reach 16-133-16-134 0 Increase 24" W 36" F.3 and F.5 0 0 10 10 20 SUM of Reach 8-2433-242 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 0 10 0 10 20 SUM of Reach 8-2803-281 Increase 15"to 21" F.5 0 10 0 10 20 SUM of Reach Ina urchar a urcha a here 1-55-1-52 0 0 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 SUM of Reach 12-84A-1233 0 5 14 0 19 SUM of Reach 12-101-12-95 0 5 14 0 19 SUM of Reach 12-49-12-50 0 8 10 0 18 SUM of Reach 13-22-13-22A 0 18 0 0 18 SUM of Reach 8-68B-8-68 0 17 0 0 17 SUM of Reach 12N-79-13-65B 0 3 14 0 17 SUM of Reach 8-107-8-106 0 10 6 0 16 SUM of Reach 7-79-7-80 0 15 0 0 15 SUM of Reach 8-285-8-284 0 15 0 0 15 SUM of Reach 8-51-8-50 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 0 5 0 10 15 SUM of Reach 8-281-8-282 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 0 5 0 10 15 Metro SUM of Reach 17-78-17-82 0 ongitudinal - Wider (8" - 12 F.2 and F.5 0 5 0 10 15 SUM of Reach 12-126-12-125 0 15 0 0 15 SUM of Reach 7-9-7-10 0 14 0 0 14 SUM of Reach 12-134-12-132 0 14 0 0 14 SUM of Reach 12-132-12-131 0 14 0 0 14 SUM of Reach 9-299-9-298 0 3 10 0 13 SUM of Reach 14-56-14-62 Increase 12" to 18" F.5 0 3 0 10 13 SUM of Reach 12-248-12-247 0 13 0 0 13 SUM of Reach 8-136-8-137 0 12 0 0 12 SUM of Reach 9-363A-9363 0 12 0 0 12 SUM of Reach 14-3-14-3A 0 9 3 0 12 SUM of Reach 2-113A-2-113 0 11 0 0 11 SUM of Reach 12-133-12-134 0 0 10 0 10 SUM of Reach 14-66-14-65 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 14-34-14-33 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 8-4-8-5 Increase 8" to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 8-135-8-316 5 5 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 9-20-9-19 Increase 10" to 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 9-11-9-10 Increase IW to 15" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 8-35-8-36 N/A Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 1-36A-1-36 0 0 10 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-114-8-113 0 0 10 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-240-8-239 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-593-58 0 10 0 0 10 Metro SUM of Reach 14-48-14-50 0 Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Metro SUM of Reach 17-88-17-89 0 Increase 24" to 36" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 7-47-7-50 0 Increase 12" to 18" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 7-48-7-47 0 Increase 12" to 18" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 8-34-8-35 0 Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 9-193-9-196 Increase 10" W 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 9-19-9-18 Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 9-201-9-202 Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 9-202-9-20 Increase 10" to 15" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 4-1634-162 Increase IW to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 9-188-9-189 Increase 8" to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 14-65-14-64 0 0 10 0 10 SUM of Reach 7-50-7-52 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-41-8-42 Increase 8" to 15" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 8-2-8-2A Increase 8" to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 8-2A-83 Increase 8" to 12" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 11-19-11-18 0 Increase from 24 to 42 F.5 0 0 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 3-12F3-12E 0 0 10 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-97-8-98 0 10 0 0 10 Lift Station 1 SUM of Reach 4-83-4-82 N/A Increase 10" to IT' F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP SUM of Reach 7-33-7-32 Increase 30" to 42" F.1 and F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Large Pie Repair 12-105M-12-10511 12-181-12-182 1AWN---F-3- 0 F.3 __6____0 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Pie Repair Pie Repair 12-42-12-43 12-57-12-58 0 0 F.3 F.3 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 Edmonds WWTP Pie Repair 12-71-12-73 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Edmonds WWTP Pie Repair 13-65A-12-7 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Metro Pie Re air 14-73-14-72 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Metro Pi a Repair 16-27-16-31 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Lift Station 12 Pie Repair 1-79-1-78 8 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Lift Station 4 Hole in Pipe - Large 2-6413-2-68 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Lynnwood WWTP Pie Re air 3-653-66A 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Edmonds WWTP Pi a Repair 7-39B-7-39C 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Storm Lines Pi a Re air ci - Model _Me Model -Model -Model 8-322 0 Increase from 24 to Increase from 24 Increase from 24 Increase from 8 t F.3 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 nite 0 34 176 28 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 12 5 4 1 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 2 0 6 30 5 4 1 0 0 15 2 0 6 2 0 14 8 0 1 16 16 13 12 9 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 522 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Dostance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse Capa ' Inc Increase from 8 to 18 Increase from 8 to 12 F.5 10 10 Capaci - Model Capacit -Model 12-IO7 Capacity- Model 12-105T-12- Capacity - Model I2-105U-11-28B Capacity -Model 12-265-12-267 Capacity- Model 12-267-12-268 Capacity - Model 12-268-12-278 Capacity- Model 12-295A-12-295B Capacity- Model 14-25-14-41 Capacity- Model 14-26-14-25 Capacity- Model 14-30-14-27 Capacity - Model 14-31-14-30 Capacity -Model 14-40-14-39 Capacity- Model 14-48A-14-48 Capacity- Model 14-50-14-50C Capacity- Model 14-53-14-55 Capacity- Model 14-62-14-63 Capacity - Model 14-63-14-64 Capacity- Model 14-64-17-14 Capacity- Model 14-METER3-14A7 Capacity - Model 15-10-15-9 Capacity - Model 15-11-15-10 Capacity - Model 15-11A-15-11 Capacity- Model 15-12-15-11A Capacity - Model 15-13-15-13A Capacity- Model 15-13A-15-12 Capacity - Model 15-2-15-2B Capacity - Model 15-2B-12-265 Capacity - Model 15-3-15-2A Capacity - Model 15-4-15-3 Capacity - Model 15-4A-15-4 Capacity - Model 15-5A-15-4A Capacity - Model 15-7-15-5A Capacity- Model 15-8-15-7 Capacity - Model 16-123-16-124 Capacity - Model 16-124-16-125 Capacity - Model 16-125-16-127 Capacity - Model 16-127-16-128 Capacity- Model 16-129-16-130 Capacity - Model 16-130-16-130A Capacity - Model 16-13OA-16-131 Capacity - Model 16-131-16-132 Capacity - Model 16-132-16-133 Capacity - Model 16-134-16-135A 24 Capacity - Model 16-135-16-136 24 Capacity - Model 16-135A-16-135 24 Capacity - Model 16-136-16-137 24 Capacity - Model 16-137-15-13 24 Capacity- Model 17-10-17-11 Capacity - Model 17-11-17-17 Capacity- Model 17-14-17-9 Capacity - Model 17-80-17-81 Capacity- Model 17-81-17-82 Capacity - Model 17-82-17-83 Capacity- Model 17-89-17-90 Capacity- Model 17-9-17-10 Capacity - Model 4-161-4-95 Capacity- Model 4-162-4-161 Capacity- Model 4-173-4-163 Capacity - Model 4-80-4-78 Capacity - Model 4-81-4-80 Capacity - Model 4-84-4-83 Capacity - Model 4-89-4-86 Capacity - Model 4-91-4-90 Capacity- Model 4-92-4-91 Capacity- Model 4-93-4-92 Capacity- Model 4-94-4-93 Capacity - Model 7-32D-ED-WWTP Capacity - Model 7-40-7-48 Capacity - Model 7-41-7-40 Capacity- Model 7-52-7-51 Capacity - Model 7-84-7-85 Capacity- Model 8-266-8-275 Capacity - Model 8-275-8-278 Capacity- Model 8-278-8-279 Capacity- Model 8-279-8-280 Capacity- Model 8-33-8-34 Capacit - Model -8-43 8-42 Copse - Model 9-10-9-9 Capacity - Model 9-12-9-11 10 Capaci -Model 9-13-9-12 10 Capacity -Model 9-14-9-13 10 Capacity - Model 9-15-9-14 Capacity - Model 9-16-9-15 Capacity - Model 9-17-9-16 Capacity- Model 9-18-9-17 Capacity - Model 9-189-9-190 Capacity - Model 9-190-9-193A Capacity- Model 9-193A-9-193 Capacity - Model 9-196-9-196A Capacity- Model 9-196A-9-197 Capacity - Model 9-197-9-198 Capacity- Model 9-198-9-199 Capacit -Model 9-199-9-200 Capaci - Model 9-1A-8-33 F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase from 8 to 18 F.5 10 10 Increase from 8 to 18 Increase 24 to 36 F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase 24 to 36 F.5 10 10 Incre se 24 to 36 F.5 10 10 Increase 24 to 36 F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase V to l5" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" [0 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 8"[o 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to I8" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to I8" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase l2" [o I8" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 0 0 0 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" Increase 24" to 36" F.5 F.5 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" Increase 24" to 36" F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase24"to36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24"to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 30"[o 42" F.5 10 10 increase 30" to 42" F.5 10 10 Increase 30"[o 42" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 42" P.5 10 10 Increase 24- to 36" F.5 10 10 increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24- to 36" F.5 10 10 increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24- to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" Increase 24" to 36" F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" Increase 24" to 36" F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase l2" [o I8" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase l2" [o I8" F.5 10 10 Increase 8" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 8" [0 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase 24" to 36" F.5 10 10 Increase l2" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase l0" [0 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increasel0"[o12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase[Wt. 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 0 10 10 Increase 10" to 12" F.5 10 10 Increase 36" to 42" F.5 10 10 Increasel2"[o IS" F.5 10 10 Increase 12" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase l2" [o IS" F.5 10 10 Increase 15" to 18" F.5 10 10 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 10 10 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 10 10 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 10 10 Increase 15" to 21" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 8" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Isere-[Wt. 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Isere-[Wt. 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Isere-[Wt. 12" Increase 10" to 12" F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" Increase 10" to 15" F.5 F.5 10 10 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" to 15" F.5 10 10 Increase 10" [o 15' F.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 SUM of Reach 12-106-12-107 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 SUM of Reach 12-107-12-108 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 12-128-12-127 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 12-185D-12-130 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 12-93-12-90 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 7-76-7-75 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 7-77-7-76 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-287-8-286 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-303B-8303D 0 to 0 0 10 Packet Page 523 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment ro Pblem Category Location Reason Manhole # Dostance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse SUM of Reach 8-98-8-99 0 10 0 0 10 SUM of Reach 8-59A-8-59 0 9 0 0 9 SUM of Reach 2-29-2-28 0 5 4 0 9 SUM of Reach 7-35-7-33B 0 5 4 0 9 SUM of Reach 8-71-8-72 0 9 0 0 9 Metro Hole in Pi e - Medium 10-3-10-4 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 Lift Station 12 Hole in Pi e - Medium 1-16-1-20 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 Lift Station 1 Hole in Pi e- Medium 8-245A-8-245 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pi e-Medium 9-301-9-300 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 SUM of Reach 9-59-9-60 0 5 4 0 9 SUM of Reach 8-68-8-68A 0 8 0 0 8 SUM of Reach 11-6-11-5 0 8 0 0 8 SUM of Reach 10-6-10-5 0 8 0 0 8 SUM of Reach 14-29-14-28 0 8 0 0 8 SUM of Reach 9-225-9-224 0 8 0 0 8 Edmonds W WTP Hole in Pipe - Small 12-200-12-112 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Lift Station 4 Hole in Pi e- Small 2-89-2-88 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Lift Station 1 Hole in Pi a -Small 4-1864-185 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Lift Station 1 Hole in Pi e- Small 5-269-5-267 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Lift Station 1 Hole in Pi a -Small 8-202-8-201 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Lift Station 1 Hole in Pi e- Small 9-80A-9-80 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 Edmonds W WTP Hole in Pi a -Small INLET-7-61 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 SUM of Reach 12-51-8-11 0 5 3 0 8 iii SUM Of Reach 8-78-8-77 0 3 4 0 7 Lift Station 12 SUM of Reach 1-11-1- 3-66E-3-66D 0 F.3 0 0 0 3 7 3 0 0 7 6 SUM of Reach 5-122-5-121 0 0 6 0 6 SUM of Reach 8-85K-8-85F 0 6 0 0 6 1048 Walnut Street Grit a lot 8-2A-8-2 205 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 942 Alder Street Grit a lot 8-30-8-31 275 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 10th at Alder Street Gnt a lot 8-31-8-32 336 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 Alder $t at Yost Park Grit a lot 8-328-8-2 265 Con. F.1 6 0 0 0 6 1053 Alder Street Gnt a lot 8-32A-8-32B 55 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 10th Ave South at Walnut St Grit a lot 8-4-8-3 335 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 935 Walnut Street Gntaal 260 6 0 0 0 6 Maplewood Lane Gn SUM of Reach ffI9137 12-105N-12-105M 155 Co8620 F.1 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 6 SUM Of Reach 13-113-13-112 0 6 0 0 6 SUM of Reach 4-52A-4-53 0 0 6 0 6 SUM of Reach 8-175-8-174 0 3 3 0 6 SUM of Reach 8-2D-8-2B 0 6 0 0 6 SUM of Reach 8-77-8-76 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-76-8-75 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 5-2605-344 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 5-261-5-260 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 7-37-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 7-34-7-30 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 7-46-7-47 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-112-8-117 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 9-262A-9-262 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 9-150-5-336 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-95-12-94 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-72-8-73 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-139-12-138 0 1 5 1 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-16-12-17 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 2-91-2-90 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 7-65-7-66 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-101A-8-100 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 1-31-1-30 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 14-7-14-7A 5 0 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 7-38-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-178A-8-177A 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-30-8-29 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 9-273A-9-273 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-72-12-71 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-331-8-330 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-226-12-225 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 12-71-12-89 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 16-9-16-8 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 3-1313-132 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 4-524-52A 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 5-2995300 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 9-117-9-116 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 9-264-9-266 0 5 0 0 5 21 WIN Street 283 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 2232161h Street Black Water 12-156-13-96 380 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 153 8th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-189-12-190 c/o 120 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1158th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-191-12-189 285 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 17122 36 Fir Street Black Water 12-192-12-191 200 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 6131 75th Place West Grease 1-36-1-36A 211 PVC F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1808 Hi hwa 99 Black Water 14-22-14-24 360 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1309 761h Ave W DropMH Grit, Black Water 14-40-9-254 330 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 215th At 72rM Black Water 14-6-14-7 260 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 74th at 228th St Grease 14-65-14-66 320 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 72nd Ave W. at 215th St Black Water 14-7A-14-7B 255 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 240th at 78th Ave W Black Water 16-76-16-77 160 Con. FA 5 0 0 0 5 240th St and 78th Ave W Grit, Black Water 16-77-16-65 275 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 2381976th A"W Black Water 17-72-Main 44 Con. FA 5 0 0 0 5 2382176th Ave Grease 17-73-17-69 232 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 76th Ave W. at 242nd St Black Water 17-81-17-80 360 Con. FA 5 0 0 0 5 2412276th Ave Black Water 17-82-17-81 105 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7117176th St. SW Dirt, Grease, Grit 3-93-3-94 150 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 DelWood Dr. at 78th Ave W Black Water 5-191-5-187 200 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 ROOTS 7601 OVD Post Office Grit 5-325-5-328 350 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 1820976th Ave West Gilt 5-325-5-511-11 80 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 AdmiralWa at Dayton Grease 7-11-7-10 80 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 AdmiralWa Grease 7-3-7-2 425 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Wa Grease 7-4-7-3 380 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Wa Grease 7-5-7-4 380 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Wa Grease 7-6-7-5 280 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Wa at West Da on Gnt 7-6-CO 125 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way at Dayton Grease 7-7-7-11 37 Conc FA 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-7-7-6 35 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1033 Walnut Street Grit 8-3-8-2A 130 Conc F.1kr 0 0 0 5 7th Ave at Edmonds St Black Water 8-99-8-101A 207 Conc F.1 0 0 0 5 8705 Ma levrood Lane Grit, Black Water 9-137-9-138 340 Conc F.1 0 0 0 5 8610ain StreetGilt 9-16-9-19 178 Conc F.1 0 0 0 5 8610 Main Street Black Water 9-19-9-20 56 Con. FA 0 0 0 5 0 13 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 31 6 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 29 23 22 15 14 11 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 524 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category oca Ltion Reason Mhol ane # Dostance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse Pine Ride Park Black Water 9-202-9-201+ 165 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 B ind Ride Park Black Water 9-202-9-224 503 C.no F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Pine Ride Park Black Water 9-20-9-202 430 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 76th at 212th Street S.W. Grease 9-254-9-255 305 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7703 203 Street SW Grit 9-314-9-313 310 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 78042001h Street Black Water 9-347-9-346 130 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 71072001h Street Dro MH Black Water 9-348-9-347 400 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7726 202 Place Metro Grit, Black Water Crack 9-366-9-314 10-10-10-7 350 1 Conc Multiple - Narm- F.1 F.2 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-1A-739A 0 Cimular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-3-11-2 0 Circular -Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-196-12-198 1 Multiple -Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-24-12-23 2 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-249-12-248 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-37-12-38 0 Lon itudinal-Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-55-12-56 0 Lon itudinal-Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-8-12-6 1 Lon itudinal-Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Metro Crack 13-20-13-15 0 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Metro Crack 16-103-16-106 1 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Metro Crack 17-31-17-28 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Metro Crack 17-63-17-64 0 Multiple - N.- F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Station 4 Lift St Crack 2-83-2-82 0 Longitudinal -Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 L nwaad WWTP Crack 3-109B-3-109A 0 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 L nwood WWTP Crack 3-1H-33A2 0 Cimular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 4-1244-123 0 Circular- Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 4-217A-4-217 0 ongitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 5-263-5-262 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 9 Crack 5-2995300 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 L nwaad WWTP Crack 5-319-5-320 0 Circular -Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 7-75-7-74 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 8-189-8-194 0 Spiral - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 8-206-8-205 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 8-219H-8-219G 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Crack 8-286-8-285 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 8-74-8-75 4 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Infikration in the Joint 9-136-9-136A N/A Medium F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 1 Infift ation in the Joint 9-170-9-172 N/A Light F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Edmonds WWTP Crack 9-274-9-275 0 Cimular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Lift Station 9 Crack 9-326-9-327 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 11-1-11-2 0 5 0 0 5 SUM of Reach 8-203-8-202 0 0 4 0 4 SUM of Reach 11-23A-11-21 0 0 4 0 4 SUM of Reach 14-7G-14-7F 0 0 4 0 4 SUM of Reach 8-17-8-18 0 0 4 0 4 SUM of Reach 4-115-8-219H 0 0 4 0 4 SUM of Reach 8-162-8-161 0 0 4 0 4 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole Broken 12-178-12-179 12-212-12-211 0 0 F.3 F.3 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 Edmonds WWTP Broken 12-269C-12-269D 0 Soil Visible -La a F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Metro Broken 13-14-13-13 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Metro Broken 14-28-14-27 0 Soil Visible - La a F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Edmonds WWTP Broken 15-4E-154C 0 Soil Visible - Small F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Lift Station 3 Broken Hole 4-75-4-74 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole 7-39C-740 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-22-8-21 0 Soil Visible -Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-337-8-336A 0 Soil Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Litt Station 1 Broken SUM of Reach 8-351-8-350 13-21A-13-21 0 Void Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 3 SUM of Reach 5.42-5-41 0 0 3 0 3 SUM of Reach 12-246-12-243 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 12-105B-12-105A 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 4-1964-200 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 5-135-5-134 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 7-49-7-49A 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 2-112-2-111 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 12-243-12-241 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 12-289-12-288A 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 5-148B-5-149 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 13-8E-13-166A 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 3-109H-3-109G 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 4-141-4-142 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 9-276-9-277 0 3 0 0 3 Metro He a Root Problem 10-19-10-19B 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Edmonds WWTP Hea Root Problem 12-159-12-160 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 12-293-12-293A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Edmonds WWTP Hea Root Problem 13-63B-1333C 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Edmonds WWTP Hea Root Problem 15-38-15-3A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 BREACH Metro Heavy Root Problem 16-25-16-26 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 10 HeavyRoot Problem 2-113E-2-113 1 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 L nwood WWTP He Root Problem 3-1033-105 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 L nwacd WWTP Hea Root Problem 3-84A-3-85 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 1 a Root Problem 4-1444-145 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 -He Lift Station 10 Joint se crated -Lar a 4-3-2-113B N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 1 Hea Root Problem 5-30528 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 5-37-5-38 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 1 Hea Root Problem 8-207-8-206 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 1 Joint se crated - large 8-346-8-343 N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 9 Heavy Root Problem 9-341-9-340A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Lift Station 9 ea Root Problem Heavy 9-342-9-341 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 BREACH L nwood WWTP Joint Offset -La a 3-66A-336 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 7 Joint Offset - Large 7-11-7-7 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 Edmonds WWTP Joint Offset - Large 9-349-9-350 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 SUM of Reach 14-19-14-18 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 15-1B-15-IC 0 3 0 0 3 SUM of Reach 9-181-9-182 0 0 3 0 3 SUM of Reach 7-78-7-79 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-267-5-261 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-3-8-4 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-52-8-59 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-604-62 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-UNK 1-8-330A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 10-27-10-28 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-182-8-179 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-73-8-74 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-1-8-1 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-4-14-49 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 14-67-14-66 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 17-23-17-39 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 8 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 25 24 23 19 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 Packet Page 525 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse SUM of Reach 8-21A-8-51 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-43-7-40 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-61-7-60 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-81-7-82 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-178-8-177A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-31-8-30 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-78-8-244 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-334B-5334A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-66-8-327 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-83-7-84 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-2693-267 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-543-56 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-18-8-55 1 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 11-9A-735 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-60-8-59A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-87-8-86 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-54-12-53 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-109-8-193 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-121-12-119 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-123-12-121 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-13-12-14 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-14-12-15 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-156-12-155 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-87-12-86 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-166A-13-166 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-81A-1331B 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 14-7L-14-7B 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-1565151 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-56-7-55 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-167-8-165 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-257-8-257A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-291A-8-291 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-298-8-297 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-329A-8329 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-5-8-6 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-155-8-352 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-347-9-348 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-28-8-2 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-157-13-156 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-56-13-57 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-94-3-93 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-3255N-11 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-7-5-8 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-197-8-199 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-70-8-71 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-99-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-175.177 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-314-9-366 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-364-9-363 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-175-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 16-106-16-110 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 16-59-16-60 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1314-100 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1344-133 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-291-8-283 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-43-8-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-135-12-134 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-160-12-149 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-208-12-207 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-287-12-286 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 16-37-16-38 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 2-27-2-25 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-304-28 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-14-5-15 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-74572 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-55-8-55A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-262B-9-262A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-273-9-274 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-287-9-286 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Is -Conn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-111-12-68 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-119-12-117 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-124-12-123 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-125-12-123 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-127-12-125 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-129-12-127 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-137-12-136 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-147-12-148 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-154-12-153 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-17-12-18 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-209-12-207 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-46-12-46A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-47-12-49 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-5-12-2 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-6-12-5 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-69-12-67 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-90-12-87 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-94A-12-94 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 13-146-13-145 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-87-13-88 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-39-1-38 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-99-13-98 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-47-14-48 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-70-14-69 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 15-3C-15-3B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 16-99-16-102 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-9-1-9A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Problem Laterals - Connections 2-131-2-132 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH L nwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-130-3-129 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwCCd WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-157-3-156 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-119-4-121 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-13-4-42 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station Problem Laterals -Connections 4-171-4-173A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-581-59 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-62-4-63 1 N/A I F.1 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Packet Page 526 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason hol Mane if Dostance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-113-5-111 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-137-5-136 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood W WTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-160-5-159 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-24OB-5-240A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-309-5-304 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-324-5-324A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-55-5-54 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-67-5-66 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-81-5-80 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-87-5-86 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-88G-5-88E N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-59-7-57 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-69-7-70 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals -Connections 7-80-7-61 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-150-8-149 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-160-8-159 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-163-8-162 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-165-8-164 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-172A-8-172 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-183-8-182 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-255-8-254 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-257A-8-254 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-285-8-284 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-28-8-27 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-303-8-303A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-32-8-31 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-335-8-UNK1 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-53-8-54 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-55A-8-57 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-59-8-58 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-64-8-63 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-234-9-233 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-235-9-235A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-242-9-241 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-259-9-251 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-262C-9-262B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-266-9-267 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 lion 1 - Connect N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 TT�Is SUM of Reach 11-21A-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-144-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-148-12-141 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-151A-12-151 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-2-12-1 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-74-12-73 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-98-12-96 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1104-109 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-239-5-238 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-60-7-56 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-188B-8-188A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-195-8-196 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-64B-8-64A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-159-9-158 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-270-9-308 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-289-9-290 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi De ressions in Pi 10-25-10-2 11-15-11-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 12-109A-12-111 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 12-149A-12-149 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 12-180-12-181 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP De ressions in Pi 12-185F-12-185A 108 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 12-189-12-191 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 12-190-12-189 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds W WTP De ressions in Pi 12-204-12-203 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP De ressions in Pi 12-26-12-24 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 13-120-13-121 11 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 13-36-13-35 5 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 13-39-13-37 12 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 13-4A-13-4 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-57-13-59 14 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 13-59-13-60 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pipe 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 14-16-14-11 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 14-21-14-4 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Depressions in Pi 1-43-1-24 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-38-14-37 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-3E-14-3F 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro DelDressions in Pi 14-46-14-METER 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro De ressions in Pi 14-49-14-49D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-69-14-68 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro resioninP 16-101-16-102 3 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro ns n 16-57-16-75 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-19-17-23 1 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-38-17-37 4 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 17-39-17-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 17-46-17-47 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-77-17-78 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PROBLEM JOINTS Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-95-17-94 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 17-96-17-95 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 17-97-17-96 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-98-17-97 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L wWWTP De reessons inP 2-471-49 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 WP L e rsnsn 3-12-2-2 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L De reonP 3-23-3-24 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift eressioi ns n 3-2H-3-21 24 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad W WTP Depressions in Pi 3-8-3-9 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pi 4-65-4-67 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pi 4-70A-4-71-LIFT 3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 4-79-4-78 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad WWTP Deressionsin Pi 5-144-5-145 1 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood W W TP De ressions in Pi 5-177-5-176 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad WWTP De ressions in Pi 5-187-5-191 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood WWTP De ressions in Pi 5-195A-5-196 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pi 5-283-5-288 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 9 De ressions in Pi 5-300-5-301 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad W WTP De ressions in Pi 5-321A-5-322 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood WWTP De ressions in Pi 5-322-5N-2 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pi 5-334A-5-334 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 7-23-7-53D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Packet Page 527 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Looetion Reason Manhole # Distance of Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless TO Obse PROBLEM JOINTS Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-30C-7-30 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 7-32C-7-32D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 8-147-8-146 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 De ressions in Pi 8-222B-8-222A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 2 De ressions in Pi 8-296-8-297 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 8-303D-8-303C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 8-340-8-339 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 8-37-8-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 8-49-8-53 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP De ressions in Pi 8-89-8-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 8-91-8-106 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 9-100-9-101 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 De ressions in Pi 9-120-9-121 1 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pi 9-137-9-139 1 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 9-157-9-156 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro De ressions in Pi 9-253-9-254 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 9-271-9-270 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 9-274A-9-274 15 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 9-279-9-278 16 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 9-319-9-319A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pi 9-321-9-322 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP De ressions in Pi 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 De ressions in Pi SUM of Reach 11-14A-11-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 11-23C-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 11-5-11-3 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-140-12-139 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-182A-12-215 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-185G-12-185F 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-19-12-28 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-250-12-249 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-22A-13-22B 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 14-35-14-34 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 17-75-17-78 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 2-113-2-112 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-1 D-3-2G 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1004-100A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1324-131 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-864-85 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-123-8-120 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-250-8-249 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-29-8-43 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-311-8-312 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-321-7-72 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-39A-841 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-81B-8-81 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 11-12-11-11 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-78-12-77 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-67-13-66 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 13-8A-13-8B 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 2-84-2-83 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-109G-3-109F 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1374-133 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1404-139 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-94-7 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-2785271 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-44A-8-331 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-46A-746 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-185-8-186 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-289-8-288 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-46-8-47 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-86-8-112 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds Edmonds W Raot Problem 11111r. Root Problem F.1 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint - Offset Medium 12-266-12-265 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 12-288-12-287 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Rcot Problem 12-33-12-31 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Joint Gasket E ed - Medium 13-100-13-98 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Rcot Problem 13-112-13-114 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 13-8D-13-8C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Rcot Problem 13-9A-13-166A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Medium Root Problem 14-44-14-43 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Joint - Offset Medium 16-116-16-98 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 17-44-17-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Medium Rcot Problem 2-109-2-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood W WTP Medium Root Problem 3-120-3N4 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwcad WWTP Problem Joint - Offset Medium 3-60-3-68 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-1334-132 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Rcot Problem 4-143-4-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-2104-213A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Rcot Problem 4-40-4-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Medium Root Problem 4-564-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad WWTP Medium Rcot Problem 5-149-5-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwcad WWTP Medium Rcot Problem 5-217-5-216 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Medium Root Problem 5-317-5-316 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 9 Medium Rcot Problem 5-330E-5-330D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 5-38-5-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Medium Rcot Problem 5-79-5-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 10 Medium Root Problem 5-88A-5-88B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint - Offset Medium 7-44-7-44A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 8-178D-8-178C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint - Offset Medium 8-18A-8-18 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 8-196-8-196A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Rcot Problem 9-111-8-189D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Problem Joint- Offset Medium 9-184-9-185 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Rcot Problem 9-185-9-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem SUM of Reach 222A- -227 11-14-11-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 11-23B-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-89-12-88 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 16-108-16-109 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 17-15-17-16 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 2-31-2-32 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-121-3-120 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-12H-3-121 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 3-21-3-2J 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-1384-137 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-195-5-195A 0 0 0 0 0 Granite hi&M 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Packet Page 528 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance f Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Obse SUM of Reach 5-281A-5-278 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-64-7-62 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 7-86-7-87A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-101B-8-101A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-13-8-21A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-172J-8-172F 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-193-8-192 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-21-8-21A 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-288-8-287 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-316-8-135 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-317-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-324-7-68 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 8-44-8-45 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-84-9-83 0 0 0 0 0 SE Comer of Hwy 99 and 224th St 22304 H 99 Clean Flume Clean Flume 14 14 F.1 FA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds Wa Robinhood Lanes Brush Sensor 15 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 2441h andH 99-NW Comer Clean Flume 16 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Denn 's on SR 104 and H 99 Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Old Ballin er Pum Station Clean Flume 17 FA 0 0 0 0 0 East Side, NE Corner of Ballin er PS Clean Flume 17 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Ballin er Golf Coume al74th Ave Clean Flume 17 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Li ht Raot Problem 12-108-12-109 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Li ht Root Problem 12-12-12-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Rcot Problem 12-151-12-22 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-163-12-162 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Li ht Raot Problem 12-165-12-164 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Li ht Root Problem 12-18-12-19 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-2041-12-204H FA 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-204J-12-2041 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Joint se areted-Small 12-207-12-206 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP LightRoot Problem 12-217-12-216 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Rcot Problem 12-22-12-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-234B-12-234A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Rcot Problem 12-284F-12-284 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-70-12-69 0 gFq 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 12-84-12-84A 42 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li ht Root Problem 13-133-13-134 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 13-139-13-142 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 13-55-13-56 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Rcot Problem 13-8-13-8B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Li ht Root Problem 13-89-9-11 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li ht Raot Problem 14-33-14-32 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 14-7C-14-7A 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Li ht Rcot Problem 15-1C-15-2 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 15-3A-15-2A 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Joint se areted - Small 16-115-16-116 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li ht Root Problem 16-32-16-33 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li ht Rcot Problem 16-4-16-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li M Root Problem 16-46-16-47 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Li ht Rcot Problem 16-54-16-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-91-16-103 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-24-17-25 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-25-17-26 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-55-17-58 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-57-17-58 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Joint- Offset Small 2-111-2-110 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Roots 2-90-2-89 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaad W W TP Light Rcot Problem 3-133-3-134 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood W WTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 3-140-3-137 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Joint - Offset Small 3-162-3-163 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 3-63-3-64 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Joint - Offset Small 3-8F-3-8A N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li M Root Problem 4-109-4-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Liff Station 1 Li ht Raot Problem 4-115-8-219H 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-145-4-143 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Raot Problem 4-170-4-171 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Root Problem 4-186A-4-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 4-212-4-213 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-221-4-220 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Li ht Raot Problem 4-45-4-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Li M Root Problem 4-46-4-47 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Light Rcot Problem 4-69A-4-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-118C-5-118B 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 5-123-4-186A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Li M Root Problem S13-S12 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Raot Problem 5-141A-5-141 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood W W TP Li ht Root Problem 5-194-5-195 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 L nwcad WWTP Li ht Rcot Problem 5-218-5-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-252A-5-252B 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 5-264-5-263 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Light Root Problem 5-299-5-300 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Roots 5-324A-5N-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Li htRoot Problem 5-330-5-329 0 FA 0 0 0 0 1 0 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Li ht Rcot Problem 5-344-5-345 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Roots 5-52-5-51 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 L nwaod W W TP Li ht Rcot Problem 5-75-5-74 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Roots 5-88B-5-88C 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Light Rcot Problem 5-89-5-99 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Li ht Root Problem 7-62-7-61 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Li ht Raot Problem 7-82-7-83 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-85-7-86 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 8-102-8-101 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Lift Station 1 Li ht Root Problem 8-137-8-292A 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Lift Station 1 Li ht Rcot Problem 8-152-8-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-172K-8-172G 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 8-177-8-176 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-187A-8-187 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 8-188A-8-188C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Roots 8-189B-8-189A 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Rcot Problem 8-209-8-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Root Problem 8-219A-8-219C 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Rcot Problem 8-239-8-238 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-254-8-253 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Joint Separated 8-263-8-252 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Joint- Offset Small 8-273-8-272 N/A FA 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 2 Li ht Raot Problem 8-294-8-295 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Root Problem 8-323-8-321 0 FA 0 0 0 0 0 nite 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Packet Page 529 of 660 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Only Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run fi Comments Table Granite- Trechless TO Obse Edmonds W WTP Li ht Root Problem 8-69-8-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li M Root Problem 8-95-8-96 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 9-134-9-136 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Light Root Problem 9-177-9-158A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Light Root Problem 9-225B-9-225 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 9-235A-9-235B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Problem Joint - Offset Small 9-235B-9-217 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Light Root Problem 9-237-9-236 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Light Root Problem 9-360-9-346 6 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Joints - Offset 9-44-9-43 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Li ht Root Problem 9-85-9-86 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Li M Root Problem INLET-13-167 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Ballinger Way and 205th St Clean Flume F.1 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-180A-12-180 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 16-33-16-36 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 9-273C-9-273B 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and De osits 12-100-12-1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debrs and De osiis 12-10-12-1 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and Deposits 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and Deposits 12-177-12-176 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 13-23B-9-250 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and Deposits 13-47-13-46 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 9126 Bowdoin N/A 13-C/O C/O PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-51-1-50 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and De osits 1-57-1-56 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Debris and De osiis 16-39-16-40 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 240th At H' hwa 99 None 16-60-16-59 330 Conc F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and De osils 16-65-16-77 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and De osiis 1-67-1-66 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and De osils 16-82-16-83 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Metro Debris and De osiis 16-95-16-96 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 17-43-17-42 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwaad W WTP Debris and De osits 2-11-2-10 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift Station 4 Debris and De osiis 2-62-2-63 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwaad W WTP Joint Gasket E sed - Light 3-89-3-72 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Debris and De osits 4-135-4-136 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and De osits 4-34-4-36 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and De osits 4-39-4-41 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-98-4-97 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 L nwood W W TP Debris and Deposits 5-164-5-163 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 ROOTS 8015 1961h St SW 5-334A CO to mail 60 PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and De osils 7-39A-7-39B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and De osits 8-291 B-8-291A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th Ave at S re ue Sl None 8-316-8-99 290 Con. F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th at Edmonds St None 8-99-8-98 102 Conc F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and De osits 9-247-9-248 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds W WTP Debris and De osits 9-272-9-271 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 D 9-62-9-61 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 BREACH Lift Station 12 1-75-1-74 4 .3 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 10-4-10-5 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-102-12-101 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 12-292-12-293 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 1-46-1-45 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 4-72A-4-72 0 0 0 0 0 SUM of Reach 5-2465245 10 0 0 0 0 Granite k&M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 530 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.3 BASIS FOR CIP COSTS ESTIMATES Construction cost estimates were prepared for most of the CIP projects listed in Table 9.3. Documentation for these estimates can be found in Appendix E. Those projects that do not have supporting cost estimates are based on actual bid amounts or detailed cost estimating done during the design phases. Certain assumption needed to be made in terms of quantities and unit prices. Those assumptions are presented below. Several unit price items were used to determine the cost estimates. Quantities were estimated for each item and unit prices were estimated from recent bid results. An estimated construction cost was developed for each project including contingencies and sales tax. Total project costs were then estimated for each improvement. All costs are 2013 dollars and summarized on Table 9.3. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES -ASSUMPTIONS • 10% of the construction costs are Mobilization. • Traffic control at $5/LF of mainline sewer. • Trench dewatering estimated at $5/LF. • Sheeting, shoring and bracing estimated at $5/LF. • Saw cutting along both sides of the trench estimated to be required for the entire length of the mainline sewer. • Pavement removal is limited to a trench width of 60 inches, plus an allowance of 12 inches on both sides of the trench, for a total width of 84 inches. • Temporary sewer bypass estimated to be $5/LF for all cut and cover installations. • Import trench backfill is estimated based on the assumption that 50% of all excavation will require imported material. Maximum width is 60 inches and an average depth of 8 feet. • Crushed surfacing, base course is assumed to be 8 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. 9-19 Packet Page 531 of 660 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Basin Description CIP No. Base Year Cost (2013 dollars) See Appendix E A 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basis Basis 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012 - 2019 Total 2019-2033 Total 2033 - Buildout Collection System 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab Improvements $350,000 $350,000 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab Improvements $120,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Collection System Subtotal $0 $470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $470,000 $0 $0 PUMP STATIONS Pump Station Rehabilitation (PS #3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15) $4,822,810 $4,822,810 Pump Station Subtotal $4,822,810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,822,810 $0 $0 Edmond WWTP Variable Frequency Drive upgrade WWTP-1 $25,000 $25,000 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment WWTP-2 $25,000 $25,000 Switchgear Upgrade WWTP-3 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Incinerator Testing and Compliance WWTP-4 $240,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 $2,440,000 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating WWTP-5 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $135,000 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment/Concrete Repair WWTP-6 $75,000 $75,000 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3 WWTP-7 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating WWTP-8 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403 WWTP-9 $200,000 $200,000 Joint/Concrete Repair WWTP-10 $100,000 $100,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 1 WWTP-11 $100,000 $100,000 Energy Project WWTP-12 $20,000 $20,000 In Plant Hatches WWTP-13 $10,000 $10,000 Facility Improvement WWTP-14 $500,000 $500,000 Polymer Make Up Equipment WWTP-15 $80,000 $80,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 2 WWTP-16 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $225,000 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements/Repairs WWTP-17 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,850,000 Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower WWTP-18 $400,000 $400,000 Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Effluent Pumps WWTP-19 $35,000 $35,000 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 WWTP-20 $50,000 $50,000 Screenings Improvements WWTP-21 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Bilt Filter Press Energy Project WWTP-22 $50,000 $500,000 $550,000 Diesel Day Tank WWTP-23 $6,000 $6,000 Automatic Flow Shearing Process WWTP-24 $35,000 $35,000 Chemical Use Area WWTP-25 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Electronic O&M Documentation WWTP-26 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow WWTP-27 $300,000 Subtotal EDMONDS WWTP $2,070,000 $1,825,000 $2,005,000 $661,000 $725,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $9,386,000 $0 $0 Packet Page 532 of 660 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Base Year Cost 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basin Description CIP No. (2013 dollars) Basis Basis See Appendix E 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012 - 2019 Total 202 - Total 3 Buildldout TOTAL COST #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! Packet Page 533 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Crushed surfacing, top course is assumed to be 4 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. • HMA is based on a maximum thickness of 3 inches applied over a width of 84 inches for the entire length of all mainline sewers. • Restoration is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Cleanup and testing is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Manholes - It is assumed that the terminal manholes will be salvaged and only the intermediate manholes will be replaced or modified. • Lift station rehabilitation assumes that no excavation will be necessary and that the needed increase in the capacity can be accomplished with pump and motor changes, and electrical revisions. ALLIED AND OTHER COSTS — ASSUMPTIONS • 40% contingency to address pre -design level of cost estimating. • 9.0% State Sales Tax. • 12% of the estimated construction cost is for engineering design, survey, geotechnical investigation and permits. • 7% of the estimated construction cost is for construction services. • 2% of the estimated construction cost is for District Administration. • 1 % of the estimated construction cost is for legal. 9.4 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES AND OTHER PROJECTS — 2013 TO 2019 9.5 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2019 TO 2033 9.6 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2033 TO BUILD OUT 9-24 Packet Page 534 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.7 CMOM The EPA has issued draft regulations implementing the Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program. CMOM requires the development of facility maintenance plans, tracking of asset condition, establishing level of service and performance goals. Key requirements are outlined below: 1. Capacity Assurance Plan • evaluate existing system; • identify capacity deficiencies; • establish short and long-term remedies to capacity deficiencies. 2. Management Program • specify program goals; • establish organizational structure • legal authority (e.g. service agreements) to manage flow; • establish program measures and ranking of O&M activities based on current capacity and structural deficiencies. • audit documentation of changes in system condition and performance • establish standards and requirements for new construction as well as rehabilitation and repair. 3. Overflow Response Plan (ORP) • steps to respond to SSO's and to implement response plan 4. Audit Operations and Maintenance performance • initial assessment of O&M activities; • establish performance goals, measures and priorities • perform periodic audits to identify progress and required revisions to the program. The City Staff has utilized an asset tracking system called Granite. This system is a data management system that chronicles the condition of all known problem segments in the City. This data is included in Appendix F. This data was integrated into the CIP listings in this chapter. 9.8 WASTEWATER REUSE RCW 90.48.112 requires consideration of reclaimed water in wastewater plans. Although the law does not specifically require implementation of a reclaimed water alternative, it strongly encourages it. RCW 90.46.005 states in part that to the extent that reclaimed water is appropriate for beneficial uses, it should be so used to preserve potable water for drinking purposes. 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 Packet Page 535 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Beneficial use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops, supplemental stream or wetland flow enhancement, groundwater recharge, toilet and urinal flushing, etc. requires treatment to reclamation and reuse standards, which are more stringent than the conventional secondary standards required for surface water disposal using an outfall. The added treatment facilities required include effluent coagulation, filtration, additional disinfection and more treatment facility redundancy and reliability requirements. The use of reclaimed water is permitted in the State of Washington, and is jointly regulated by the State Departments of Health (Division of Drinking Water); and Department of Ecology. The "State of Washington Reclamation and Reuse Standards", September, 1997 (Publication #97-23) provides the guidance for acceptable reclaimed water treatment and use. Under all reuse options, the proposal must demonstrate the beneficial uses being made of the reclaimed water. Membrane Bio-reactors (MBRs) are not specifically mentioned in this publication, though it has generally and widely been adopted as an acceptable treatment process meeting reuse standards. The State Reclamation Standards define four levels of treatment required depending on the final use of the reclaimed water. Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality and can be utilized for any of the permitted uses. In addition to conventional secondary activated sludge treatment (oxidation and sedimentation), Class A reclaimed water requires coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to less than 2.2 total coliform per 100 ml, which is a very stringent disinfection standard. The MBR treatment process (with disinfection) will also produce Class A reclaimed water (with added disinfection), because the coagulation occurs within the activated sludge process itself and filtration is provided through the fine pore membranes. Classes B, C, and D reclaimed water do not require filtration, and Class C and D have less stringent disinfection requirements. Use of these classes is generally restricted to irrigation of non-food crops (such as forest land) with restricted public exposure. Because the most logical uses of this reclaimed water involve irrigation of golf courses and public parks, which are subject to human exposure, treatment to Class A reclaimed water standards is recommended. In addition, the reclaimed water must be reliably generated. Emergency storage or alternative discharge options must be provided for upset conditions. Excess flow will continue to be discharged to Puget Sound. The standards also require automatic alarms, treatment unit redundancy, and qualified operations staffing. 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demand While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is 9-26 Packet Page 536 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. Nevertheless, the City has made accommodations for use of reclaimed water at the WWTP. In assessing the potential use of Class A reclaimed water, sites were identified for irrigation and/or industrial, commercial and public use. Irrigation can include parks, commercial nurseries, golf courses, and cemeteries. Industrial uses of reclaimed water can include boiler feed, cooling, process water, sewer flushing, and processing plant wash down. There were no industrial sites identified in the City's service area. Thus, the main uses of reclaimed water from the WWTP would be irrigation of open access areas. Based on the water use records, the following are the top six users and their annual water usage. Rank Name Customer Type Annual Volume, MG Average Daily, gpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 9.4 provides a rough estimate of the total potential peak reclaimed water demand from sites in the vicinity (within two miles) of the WWTP. Table 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water Site Name Criterion Total estimated quantity Estimated (irrigable) quantity available Reclaimed water application , rate (gpd/ac) average/peak Day Average seasonal demand for reclamation (mgd)2 Peak day demand for reclamation 2 (mgd) gpd/acre = gallons per day per acre. 9-27 Packet Page 537 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2 mgd = million gallons per day 3 Irrigable acreage based on field estimation; 25% total acreage = irrigable acreage in parks; 100% total irrigatable acreage in golf course. 4 Total landscape area 5 Number of trucks for average seasonal usage = 2 trucks per day, versus 4 trucks for peak day usage The peak day demands for reclaimed water are based on all potential nearby irrigation users. 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities at WWTP Effluent Quality The effluent produced by the City's WWTP would likely require an effluent filiter added to the last stage of a secondary treatment process and disinfected using a hypochlorite system will meet the bacteriological limit of 200 MPN of fecal coliform per 100 ml of sample based on the Class C reclaimed water standard. This system can be designed within the space constraints at the WWTPs. It is assumed that the reclaimed water will be pumped to off -site irrigation users, such as golf courses and parks and that no on -site storage will be provided. 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution Conveyance Alternatives Conveyance of reclaimed water by pumping and hauling by tanker trucks are two common practices. The practicality of conveyance using either method depends on the quantity of reclaimed water to be conveyed and the transport distance. Due to the residential location of the plant and the impracticality of hauling reclaimed water, only pumped conveyance via pipeline has been considered for irrigational uses. Truck hauling could be considered for other general uses, such as sewer flushing, street washing, dust control, roadside planter watering, etc. Conveyance and Distribution Facilities The conveyance of reclaimed water from the WWTP would require a pump station and xxxx feet of x" diameter force main. 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance 9-28 Packet Page 538 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work $100,000 Chlorine contact channel modification 300,000 Sodium hypochlorite storage and metering pumps 100,000 Reclaimed water booster station 300,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Contingencies (a)- 40% 600,000 Subtotal $2,100,000 State Sales Tax (a)- 9.0% 187,000 Total Construction $2,287,000 Engineering @ 12% $274,000 Construction Management @ 7% 160,000 District Administration @ 2% 46,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 23,000 Total Capital $2,790,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost $224,000 Estimated Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment & Conveyance Chemicals $6,000 Electricity 5,000 Equipment maintenance and replacement 12,000 Labor 15,000 Total Annual O&M Cost $38,000 Total Annual Cost $262,000 Based on an average usage of 0.53 mgd, the annual total Hof consumption is 193.5 million gallons or 258,600 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of cost of water is $517,000. The saving in using reclaimed water would be $255,000 per year. 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System A satellite (scalping) reclaimed water facility could be designed and constructed to produce Class A reclaimed water for irrigational uses. A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Land $500,000 Packet Page 539 of 660 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work 100,000 MBR plant 3,500,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Misc 100,000 Subtotal $4,900,000 Contingencies 40% 1,960,000 Subtotal $6,860,000 State Sales Tax (@- 9.0% 611,000 Total Construction $7,471,000 Engineering @ 12% 897,000 Construction Management @ 7% 523,000 District Administration @ 2% 149,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 75,000 Total Capital $9,115,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment Chemicals Electricity Equipment maintenance/replacement Membrane replacement Diffuser replacement Labor Total Conveyance $6,000 44,000 24,000 35,000 3,000 60.000 $192,000 Electricity $4,000 Equipment maintenance/replacement 8,000 Labor 7,000 Total $19,000 Total Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Total Annual Cost Based 7WMn average usage of 0.52 mgd, the annual total 189.8 million gallons or 253,700 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of The subsidy needed to meet the amortization and O& $732,000 $211,000 $943,000 M 9-30 Packet Page 540 of 660 City of Edmonds Sewer Comprehensive Plan Study Status Update • The proposed CIP consists of two components: o WWTP projects o Collection system projects • Total estimated cost of the collection system projects is $19.2 million for the next 7 years (i.e. 2013- 2019) in today's dollars. Breakdown of this total by years is as follows: Years Estimated Project Costs 2013 $5,842,110 2014 $3,338,350 2015 $2,000,000 2016 $2,000,000 2017 $2,000,000 2018 $2,000,000 2019 $2,000,000 TOTAL $19,180,460 • Total estimated cost of the WWTP projects is $7.8 million for the next 7 years (i.e. 2013-2018) in today's dollars. The City of Edmonds' share in the WWTP project costs is approximately 51% (i.e. $4.0 million). Breakdown of these totals by years is as follows: Years Estimated Project Costs City of Edmonds Share 2013 $1,967,704 $1,003,529 2014 $981,000 $500,310 2015 $1,000,000 $510,000 2016 $1,005,000 $512,550 2017 $975,000 $497,250 2018 $930,000 $474,300 2019 $975,000 $497,250 TOTAL $7,833,704 $3,995,189 • Total estimated CIP cost the City will need to finance in the next 7 years is $23.2 million (in 2013 dollars). Breakdown of these totals by years is as follows: FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 Pagel Packet Page 541 of 660 Years Collection System WWTP TOTAL 2013 $5,842,110 $1,003,529 $6,845,639 2014 $3,338,350 $500,310 $3,838,660 2015 $2,000,000 $510,000 $2,510,000 2016 $2,000,000 $512,550 $2,512,550 2017 $2,000,000 $497,250 $2,497,250 2018 $2,000,000 $474,300 $2,474,300 2019 $2,000,000 $497,250 $2,497,250 TOTAL $19,180,460 $3,995,189 $23,175,649 • City's current sewer rates cover for the sewer utility's O&M expenses and existing debt service payments, and do not generate adequate cash for financing the proposed capital projects. Therefore, the utility will be relying on revenue bond proceeds (especially in the next couple of years due to limited low interest loan availability) to fund its capital spending. • Utility rates are projected to go up to pay for new debt service and to satisfy revenue bond coverage requirement. Technical analyses to determine the amount of borrowing and associated rate adjustments needed are currently underway. • The City also looking at various rate adjustment scenarios to break away from its current dependency on borrowing to finance its utilities' capital needs, and gradually transition to pay-as- you-go capital financing policy (at least partially) overtime, and immediate rate impacts of such policy transition. FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 Page2 Packet Page 542 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 26, 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 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Ian Duncan Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Mike Delilla, Utilities Engineer Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20130006) Mr. Delilla said he was present to present the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and solicit feedback from both the Board and the public in preparation for a public hearing before the City Council. He explained that the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It guides the operation of the City's Sewer Utility by identifying and proposing solutions to known conveyance, maintenance and other problems; detailing the actions necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal State and local requirements; and presenting an operation and maintenance plan, capital improvement plan, and financial plan. Mr. Delilla explained that because Edmonds is primarily a built -out City, most of the identified Sanitary Sewer issues are a result of aging infrastructure, current size of infrastructure in relation to current and future population, root intrusion, and Packet Page 543 of 660 infiltration and inflow. He noted that most of the pipes date back to the 1950's and before, with some as old as the 1920s. He advised that the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2006. The purpose of the update is to reprioritize capital projects, reflect the actual changes in population growth that have occurred, accommodate future population growth projections based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the Planning Department, incorporate the wastewater treatment plant plan, and improve record tracing methods. Mr. Delilla pointed out that in addition to treating flows from properties in Edmonds, the City's treatment plant also treats effluent from the Ronald Wastewater District, the Olympic View Sewer District, and nearly all of the effluent from Mountlake Terrace. The City has agreements with each of these entities to pay for their respective portions of the facility. Mr. Delilla reported that since 2006, the City has significantly improved their tracking methods to identify current and potential issues in the pipe system. Every three years, the City sends a camera device into each pipe reach to record the existing conditions and provide visual data to identify potential problems. In addition, they now have the entire sanitary sewer system on a GIS Map. This enables them to tie the entire facility into real world coordinates to provide a good feel for the slope of the pipe in relationship to other pipes in the area. They also collect meter data from various locations in the City, and this allows them to bill other entities fairly for the service. Mr. Delilla advised that the City's current system has 10 flow meters, 3,200 manholes, and 679,227 miles of sanitary sewer pipe main. They have 14 lift stations and 1 wastewater treatment plant with 3 primary clarifiers, 3 aeration basins, 3 secondary clarifiers and 1 incinerator. He reviewed that the proposed plan update identifies the following capital projects: • Conveyance Projects. The goal of the plan is to provide a basic or essential level of service for the sanitary sewer utility. The City is currently working to complete citywide pipe replacement and restoration projects to correct issues related to excessive root intrusion, conveyance problems and old/damaged pipes. • Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plan calls for replacement of the emergency power switchgear system, which is used in the event of a power failure. The plan also identifies changes that are necessary to ensure the incinerator meets the regulatory requirements and recoating the clarifiers. Mr. Delilla advised that 100% of the Sanitary Sewer Utility is rate funded. Fees collected for the utility have been used for an increased number of items. Projects are driven by aging infrastructure that requires more maintenance as time goes by and as population and development increases. Any utility rate adjustment would require approval by the Edmonds City Council. Board Member Lovell asked if the update takes into account potential development that might occur on Highway 99, the hospital district, Harbor Square and the waterfront to ensure there is adequate capacity within the existing piping system. Mr. Delilla answered that the update incorporates the population growth data provided by the PSRC. In addition, he met with the Planning Manager to coordinate where the growth is anticipated to occur. A growth model was prepared, assigning an effluent factor to each of the areas where population is expected to grow significantly. The proposed plan addresses future capacity up to the years 2019, 2033 and ultimate build out of the City. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed plan would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate a substantial amount of multi -family development in any of the areas mentioned above. Mr. Delilla answered affirmatively and noted that the treatment plant is currently under capacity. Board Member Lovell referred to the two cost studies that were done for treatment and conveyance and maintenance and operations. He said it appears that the treatment and conveyance costs could be covered by increased rates, but the total package would require some subsidy. Mr. Delilla answered that the intent is for all costs associated with the Sanitary Sewer Utility to be funded by rate payers, and increases may be required. At this time, the City pays for about 50% of the costs of maintenance and operation, and the other entities share the remaining costs. Board Member Lovell observed that the plan does not appear to implement any infrastructure that would allow the City to reclaim and reuse the treated water. Mr. Delilla said he does not anticipate the City will implement a reclamation program within the six -year timeframe of the proposed plan. He pointed out that there are stringent regulatory requirements associated with reclaimed water. In addition, the treatment plant is site constrained and there is little room for the added infrastructure. He summarized that a study would be necessary to determine the feasibility of water reclamation, and this goes beyond the scope of the current update. Vice Chair Stewart said she is aware of a model program that has been implemented in both Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 544 of 660 Portland and IslandWood where a trademark system has been developed for reclaiming water. She suggested that perhaps this same type of system could be implemented at Harbor Square. Vice Chair Stewart observed that there is a worldwide trend to use alternative materials to get away from Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) because of expected life and the environmental impacts that occur in the production of PVC. She said she hopes the City will consider using an alternative material. She noted that several studies have been done on the various types of materials, and she agreed to forward the information she collected to staff. She said it does not appear that Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) would cost significantly more than PVC, and it is more environmentally friendly. Board Member Ellis said it appears from the report that all of the treated water is currently discharged into Puget Sound. He asked if it would be possible for this water to be utilized for secondary uses. Mr. Delilla agreed that would be possible, but it would require a second level of infrastructure for storage and conveyance and space at the current treatment plan for additional infrastructure is limited. Board Member Ellis pointed out the water reclamation would also be seasonal in Edmonds. Board Member Lovell asked how the projects in the Capital Improvement Plan were prioritized. Mr. Delilla answered that cameras are placed inside the pipes to ascertain their condition and identify potential problems in each of the pipes. Each problem is given a score, and the projects with the worst scores are given a higher priority in the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that projects that address conveyance problems are typically given priority. Board Member Lovell commented on the good plan prepared by staff and said it is great to see a plan that can actually be funded and implemented. Chair Reed pointed out that the draft plan provided in the Staff Report did not include Section 10 (Operations and Maintenance Program) and Section 11(Wastewater Treatment Facility Financial Plan). However, Mr. Delilla did provide a summary of each of the sections, and the actual documents will be included in the draft plan that is presented to the City Council for approval. Vice Chair Stewart asked which pipes typically require the most repair and maintenance. Mr. Delilla said root intrusion is a serious problem and is more difficult to address. Many of the pipes are old, and people have planted trees on top or nearby. As the tree roots grow, they often find their way into the pipes, eventually blocking the flow. There are also areas in the City where soils are poor and can expand and contract based on moisture. This can complicate the construction and reconstruction of the pipe, as well. Vice Chair Stewart asked if broken pipes are removed and recycled. Mr. Delilla answered that the majority of the City's pipes are concrete, which is recyclable. Again, he summarized that the current conveyance system is old, and the City is working to address the problems and be more proactive in the future. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONE OF PARCELS LOCATED AT 403 AND 405 — 3RD AVENUE NORTH (FILE NUMBER PLN20130030) Chair Reed reminded the Board that the rezone application is a quasi-judicial matter. He invited Board Members to disclose any communications that might have had regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing. None of the Board Members indicated an ex parte communication. Mr. Clugston advised that a site -specific rezone is a Type IV-B application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 545 of 660 AM-5963 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Information Submitted By: 9. Roger Neumaier Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Requesting approval of bond ordinance authorizing City sale of $16.2 Million for the purpose of paying for water and sewer system improvements, a deposit to the debt service reserve account and costs of sale and issuance. Recommendation Approval of Ordinance. Previous Council Action NA Narrative The bond ordinance has been discussed in committee and in Council session. 2013 Bond Ordinance Inbox Reviewed By Finance Roger Neumaier City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 07/12/2013 A*f nhmors+c Form Review Date 07/11/2013 04:16 PM 07/11/2013 05:03 PM 07/11/2013 05:04 PM 07/12/2013 08:20 AM Started On: 07/11/2013 04:04 PM Packet Page 546 of 660 Draft dated 7110113 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $16,200,000 for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. Passed July 16, 2013 This document prepared by: Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 51294014.5 Packet Page 547 of 660 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Findings and Determinations.........................................................................................1 Section2. Definitions......................................................................................................................2 Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions.......................................................................................9 Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds.......................................................................9 Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative ........................9 Section 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds.....................................................9 Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds.....................................................................................10 Section8. Payment of Bonds........................................................................................................ I I Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds .................................... I I Section 10. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds.....................................................................12 Section 11. Failure To Redeem Bonds.........................................................................................13 Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund...........................................................................13 Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds..........................................................................................15 Section14. Flow of Funds............................................................................................................15 Section 15. Additional Covenants.................................................................................................15 Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account........................................................................................17 Section 17. Separate Utility Systems............................................................................................17 Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate....................................................18 Section19. Parity Conditions.......................................................................................................18 Section20. Tax Matters................................................................................................................19 Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure................................................................20 Section 22. Amendatory and Supplemental Ordinances...............................................................20 Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification.....................................................................22 Section24. Severability................................................................................................................22 Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance......................................................................................23 Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms of the Bonds Exhibit B Parity Conditions For Issuance of Future Parity Bonds Exhibit C Description of Plan of Additions Exhibit D Form of Continuing Disclosure Undertaking *The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance. -i- 51294014.5 Packet Page 548 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $16,200,000 for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") makes the findings and determinations set forth below. Capitalized terms have the meanings given in Section 2. (a) Previously Issued Bonds and Loans. The City previously issued the 2011 Bonds and by the 2011 Bond Ordinance provided for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds on a parity of lien with the 2011 Bonds if certain Parity Conditions are met at the time those Future Parity Bonds are issued. The City also has several outstanding Loans, which are secured by a pledge of net revenues that is junior and inferior to the pledge securing the 2011 Bonds and the Bonds authorized to be issued in this ordinance. (b) Plan of Additions. The City is in need of funds with which to finance the Plan of Additions, the estimated cost of which is more than $16,200,000, and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the costs. The life of the improvements comprising the Plan of Additions is declared to be at least 25 years. (b) Authority to Issue Future Parity Bonds. The City Council finds and declares that the amounts required to have been paid into the Bond Fund for the 2011 Bonds have been paid and maintained as required therein, and that all other Parity Conditions for the issuance of the Bonds as Future Parity Bonds will have been met and satisfied before the Bonds are delivered to the Purchaser. -I- 51294014.5 Packet Page 549 of 660 (c) Sufficiency of Gross Revenue. The City Council finds and determines that the Gross Revenue and benefits to be derived from the operation and maintenance of the Water and Sewer Utility at the rates to be charged for services from the Water and Sewer Utility will be more than sufficient to meet all Operating and Maintenance Expense and to permit the setting aside into the Bond Fund out of the Gross Revenue of amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2011 Bonds and the Bonds when due. The City Council declares that in fixing the amounts to be paid into the Bond Fund under this ordinance it has exercised due regard for Operating and Maintenance Expense and has not obligated the City to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund a greater amount of Gross Revenue of the Water and Sewer Utility than in its judgment will be available over and above such Operating and Maintenance Expense. (d) Issuance of Bonds. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract as approved by the City's Designated Representative consistent with this ordinance. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) "2011 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2011, authorized by the 2011 Bond Ordinance. (b) "2011 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6, 2011, authorizing the issuance of the 2011 Bonds. (c) "Adjusted Net Revenue" means Net Revenue, plus withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account and less deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. (d) "Annual Debt Service" means, for any calendar year, with respect to all Parity Bonds outstanding or maturing in that year, all amounts required to be paid in that year in respect of principal of and interest on those Parity Bonds, less all bond interest payable from the proceeds of any Parity Bonds, and less all Tax Credit Subsidy Payments scheduled to be received in that year. Parity Bonds issued as Variable Interest Rate Bonds shall be assumed to bear interest at a fixed rate equal to the higher of (i) the highest variable rate borne during the preceding 24 months by any then -outstanding Variable Interest Rate Bonds or, (ii) if no Variable Interest Rate Bonds are then outstanding, a rate determined by reference to the index to be used to determine the interest rate on the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued or a comparable index. (e) "Authorized Denominations" means $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a maturity of a Series. (f) "Average Annual Debt Service" means, as of its date of calculation, the sum of the Annual Debt Service for the current calendar year and the calendar years remaining to the last scheduled maturity of the applicable issue or issues of bonds divided by the number of those years. -2- 51294014.5 Packet Page 550 of 660 (g) "Beneficial Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the owner of any beneficial interest in that Bond. (h) "Bond Counsel" means Foster Pepper PLLC or any other nationally recognized bond counsel firm then representing the City. (i) "Bond Fund" means the City's Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bond Fund, 2011, created by the 2011 Bond Ordinance for the payment of the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds. 0) "Bond Insurance Policy" means a municipal bond insurance policy issued by a Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds as provided in such policy. (k) "Bond Insurer" or "Insurer' means a bond insurance company providing a Bond Insurance Policy or Reserve Securities for any outstanding Parity Bonds. (1) "Bond Purchase Contract" means an offer to purchase a Series of the Bonds, setting forth certain terms and conditions of the issuance, sale and delivery of those Bonds, which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent with this ordinance. In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the Purchaser's bid and the award by the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for purposes of this ordinance. (m) "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar containing the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of Bonds held by each owner. (n) "Bond Registrar" means the Fiscal Agent. (o) "Bonds" means the bonds authorized to be issued by this ordinance. (p) "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington. (q) "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (r) "Construction Fund" means the City's 412 Construction Fund. (s) "Coverage Requirement" means for any calendar year, an amount of Adjusted Net Revenue at least equal to 1.25 times the Annual Debt Service in that year on all then -outstanding Parity Bonds. For purposes of calculating the Coverage Requirement, ULID Assessments due in that year and not delinquent shall be subtracted from Annual Debt Service. (t) "Designated Representative" means the officer of the City appointed in Section 5 of this ordinance to serve as the City's designated representative in accordance with RCW 39.46.040(2). -3- 51294014.5 Packet Page 551 of 660 (u) "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York. (v) "Final Terms" means the terms and conditions for the sale of a Series of the Bonds including the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rates (or mechanism for determining interest rate or rates), payment dates, final maturity, redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants. (w) "Finance Director" means the Finance Director of the City or any other City official who succeeds to the duties now delegated to that office, or the designee of such officer. (x) "Financial Advisor" means A. Dashen and Associates of Bellevue, Washington, or any other Financial Advisor then appointed and acting as financial advisor to the City. (y) "Fiscal Agent" means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated by the State from time to time. (z) "Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance" means an ordinance of the City authorizing the issuance and sale and establishing the terms of Future Parity Bonds. (aa) "Future Parity Bonds" means all revenue obligations and other obligations of the City for borrowed money (including, without limitation, financing leases) issued or incurred after the date of the issuance of the Bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on which constitutes a charge or lien on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments equal in rank with the charge and lien upon such revenue and assessments required to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (bb) "Government Obligations" means those obligations described under the definition of government obligations in RCW 39.53.010(4), as it now reads or hereafter may be amended, and which are otherwise lawful investments for the City. (cc) "Gross Revenue" means all of the earnings and revenues received by the City from the maintenance and operation of the Water and Sewer Utility, including but not limited to: revenues from the sale, lease or furnishing of commodities, services, properties or facilities; all earnings from the investment of money in the Bond Fund that are deposited into the Principal and Interest Account; earnings from the investment of money in any maintenance fund or similar fund; all connection and capital improvement charges collected for the purpose of defraying the cost of capital facilities of the Water and Sewer Utility; and withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. However, the Gross Revenue shall not include: (a) revenues from City taxes; (b) principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or any other borrowings, or earnings or proceeds from any investments in a trust, defeasance or escrow fund created to defease or refund obligations relating to the Water and Sewer Utility (until commingled with other earnings and revenues included in the Gross Revenue) or held in a special account for the purpose of paying a rebate to the United States Government under the Code; (c) income and revenue which may not legally be pledged for revenue bond debt service; (d) improvement district assessments including ULID Assessments; (e) federal or state grants, and gifts from any source allocated to capital projects; (f) payments under bond insurance or other credit enhancement policy or device; (g) insurance or condemnation proceeds used for the replacement of capital projects or equipment; (h) proceeds from the sale of Water and Sewer Utility property; (i) earnings on bond -4- 51294014.5 Packet Page 552 of 660 proceeds in any construction fund or bond redemption fund; 0) deposits to the Rate Stabilization Account; (k) Tax Credit Subsidy Payments; or (1) revenue from any Separate Utility System. (dd) "Independent Utility Consultant" means a professional consultant experienced with municipal utilities of comparable size and character to the Water and Sewer Utility and in such areas as are relevant to the purpose for which he or she is being retained. Such a consultant shall be deemed independent so long as he or she is not an employee or officer of the City. (ee) "Issue Date" means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and delivery of that Bond to the Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of that Bond. (ff) "Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, and any successor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities Depository. (gg) "Loans" means any State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund loans, State Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans, or similar loans entered into by the City to fund improvements to the Water and Sewer Utility, the payment of which is a claim on the Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge of the Parity Bonds. (hh) "Maximum Annual Debt Service" means, as of the date of calculation, the maximum amount of Annual Debt Service that will mature or come due in the current fiscal year or any future fiscal year with respect to all outstanding Parity Bonds. (ii) "Maximum Interest Rate" means, with respect to any Variable Interest Rate Bond, a numerical rate of interest that is the maximum rate of interest those Future Parity Bonds may bear at any time. 0j) "MSRB" means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (kk) "Net Revenue" means the Gross Revenue, less Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (11) "Operating and Maintenance Expenses" means all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in causing the Water and Sewer Utility to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order and condition, including payments made pursuant to contract for such service to any other municipal corporation or private entity for sewage treatment and disposal, water supply and distribution or stormwater, or other utility service (if the City combines such service into the Water and Sewer Utility), and including budget charges for the City's administration expenses allocated to the Water and Sewer Utility, but shall not include depreciation or any taxes (or charges in lieu of taxes) levied or imposed by the City. (mm) "Outstanding Parity Bonds" means any Parity Bonds outstanding at the time of issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. As of the date of issuance of the Bonds, the Outstanding Parity Bonds includes the 2011 Bonds. -5- 51294014.5 Packet Page 553 of 660 (nn) "Owner" means, without distinction, the Registered Owner and the Beneficial Owner. (oo) "Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance(s) " means, as applicable to each series of Parity Bonds, the 2011 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance and any Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance. (pp) "Parity Bonds" means any Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds and Future Parity [twig (qq) "Parity Conditions" means the conditions precedent to the issuance of Future Parity Bonds, originally set forth in Exhibit A of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and set forth in Exhibit B to this ordinance, which is incorporated by this reference. (rr) "Permitted Investments" means investments that are legal investments for the City at the time of such investment. (ss) "Plan of Additions" means the system or plan of additions and improvements to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility specified, adopted and ordered to be carried out by Section 3 of this ordinance. (tt) "Principal and Interest Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (uu) "Purchaser" means the corporation, firm, association, partnership, trust, or other legal entity or group of entities selected by the Designated Representative to serve as underwriter for a negotiated sale or awarded as the successful bidder in a competitive sale of any Series of the Bonds. (vv) "Rate Stabilization Account" means the account of that name created for the purposes described in Section 16. (ww) "Rating Agency" means a nationally recognized rating agency or agencies, if any, providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City. (xx) "Record Date" means the Bond Registrar's close of business on the 15t' day of the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to redemption of a Bond prior to its maturity, the Record Date shall mean the Bond Registrar's close of business on the date on which the Bond Registrar sends the notice of redemption in accordance with Section 9. (yy) "Registered Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name that Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book —entry only system for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, Registered Owner shall mean the Securities Depository. (zz) "Reserve Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the purpose of securing the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. IM 51294014.5 Packet Page 554 of 660 (aaa) "Reserve Securities" means, in lieu of cash and investments, any bond insurance, collateral, security, letter of credit, guaranty, surety bond or similar credit enhancement device providing for or securing the payment of all or part of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds, issued by an institution which has been assigned a credit rating by a Rating Agency at the time that such Reserve Securities is provided, in the two highest rating categories without regard to gradations within those categories (i.e., Aaa or Aa). (bbb) "Reserve Requirement" means for all Parity Bonds, an amount equal to the lesser of (i) Maximum Annual Debt Service, (ii) 125% of Average Annual Debt Service, or (iii) 10% of the original proceeds of the then -outstanding Parity Bonds. The Reserve Requirement may be met by a deposit of cash, Reserve Securities, or any combination of the foregoing, and the amount payable under any Reserve Securities shall be credited against the amount otherwise required to be deposited into the Reserve Account. (ccc) "Rule I5c2-12" means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (ddd) "SEC' means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (eee) "Securities Depository" means DTC, any successor thereto, any substitute securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regulations to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the foregoing. (fff) "Separate Utility System" means any water supply, sewage collection or treatment, stormwater management or other utility service or facilities that may be created, acquired or constructed by the City as provided in Section 17 of this ordinance. (ggg) "Series of the Bonds" or "Series" means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to this ordinance. (hhh) "Sewer System" means the sanitary sewage collection and disposal system of the City, also referred to as the sewer utility. (iii) "State" means the State of Washington. 0jj) "Stormwater System" means the stormwater management utility combined into the Water and Sewer Utility pursuant to chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code. (kkk) "System of Registration" means the system of registration for the City's bonds and other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City. (111) "Tax Credit Subsidy Bond" means any bond that is designated by the City as a "build America bond" or other type of tax credit bond, pursuant to the Code, and which is further designated as a "qualified bond" under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), and with respect to which the City expects to receive a Tax Credit Subsidy Payment. -7- 51294014.5 Packet Page 555 of 660 (mmm)"Tax Credit Subsidy Payment" means the amounts which the City expects to receive as a tax credit payable by the United States Treasury to the City under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), in respect of any bonds issued as Tax Credit Subsidy Bonds. (nnn) "Tax -Exempt Bonds " means any Series issued on a tax-exempt basis. (000) "Term Bond" means those Bonds that are designated as term bonds in the Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance(s). (ppp) "ULID" means any utility local improvement district now existing or hereafter created for the acquisition or construction of additions, extensions or betterments of any portion of the Water and Sewer Utility, which additions, extensions or betterments are financed through the issuance of Parity Bonds. As used in this ordinance, the term ULID does not include any utility local improvement district created for the financing of additions, extensions or betterments by methods other than the issuance of Parity Bonds. (qqq) "ULID Assessments" means the assessments levied in any ULID, including installment payments of any assessment as well as the interest and penalties (if any) thereon, less any prepaid assessments permitted by law to be paid into a construction fund or account. (rrr) "Undertaking" means the undertaking to provide continuing disclosure entered into pursuant to Section 21 of this ordinance. (sss) "Variable Interest Rate" means a variable interest rate or rates to be borne by a series of Future Parity Bonds or any one or more maturities within a series of Future Parity Bonds. The method of computing such a variable interest rate (or parameters with respect thereto) shall be specified in the ordinance authorizing such Future Parity Bonds, which ordinance also shall specify either (i) the particular period or periods of time or manner of determining such period or periods of time for which each value of such variable interest rate shall remain in effect or (ii) the time or times upon which any change in such variable interest rate shall become effective. (ttt) "Variable Interest Rate Bonds" means, for any period of time, Future Parity Bonds which bear a Variable Interest Rate during that period, except that Future Parity Bonds the interest rate or rates on which shall have been fixed for the remainder of the term thereof no longer shall be deemed to be Variable Interest Rate Bonds. (uuu) "Water and Sewer Utility" means the combined utility, as described in chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code, including the component Water System, Sewer System and Stormwater System, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time made, and any other utility systems hereafter combined with the Water and Sewer Utility. (vvv) "Water and Sewer Utility Fund" means, together, the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Fund, each of which has previously been established by the City. 51294014.5 Packet Page 556 of 660 (www) "Water System" means the system of water supply and transmission of the City, also referred to as the water utility. Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions. The City specifies, adopts and orders the carrying out of the projects described in Exhibit C as a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility. The Plan of Additions shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City's engineers and consulting engineers. The City Council may modify the details of the Plan of Additions where, in its judgment, it appears advisable if such modifications do not substantially alter the purposes of that system or plan. The cost of the Plan of Additions, including the cost of issuance and sale of the Bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and from other money available to the Water and Sewer Utility. Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow money on the credit of the City and issue water and sewer revenue bonds evidencing indebtedness in the amount of not to exceed $16,200,000 to provide the funds necessary (1) to carry out the Plan of Additions, (2) make a deposit to the Reserve Account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be allocated to paying the respective costs of the Plan of Additions in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and practicable. Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative. The Finance Director is appointed as the Designated Representative and is authorized and directed to conduct the sale of the Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of the Bonds, with such additional terms and covenants as the Designated Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference. Section 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. (a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register. (b) Bond Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent is appointed as initial Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and the System of Registration. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on each Bond. The Bond Registrar may become an Owner with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Owners. M 51294014.5 Packet Page 557 of 660 (c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange of Bonds. The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of each Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of each Bond held by each Registered Owner. A Bond surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for a Bond or Bonds in any Authorized Denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same Series, interest rate and maturity. A Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the Owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer registered ownership during the period between the applicable Record Date and the next upcoming interest payment or redemption date. (d) Securities Depository; Book -Entry Only Form. DTC is appointed as initial Securities Depository. Each Bond initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book -entry only form by the Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not be transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in book -entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination of the services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute Securities Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a substitute Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities Depository, the Bonds no longer shall be held in book - entry only form and the registered ownership of each Bond may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance. Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any Securities Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any records maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to a Registered Owner except such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to the Securities Depository. Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. (a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bond shall be prepared in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Each Bond shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on a Bond ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile signature is authenticated by the Bond Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, that Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on its Issue Date. -10- 51294014.5 Packet Page 558 of 660 (b) Authentication. Only a Bond bearing a Certificate of Authentication in substantially the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: "Certificate Of Authentication. This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013." The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Section 8. Payment of Bonds. Principal of and interest on each Bond shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations. Interest on each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. However, the City is not required to make electronic transfers except pursuant to a request by a Registered Owner in writing received on or prior to the Record Date and at the sole expense of the Registered Owner. Principal of each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar. The Bonds are not subject to acceleration under any circumstances. Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A. (b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a Term Bond in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, if not previously redeemed under any optional redemption provisions or purchased and surrendered for cancellation under the provisions set forth below, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the stated principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest, on the dates and in the amounts as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional redemption provisions, defeased or purchased by the City and surrendered for cancellation, the principal amount of the Term Bond so redeemed, defeased or purchased (irrespective of its actual redemption or purchase prices) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption installments for that Term Bond. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Bond Registrar in writing of its allocation prior to the earliest mandatory redemption date for that Term Bond for which notice of redemption has not already been given. (c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed at the option of the City, the City shall select the Series and maturities to be redeemed. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a Series are to be redeemed, the Securities Depository shall select Bonds registered in the name of the Securities Depository to be redeemed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and -11- 51294014.5 Packet Page 559 of 660 the Bond Registrar shall select all other Bonds to be redeemed randomly in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the principal amount of any Bond that is to be redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized Denomination. If less than all of the outstanding principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity and interest rate in any Authorized Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain outstanding. (d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Notice of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given by the Bond Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be satisfied when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an Owner. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same period to the MSRB (if required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond. (e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption, the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time on or prior to the date fixed for redemption. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding. (e) Effect of Redemption. Interest on each Bond called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of optional redemption is rescinded as set forth above, or money sufficient to effect such redemption is not on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond. (f) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Bonds offered to the City at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. Section 10. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and interest on any or all of the Bonds (the "defeased Bonds"); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds prior to their maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or defeasance (the "trust account"), money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. Thereafter, the Owners of defeased Bonds shall -12- 51294014.5 Packet Page 560 of 660 have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely from the trust account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that event, the City may apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account) established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose, subject only to the rights of the Owners of any other Parity Bonds then outstanding. Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or defeasance plan, notice of refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bonds for inclusion in a refunding or defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordinance for the redemption of Bonds. Section 11. Failure To Redeem Bonds. If the principal of any Bond is not paid when the Bond is properly presented at its maturity date or date fixed for redemption, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or date fixed for redemption until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund, or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered Owner. Section 12. Security for the Bonds, Bond Fund. (a) Pledge of Net Revenues. The Net Revenue and ULID Assessments are pledged irrevocably to the payment of the amounts required to be paid into the Bond Fund for the payment of the Bonds and all Future Parity Bonds. This pledge shall constitute a lien and charge upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments prior and superior to any other charges whatsoever. (b) Bond Fund; Deposits to Bond Fund. The Bond Fund has been established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund as a special fund of the City and divided into two accounts: the Principal and Interest Account, and the Reserve Account. So long as any of the Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City obligates and binds itself to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all ULID Assessments and, out of the Net Revenue, certain fixed amounts, without regard to any fixed proportion, namely: (1) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each interest payment date of the Parity Bonds, an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the interest on the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding interest payment date; and (2) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each principal payment date of the Parity Bonds (including any mandatory redemption requirement), an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the principal of the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding Principal Payment Date, including mandatory redemption amounts due on that date with respect to any Term Bonds; and -13- 51294014.5 Packet Page 561 of 660 (3) Into the Reserve Account, an amount sufficient that the amount on deposit in the Reserve Account satisfies the Reserve Requirement for the Parity Bonds in the time and manner required by this ordinance. When the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total outstanding amount of principal and interest for all Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, no further payment need be made into the Bond Fund. The Finance Director may create sinking fund accounts or other accounts in the Bond Fund for the payment or securing the payment of Parity Bonds as long as the maintenance of such accounts does not conflict with the rights of the owners of Parity Bonds. (c) The Reserve Account; Reserve Requirement. The City covenants and agrees that it will at all times maintain in the Reserve Account an amount (including the value of all Reserve Securities deposited therein) equal to the Reserve Requirement, except for withdrawals as authorized in this subsection, until there is a sufficient amount in the Principal and Interest Account and Reserve Account to pay the principal of and interest on all outstanding Parity Bonds, at which time the money in the Reserve Account may be used to pay any such principal and interest so long as the money remaining on deposit in the Reserve Account is not less than the Reserve Requirement calculated based on the remaining outstanding Parity Bonds. The Reserve Requirement shall be deemed satisfied by any combination of Parity Bond proceeds, Reserve Securities or other legally available money equal to the Reserve Requirement, or by the deposit of available funds of the City in approximately equal annual installments so that the Reserve Requirement is funded no later than three years after the issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. If there is a deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account in the Bond Fund to make the next upcoming payment of either principal or interest, that deficiency shall be made up from the Reserve Account by the withdrawal of amounts necessary for that purpose. Any deficiency created in the Reserve Account by reason of any such withdrawal shall then be made up from the next available payments of Net Revenue and ULID Assessments after making necessary provision for the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account. (d) Investment of Money Deposited in Bond Fund. All money in the Bond Fund may be kept in cash; deposited with an institution (as permitted by law) in an amount in each institution not greater than the amount insured by any department or agency of the United States Government; or invested in Permitted Investments or other legal investments permitted to the City maturing not later than the date when needed (for investments in the Principal and Interest Account) or the last maturity of any outstanding Parity Bonds (for investments in the Reserve Account). Income from investments in the Principal and Interest Account shall be deposited in that account. Income from investments in the Reserve Account shall be deposited in that account until the amount therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement, and thereafter shall be deposited in the Principal and Interest Account or used for other Water and Sewer Utility purposes. (e) Action to Compel Payments. If the City fails to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund the amounts set forth above, the owner of any of the outstanding Parity Bonds may bring action against the City and compel the setting aside and payment. -14- 51294014.5 Packet Page 562 of 660 Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. On the Issue Date, proceeds of the Bonds in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited into the Reserve Account. The remaining proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Construction Fund and be used to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the Plan of Additions. Until needed to pay such costs, the City may invest those proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Construction Fund and used for the purposes of that fund, except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the Construction Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 14. Flow of Funds. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City covenants that all ULID Assessments (if any) shall be paid into the Bond Fund, and the Gross Revenue shall be deposited into the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (or the respective System funds therein) to be used for the following purposes only in the following order of priority: (1) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (2) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of interest on the Parity Bonds. (3) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of principal of (and premium on, if any) the Parity Bonds, whether at maturity or pursuant to redemption prior to maturity. (4) To make when due all payments required to be made into the Reserve Account. (5) To make when due all payments required to be made under any reimbursement agreement with a Bond Insurer in any priority not inconsistent with this ordinance, which the City may hereafter establish by ordinance. (6) To make when due the required payments to be made into any revenue bond, note warrant or other revenue obligation redemption fund, debt service account or reserve account created to pay and secure the payment of any revenue obligations of the Water and Sewer Utility having a charge upon the Net Revenue junior and inferior to the charge thereon for the payment of the Parity Bonds. (7) Without priority, to retire by redemption or to purchase in the open market any outstanding Parity Bonds or junior lien obligations, to make necessary betterments and replacements of or repairs, additions or extensions to the Water and Sewer Utility, to make deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 15. Additional Covenants. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City covenants and agrees with the owner of each Bond at any time outstanding as follows: (a) Maintenance and Operation. The City will at all times maintain, preserve and keep the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility in good repair, working order and condition, will make all necessary and proper additions, betterments, renewals and repairs thereto, and improvements, replacements and extensions thereof, and will at all times operate or cause to be -15- 51294014.5 Packet Page 563 of 660 operated the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility and the business in connection therewith in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. (b) Establishment and Collection of Rates and Charges. The City will establish, maintain and collect rates and charges for all services and facilities provided by the Water and Sewer Utility which will be fair and nondiscriminatory. The City will adjust those rates and charges from time to time so that: (i) the Gross Revenue will at all times be sufficient to (A) pay all Maintenance and Operation Expenses on a current basis, (B) pay when due all amounts that the City is obligated to pay into the Bond Fund and the accounts therein, (C) pay all taxes (or payments in lieu thereof), assessments or other governmental charges lawfully imposed on the Water and Sewer Utility and any and all other amounts which the City may now or hereafter become obligated to pay from the Gross Revenue by law or contract; and (ii) the Adjusted Net Revenue in each fiscal year will be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. (c) Sale or Disposition of Utility Property. The City will not sell, lease, mortgage or in any manner encumber or dispose of all the property of the Water and Sewer Utility unless provision is made for payment into the Bond Fund of a sum sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. Further, the City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of (each, a "disposition") any part of the property of the Water and Sewer Utility that is used, useful and material to the operation thereof (the "affected portion") unless provision is made for replacement thereof or for payment into the Bond Fund of an amount which shall bear the same ratio to the amount of Parity Bonds then outstanding (less the amount of cash and investments in the Bond Fund and the accounts therein) as (i) the Net Revenue from affected portion of the Water and Sewer Utility for the twelve months preceding such disposition bears to (ii) the Net Revenue from the entire Water and Sewer Utility for the same period. Any money paid into the Bond Fund as a result of such a disposition shall be used to retire that proportion of then -outstanding Parity Bonds at the earliest possible date. (d) Books and Records. The City will maintain complete books and records relating to the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility and its financial affairs, and will cause such books and records to be audited annually, and cause to be prepared an annual financial and operating statement, which shall be provided to any owner of Parity Bonds upon request. (e) No Free Service. Except to aid the poor or infirm, to provide for resource conservation or to provide for the proper handling of hazardous materials, the City will not furnish or supply or permit the furnishing or supplying of any service or facility in connection with the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility free of charge to any person, firm or corporation, public or private, other than the City. (f) Collection of Delinquent Accounts. On at least an annual basis, the City will determine all accounts that are delinquent and will take all necessary action to enforce payment of such accounts against those property owners whose accounts are delinquent. (g) Insurance. The City will at all times carry fire and such other forms of insurance on such of the buildings, equipment, facilities and properties of the Water and Sewer Utility as are ordinarily carried on such buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties by utilities engaged in the operation of similar utility systems to the full insurable value thereof, and also will carry -16- 51294014.5 Packet Page 564 of 660 adequate public liability insurance at all times. The City may self insure or participate in a joint intergovernmental insurance pool or similar plan, and the cost of that insurance or self insurance shall be considered a part of Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (h) ULID Assessments. The City will promptly collect all ULID Assessments and deposit such collections into the Bond Fund to pay or secure the principal of and interest on any Parity Bonds without those ULID Assessments being particularly allocated to any particular series of Parity Bonds. Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account has been previously established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Deposits and withdrawals shall be made in accordance with this section at any time up to and including the date 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the deposit or withdrawal will be included as Adjusted Net Revenue for that fiscal year, as follows: (a) Deposits to the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may at any time, as determined by the Finance Director and as consistent with the covenants contained in this ordinance, deposit into the Rate Stabilization Account amounts of Gross Revenue and any other money received by the Water and Sewer Utility and available to be used therefor, excluding principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or other borrowing. However, no deposit of Gross Revenue may be made into the Rate Stabilization Account to the extent that such deposit would prevent the City from meeting the Coverage Requirement in the relevant fiscal year. (b) Withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may withdraw money from the Rate Stabilization Account at any time upon authorization of the City Council (which may be by motion, resolution or ordinance) for inclusion in the Adjusted Net Revenue for any fiscal year of the Water and Sewer Utility, except that the total amount withdrawn from the Rate Stabilization Account in any fiscal year may not exceed the Annual Debt Service in that year. Earnings from investments in the Rate Stabilization Account shall be deposited in that account and shall not be included as Adjusted Net Revenue unless and until withdrawn from that account. Section 17. Separate Utility Systems. The City may create, acquire, construct, finance, own and operate one or more additional systems for water supply, sewer service, water, sewage or stormwater transmission, treatment or other commodity or utility service. The revenue of that Separate Utility System, and any utility local improvement district assessments payable solely with respect to improvements to a Separate Utility System, shall not be included in the Gross Revenue and may be pledged to the payment of revenue obligations issued to purchase, construct, condemn or otherwise acquire or expand the Separate Utility System. Neither the Gross Revenue nor the Net Revenue may be pledged to the payment of any obligations of a Separate Utility System except that the Net Revenue may be pledged on a basis subordinate to the lien of the Parity Bonds. -17- 51294014.5 Packet Page 565 of 660 Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds, Parity Certificate. (a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is authorized to sell each Series of the Bonds by negotiated sale or by competitive sale in accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the assessment of the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City officials and staff, Bond Counsel, the Financial Advisor and other advisors. In determining the method of sale of the Bonds and accepting the Final Terms, the Designated Representative shall take into account those factors that, in the judgment of the Designated Representative, may be expected to result in the lowest true interest cost to the City. (b) Procedure for Negotiated Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by negotiated sale, the Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which to negotiate such sale. The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series of the Bonds shall set forth the Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are consistent with the terms of this ordinance. (c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause the preparation of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and any other bid parameters that the Designated Representative deems appropriate consistent with this ordinance. Bids for the purchase of each Series of the Bonds shall be received at such time or place and by such means as the Designated Representative directs. On the date and time established for the receipt of bids, the Designated Representative (or the designee of the Designated Representative) shall open bids and shall cause the bids to be mathematically verified. The Designated Representative is authorized to award, on behalf of the City, the winning bid and accept the winning bidder's offer to purchase that Series of the Bonds, with such adjustments to the aggregate principal amount and principal amount per maturity as the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with the terms of this ordinance. The Designated Representative may reject any or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best interest to do so. If all bids are rejected, that Series of the Bonds may be sold pursuant to negotiated sale or in any manner provided by law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest of the City, within the parameters set forth in this ordinance. (d) Parity Certificate. At the time of issuance of the Bonds, the Designated Representative shall cause to be executed and have on file a certificate of coverage as required for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds under Section 20 of the 2011 Bond Ordinance. (e) Preparation, Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds. Section 19. Parity Conditions. The City reserves the right to issue Future Parity Bonds which will constitute a charge and lien upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds if the Parity Conditions are met and complied 51294014.5 Packet Page 566 of 660 with at the time of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds. Nothing contained in the Parity Conditions shall prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations having a lien on the Net Revenue that is junior to the lien thereon that secures the Parity Bonds, or from pledging to pay into a bond redemption fund or account for such junior lien obligations assessments (including interest and penalties thereon) in any utility local improvement district that are levied to pay part or all of the cost of improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the sale of such junior lien obligations. Neither shall anything contained in this ordinance prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations to refund maturing Parity Bonds for the payment of which money is not otherwise available. Section 20. Tax Matters. (a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Tax -Exempt Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds issued as Tax -Exempt Bonds (or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Tax -Exempt Bonds) that will cause interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Code are applicable to the Tax -Exempt Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Tax -Exempt Bonds. (b) Post -Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to review and update the City's written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the covenants in this ordinance and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal tax purposes. (c) Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations. " The Tax -Exempt Bonds may be designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, if the following conditions are met: (1) the Tax -Exempt Bonds are not "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Tax -Exempt Bonds are issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Tax -Exempt Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued does not exceed $10,000,000. -19- 51294014.5 Packet Page 567 of 660 Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. (a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative shall review the form of the preliminary official statement prepared in connection with each sale of a Series of the Bonds to the public. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser's compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12, the Designated Representative is authorized to deem that preliminary official statement final as of its date, except for the omission of information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City approves the distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds of a preliminary official statement that has been deemed final in accordance with this subsection. (b) Approval of Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final official statement for each Series of the Bonds to be sold to the public in the form of the preliminary official statement, with such modifications and amendments as the Designated Representative deems necessary or desirable, and further authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and deliver such final official statement to the Purchaser. The City authorizes and approves the distribution by the Purchaser of that final official statement to purchasers and potential purchasers of the Bonds. (c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. To meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the Designated Representative is authorized to execute a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure for the benefit of holders of the Bonds in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D. Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. (a) This ordinance shall not be modified or amended in any respect subsequent to the initial issuance of the Bonds, except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section. (b) The City, from time to time, and at any time, without the consent of or notice to the Owners of the Bonds, may pass amendatory ordinances as follows: (1) To cure any formal defect, omission, inconsistency or ambiguity in this ordinance in a manner not adverse to the owner of any Parity Bonds; (2) To impose upon the Bond Registrar (with its consent) for the benefit of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds any additional rights, remedies, powers, authority, security, liabilities or duties which may lawfully be granted, conferred or imposed and which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (3) To add to the covenants and agreements of, and limitations and restrictions upon, the City in this ordinance, other covenants, agreements, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the City which are not contrary or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; -20- 51294014.5 Packet Page 568 of 660 (4) To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any claim, lien or pledge created or to be created by this ordinance of any other money, securities or funds; (5) To authorize different denominations of the Bonds and to make correlative amendments and modifications to this ordinance regarding exchangeability of Bonds of different authorized denominations, redemptions of portions of Bonds of particular authorized denominations and similar amendments and modifications of a technical nature; (6) To modify, alter, amend or supplement this ordinance in any other respect which is not materially adverse to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds and which does not involve a change described in subsection (c) of this section; and (7) Because of change in federal law or rulings, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds from federal income taxation. (c) Except for any amendatory ordinance passed into pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, subject to the terms and provisions contained in this subsection (c) and not otherwise: (1) Registered owners of not less than 50% in aggregate principal amount of the Parity Bonds then outstanding shall have the right from time to time to consent to the passage of any amendatory ordinance deemed necessary or desirable by the City for the purpose of modifying, altering, amending, supplementing or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance. However, consent by the registered owners of all the Bonds then outstanding is required for any amendatory ordinance authorizing: (i) a change in the times, amounts or currency of payment of the principal of or interest on any outstanding Bond, or a reduction in the principal amount of redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the method of determining the rate of interest thereon; (ii) a preference of priority of any Bond or Bonds or any other bond or bonds; or (iii) a reduction in the aggregate principal amount of Bonds. (2) Any amendatory ordinance passed for any of the purposes of this subsection (c), shall not become effective except in accordance with this subsection (c)(2). Upon passage of any such amendatory ordinance, the City shall cause notice of the proposed ordinance to be given by first class United States mail to all registered owners of the then outstanding Parity Bonds and to the Rating Agency. Such notice shall briefly describe the proposed ordinance and shall state that a copy is available from the Finance Director for inspection. The amendatory ordinance shall become effective in substantially the form described in the notice only if within two years after mailing of such notice, the City has received (i) the required consents, in writing, of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds (or of the Bonds, as applicable) and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such amendatory ordinance is permitted by this ordinance; that upon the effective date thereof, it will be valid and binding upon the City in accordance with its terms; -21- 51294014.5 Packet Page 569 of 660 and its passage will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds. (3) If registered owners of not less than the percentage of Parity Bonds (or Bonds, as applicable) required by this subsection (c) have consented, no owner of the Parity Bonds shall have any right to object to the passage of the ordinance (or to any of the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation thereof), or in any manner to question the propriety of the passage thereof, or to enjoin or restrain the City from passing, or from taking any action pursuant to, the same. (d) Upon the effective date of any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to the provisions of this Section 22, this ordinance shall be amended in accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties and obligations under this ordinance of the City, the Bond Registrar and all Registered Owners of Bonds then outstanding, shall thereafter be determined, exercised and enforced under this ordinance subject in all respects to such amendments. Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative and other appropriate officers of the City are severally authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transactions contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this ordinance in furtherance of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed in all respects. Section 24. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and enforceable. -22- 51294014.5 Packet Page 570 of 660 Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law and is not subject to referendum. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this day of 12013. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Mayor -23- 51294014.5 Packet Page 571 of 660 Exhibit A PARAMETERS FOR FINAL TERMS OF THE BONDS (i) Principal Amount. The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series and shall not exceed the aggregate principal amount of $16,200,000, and may be issued as either taxable or tax-exempt obligations. (ii) Date or Dates. Each Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may not be later than December 31, 2014. (iii) Denominations, Name, etc. The Bonds shall be issued in Authorized Denominations and shall be numbered separately in the manner and shall bear any name and additional designation as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Designated Representative. (iv) Interest Rate(s). Each Bond shall bear interest at a fixed rate per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the most recent date for which interest has been paid or duly provided for, whichever is later. One or more rates of interest may be fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for any Bond may exceed 5.5%, and the true interest cost to the City for each Series of the Bonds may not exceed 5.5%. (v) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable at fixed rates semiannually on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative, commencing no later than one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments shall commence on a date acceptable to the Designated Representative and shall be payable at maturity or in mandatory redemption installments on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative. (vi) Final Maturity. The Bonds shall mature no later than December 1, 2039. (vii) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the Bond Purchase Contract provisions for the optional and mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to the following: (1) Optional Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as being (A) subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to its maturity date on the dates and at the prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract; or (B) not subject to redemption prior to its maturity date. If a Bond is subject to optional redemption -1- 51294014.5 Packet Page 572 of 660 Exhibit A prior to its maturity, it must be subject to such redemption on one or more dates occurring not more than 10'/2 years after the Issue Date. (2) Mandatory Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (viii) Price. The purchase price for each Series of the Bonds may not be less than 96% or more than 125% of the stated principal amount of that Series. (ix) Other Terms The Designated Representative may determine whether it is and Conditions. in the City's best interest to provide for bond insurance or other credit enhancement; and may accept such additional terms, conditions and covenants as he or she may determine are in the best in interests of the City, consistent with this ordinance. -2- 51294014.5 Packet Page 573 of 660 Exhibit B PARITY CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF FUTURE PARITY BONDS The City may issue Future Parity Bonds on a parity with the Bonds if and only if the following conditions are met and complied with at the time of issuance of those proposed Future Parity Bonds: (a) At the time of issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, there may not be any deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account or the Reserve Account of the Bond Fund. (b) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must require that all ULID Assessments levied in connection with those Future Parity Bonds will be paid directly into the Bond Fund. (c) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance shall provide for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon out of the Bond Fund. (d) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the deposit into the Reserve Account of amounts necessary to comply with the Reserve Requirement and Section 12 of this ordinance. (e) At the time of the issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, the City shall have on file, either: (1) A certificate from an Independent Utility Consultant showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Net Revenue for any 12 consecutive calendar months out of the immediately preceding 24 consecutive months shall be used, and the following adjustments may be made to the historical net operating revenue: (i) Any rate change that has taken place or been approved, may be reflected; (ii) Revenue may be added from customers actually added to the Water and Sewer Utility subsequent to the 12-month base period; (iii) Revenue may be added from customers to be served by the improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued; and (iv) A full year's revenue may be included from any customer being served, but who has not been receiving service for the full period of operation used as a basis for the certificate; and (v) Actual or reasonably anticipated changes to the Operating and Maintenance Expenses subsequent to such 12-month period shall be added or deducted, as is applicable. -I- 51294014.5 Packet Page 574 of 660 Exhibit B (2) A certificate of the Finance Director showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Finance Director shall assume that (A) the proposed Future Parity Bonds will remain outstanding to their scheduled maturities, and (B) any Parity Bonds to be refunded by those Future Parity Bonds are not outstanding. The Finance Director shall not make any of the adjustments referred to above. However, if the Future Parity Bonds are being issued for the sole purpose of refunding then -outstanding Parity Bonds (including paying costs of issuance and providing for the Reserve Requirement), no coverage certification is required if, as result of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds, (a) the Annual Debt Service on the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not increased by more than $5,000 over the Annual Debt Service for that year of the bonds being refunded, and (b) the various annual maturities of the refunding Future Parity Bonds will not extend more than one year longer than the Parity Bonds being refunded. Furthermore, no certificate shall be required in connection with the issuance of Future Parity Bonds if the amount of such bonds proposed to be issued does not exceed the ULID Assessments levied in support of such Future Parity Bond issue by more than $5,000 plus any amount of the proceeds of such Future Parity Bonds deposited in the Reserve Account as capitalized reserve. -2- 51294014.5 Packet Page 575 of 660 Exhibit C DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ADDITIONS Water System Plan of Additions: A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the water utility is as follows: Water System Plan of Additions. The existing water system was analyzed in 2010 to determine its ability to meet current regulations and the City's own policies and design criteria. Several analyses were performed to evaluate all components of the water system under both existing and future water demand conditions. The results of the analyses were used to identify and size improvements for the water system. The City will use proceeds of the Bonds to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the planned improvements are as follows: • Recoating and related improvements to the Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir and 1.5 MG Reservoir. • Pressure relief improvements needed to protect the water system from potentially high pressure that could occur during certain events. • Replacement of several pressure reducing valve stations and improvements to other stations to ensure long term operation and reliability. • Repair and replacement of water mains due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to improve flows. Sewer System Plan of Additions: A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the sewer utility are as follows: Sewer System Capital Improvements. The existing sewer system was analyzed in 2006 to determine its ability to meet current regulations and the City's own policies and design criteria. Several analyses were performed to evaluate all components of the system under both existing and future demand conditions. The results of the analyses were used to identify and size improvements and upgrades for the sewer system. The City will use proceeds of the Bonds to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the planned improvements are as follows: • Improvements to lift stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15. • Repair and replacement of sewer pipe sections needed due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to improve flows. • Rehabilitation of existing pipe with "cured in place pipe" to address pipe integrity problems in the sewer pipe system. • Wastewater Treatment Plant Project, including: • Switchgear replacement project; • Incinerator regulatory compliance improvements; -I- 51294014.5 Packet Page 576 of 660 Exhibit C • Control system equipment upgrades; • Facility repair and improvements; • Clarifier coating; • Offsite flow telemetry improvements; • In -plant equipment replacement program; • Solids processing equipment replacement; and • Variable frequency drive installation/replacement. Stormwater System Plan of Additions: A summary of the planned additions and betterments to the stormwater management utility are as follows: Stormwater System Capital Improvements. The stormwater system capital improvement program includes the design, permitting, and construction of flood control and water quality improvement projects. These include projects that will replace pipes, catch basins, and other infrastructure in undersized systems or in those that have reached their useful life; adding stormwater management systems to areas that were annexed from the County in the late 1990s that either had no systems or substandard systems; and City capital projects to build or expand treatment, waste management, and other facilities to meet the water quality requirements of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit administered by the State Department of Ecology. The City will use proceeds of the Bonds to fund a portion of these improvements. A summary of the planned improvements are as follows: • SW Edmonds Basin Study Project #3 — Storm drainage improvements and connect sumps on 238th Street SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System. • Edmonds Marsh Willow Creek Daylighting Pre -design. • Dayton Street & State Route 104 Drainage Improvement Pre -design and Permitting. • Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study and Pre -design. • Drainage improvements for: • Lake Ballinger Associated Projects. • Dayton Street between 6th and 8th Avenues • 88th Avenue W & 194th Street SW • Additional City-wide Drainage Improvements • Low Impact Development Retrofit Projects. • Rehabilitation of Northstream Pipe Under Puget Drive • Goodhope Pond Basin Study • Storm System Video Assessment • Stormwater Fund Contribution to Transportation Projects for Drainage Infrastructure. -2- 51294014.5 Packet Page 577 of 660 Exhibit D Form of UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE City of Edmonds, Washington Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013 The City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") makes the following written Undertaking for the benefit of the holders of the above -referenced bonds (the "Bonds"), for the sole purpose of assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used but not defined below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Listed Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB: (i) Annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection (2) of this section ("annual financial information"); (ii) Timely notice (not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event) of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non- payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701 — TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material; (8) bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City, as such "Bankruptcy Events" are defined in Rule 15c2-12; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material. -I- 51294014.5 Packet Page 578 of 660 Exhibit D (iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date specified in paragraph (b). (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragraph (a): (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to State local governmental units such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time, which statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (2) [references to the specific sections of the Official Statement to be inserted upon publication of the Official Statement]; (ii) Shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2013; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by specific reference to documents available to the public on the Internet website of the MSRB or filed with the SEC. (c) Amendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the holder of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of Rule 15c2-12 which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to the MSRB. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated -2- 51294014.5 Packet Page 579 of 660 Exhibit D person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court. (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance Director of the City or his or her designee is authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out this Undertaking in accordance with Rule 15c2- 12, including, without limitation, the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection (a) has occurred, assessing its materiality, where necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and preparing and disseminating any required notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated person" within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of listed events for that person in accordance with Rule 15c2-12; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. -3- 51294014.5 Packet Page 580 of 660 CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a [regular] meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on , 2013, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City's official newspaper; and 2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON City Clerk 51294014.5 Packet Page 581 of 660 AM-5961 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Quarterly Report - Edmonds Center for the Arts Recommendation Information only. Previous Council Action N/A Committee Action: 10. Narrative A representative from the Edmonds Center for the Arts will present the quarterly report to the City Council. Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/11/2013 04:50 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 03:51 PM Packet Page 582 of 660 AM-5936 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfnrm0+inn Subject Title Update on budget forecast. Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Committee Action: 11. Carolyn LaFave Narrative As a basis for the 2014 budget preparation, Finance has reviewed General Fund revenue trends up to and including year to date information. The purpose of this presentation is to share a current Edmonds General Fund projection and discuss the Finance Department's perspective on the trends as well as what opportunities and challenges are available to and face the City in its 2014 budget and in the years that follow. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 07/10/2013 04:44 PM Dave Earling 07/10/2013 05:00 PM Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 08:43 AM Started On: 07/09/2013 09:00 AM Packet Page 583 of 660 AM-5958 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 SR 104 Mini Park Naming, recommendation from Planning Board. Department: Parks and Recreation Initiated By: City Staff Planning Board Information Subject/Purpose SR 104 Mini Park Naming, recommendation from Planning Board. Staff Recommendation City Council adopt a new name for the SR 104 Mini Park. Previous Board Action 12. At the Planning Board meeting in December 2012, several Planning Board members requested the opportunity to name the SR104 Mini Park. At the Planning Board meeting in May 2013, during the Parks Department update, staff recommended the Planning Board open the process to receive public input for names of the SR104 Mini Park. On June 26, 2013, the Planning Board held a Public Hearing and discussed the recommendation to forward to the City Council. Narrative SR 104 Mini Park is located adjacent to the Ferry holding lanes in downtown Edmonds. This park is owned and operated by the City, and has a variety of amenities, including a restroom, picnic tables and benches, and vending machines. It is heavily used during the peak season by people waiting in the line for the ferries, and by pedestrians enjoying a walk in the downtown area. With the assistance of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Staff, naming proposals were solicited and coincidentally, 104 recommendations were submitted. The Planning Board sub committee received the proposed names on June 4, 2013 to discuss prior to the meeting. The complete list of names submitted, an attachment that accompanied an entry, the Park Naming policy, and the SR 104 Park naming flyer is attached for the Planning Board's review. The Plannning Board then held a Public Hearing on June 26th to consider the names that were submitted. After testimony and discussion, the Planning Board is forwarding the reccomendation of Richard F. Anway Park for consideration by the City Council. Attached are the draft minutes from the Planning Board, the submissions for the park naming, the Park Packet Page 584 of 660 Naming Policy, and the SR104 Park naming flyer that was used. Entries for naming of SR 104 Mini Park Attachment from one entry SR 104 Park Naming Flyer Park Naming Policy Draft minutes from Planning Board 6/26/13 Inbox Planning Department Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Rob Chave 07/11/2013 05:01 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 11:55 AM Packet Page 585 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK 1. The Robert "Buck" Weaver Buck is a long-time Edmonds resident. He, at 94 years, is still very active in Kiwanis, VFW, and other Edmonds things. A WW2 fighter pilot Memorial Park with 187 combat missions in the Pacific, he is a true "Treasure" of this town. 2. Ferryview As the name suggests, we view the ferries from this park. 3. Waterways Encompasses the many features of the Edmonds waterfront. 4. Michael Hoban Park For selfless service and ultimate sacrifice for country and community 5. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 6. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 7. Veterans Memorial Park I am a member of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, and I would like to accept the City of Edmond's offer to participate in the process of naming the Mini -Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. I support our Post's suggestion to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 8. Veterans Memorial Park I am a member of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, and I would like to accept the City of Edmond's offer to participate in the process of naming the Mini -Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. I support our Post's suggestion to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 9. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 10. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 11. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 12. J. P. Patches Patch Chris Weeds (J.P.) was a member of our community and well known and loved by all. It would look so nice with bright colors of flowers and statues of balloons, clowns, etc. 13. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 14. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 15. Veterans Memorial Park I am a member of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, and I would like to accept the City of Edmond's offer to participate in the process of naming the Mini -Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. I support our Post's suggestion to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. Packet Page 586 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK 16. Veterans Memorial Park Edmonds does not have a Veterans Memorial Park and we need one. 17. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 18. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 19. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 20. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 21. Veterans Memorial Park To honor all veterans of this city who served our country in war and peace whether living or dead. 22. Veterans Memorial Park I am a member of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, and I would like to accept the City of Edmond's offer to participate in the process of naming the Mini -Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. I support our Post's suggestion to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 23. Veterans Memorial Park I am a member of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, and I would like to accept the City of Edmond's offer to participate in the process of naming the Mini -Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. I support our Post's suggestion to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 24. Veterans Memorial Park Edmonds has a growing community of veterans from recent wars and an established, active group form prior wars. With no existing park recognition for this group we are honor -bound to find a location. Please help us do the right thing and remember all that veterans and their families contribute and give up. 25. Veterans Memorial Park Because Edmonds has no ma.or memorial to veterans. Naming this park "Veterans Memorial Park" will rectify this mistake. 26. Veterans Memorial Park Show gratitude and appreciation in a permanent manner to honor those who have and are serving our country and making the sacrifice. So we won't ever forget. 27. Veterans Memorial Park Honor those who have served our country while risking their lives. 28. Veterans Memorial Park To honor men and women who have served our country. 29. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 30. Veterans Memorial Park I think we need a Veterans Memorial in Edmonds and this is a great way to do it. 31. Veterans Memorial Park In honor of all veterans who have served their country. All gave some, some gave all! In their memory! 32. Veterans Memorial Park On behalf of the 214 members of VFW Post #8870 Edmonds, we thank the City of Edmonds for the opportunity to suggest a name for the Mini -Park. We urge the City Council to name the park Veterans Memorial Park. It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to Packet Page 587 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. In the event the City of Edmonds looks favorably upon our suggestion, VFW Post #8870 is prepared to work with the City to create a suitable commemorative memorial. 33. Veterans Memorial Park To honor those Veterans for their service to our country in preservation of our freedoms 34. Veterans Memorial Park • To honor all our Veterans who are serving and who previously served our great nation in the military forces and to memorialize our fallen heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. • To honor the commitment of our veterans who gave, and continue to give, so much so we can be free. • Memorialize the memory of our veterans who sacrificed all for our great nation. 35. Veterans Memorial Park Edmonds would yet show its continued commitment to honor those who serve and have served — and sacrificed — to defend our great country. Let's memorialize our commitment by naming a park after such incredible individuals. 36. Veterans Memorial Park It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 37. Veterans Memorial Park Edmonds has many vets in our population and this would be an excellent way to honor them. 38. Veterans Memorial Park It is our sacred obligation to honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of those men and women who accepted the responsibility to defend America and sacrificed so much in the discharge of their duties, the creation of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a demonstration of our community's lasting gratitude and the high esteem in which they are held. For those veterans whose memories we honor, their duty is done. It is now our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifices to our great nation. 39. Veterans Memorial Park Because the Veterans deserve their own park. 40. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans and memorialize their commitment to our nation. 41. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of our liberty and freedom. We should memorialize their sacrifice to our nation with a park name. SR104 mini park is the best location for this park. 42. Veterans Memorial Park To honor our wonderful armed forces! 43. Veterans Memorial Park To show honor and appreciation to all veterans of all branches who sacrificed their lives and support for their families while they were away. 44. Veterans Memorial Park This is a great place to honor our vets. Lots of traffic. Great location. 45. Veterans Memorial Park It is what Edmonds represents, especially next to the ferry and senior center. 46. Veterans Memorial Park Because Edmonds is an older community and I have been going to the park for years. 47. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 48. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 49. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 50. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 51. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 52. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 53. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to Packet Page 588 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 54. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 55. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 56. Veterans Memorial Park Edmonds residents have served honorably since the city was founded and richly deserve the recognition of having a park named on their behalf. 57. Richard F. Anway Memorial Park I support naming the park the "Richard F. Anway Memorial Park" in honor of the late Edmonds Police Reserve Captain Richard "Dick" Anway. Officer Anway served over 30 years at the Edmonds Police Department; most of that time as a volunteer. He risked his life on multiple occasions keeping our community safe and was compensated very little for it. One could never miss Dick at the July 4th Parade, downtown Halloween celebration or Christmas Tree Lighting. His service to the department and the greater Edmonds community was nothing short of legendary. Another reason this particular location would be so apropos is Officer Anway's years of service doing ferry traffic control at Sunset SR 104) and Main Street; immediately adjacent to the park itself. Not a holiday weekend would pass without Dick being seen at the intersection managing traffic. He was appreciated by his fellow officers, downtown passerby and ferry commuters alike as a regular icon at the intersection. I remember one ferry commuter who asked me, "Where's Officer Dick?" while I was managing traffic at the intersection after Officer Anway had passed. When I delivered the sad news of his death, the commuter actually began to tear up and commented that seeing Dick was "the favorite part of my commute home." Officer Anway was such a regular at the intersection that even those who routinely drove through the neighborhood and never knew his name recognized the silver -haired officer that was regularly there. What better way to recognize such a significant pillar and icon in our community than a park adjacent to where he spent so much of his professional time and service? That Officer Anway would never have dreamed of having a park named after him is testimony to his humility. That the city of Edmonds would name this park after him is testimony to how much this community and those of us fortunate enough to know Dick want to honor his decades of service to the public. I would savor the opportunity to bring my three boys to "Anway Park" and be able to tell them the stories of my time serving alongside one of Edmonds' true heroes. 58. Veterans Memorial Park Acknowledges our veteran's service, sacrifice and our debt to them. 59. Anway Park or Dick Anway Dick Anway was a devoted reserve police officer for Edmonds. He volunteered to spend many, many holidays directing ferry traffic so the Memorial Park regular police officers could have time off with their families. 60. Braverly Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 61. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 62. Veterans Memorial Park What better way to honor our Veterans. 63. Veterans Memorial Park No one, can deserve it more. 64. Richard F. Anway Park or Anway Officer Anway served the City of Edmonds for over 30 years. Every weekend or holiday, Officer Anway was working the ferry holding lanes Park and directing traffic, so other officers can stay home with their families. 65. Richard "Dick" F. Anway Richard "Dick" Anway served the residents of Edmonds as a reserve police officer for 37 years. He spent many hours working at the ferry Memorial Park dock directing traffic. 66. Veterans Memorial Park Should be chosen ... to recognize and honor those who have served our Country and stand ready if necessary, to serve again if need be. 67. Veterans Memorial Park This name should be chosen to honor the true heros of our American history. 68. Veterans Memorial Park We have no veterans memorial that I know of and they deserve it. 69. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the men and women who served and sacrificed for our country. 70. Veterans Memorial Park Veterans should be recognized in every community and here the water is very fitting. Packet Page 589 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK 71. Veterans Memorial Park I'm a veteran of World War ll. I'm 87 years old, a member of the American Legion and VFW. The name would sound better than SR104 Park. 72. Veterans Memorial Park To honor veterans of our armed forces. 73. Veterans Memorial Park We do not have a park honoring vets — so we need to do this. 74. Veterans Memorial Park So many towns and cities in Washington have a memorial park for Veterans of all wars. This is a great use of this park. 75. Veterans Memorial Park We need to support the troops!! 76. Veterans Memorial Park This will be a wonderful tribute to veterans of all forces that are from Edmonds. 77. Veterans Memorial Park To honor our veterans. 78. Veterans Memorial Park Great to honor our veterans. 79. Veterans Memorial Park We do not do enough to support our vets. Name says it all. 80. Dick Anway Memorial Park Dick was a longtime Edmonds resident and reserve police officer. He directed ferry traffic from the area of the park for many years. Was always available to work at a moments notice. 81. Veterans Memorial Park It's fitting. 82. Veterans Memorial Park In honor of all of the service men and women who have served our country. 83. Richard Anway Memorial Park Richard "Dick" Anway passed away recently. He was a reserve Officer with the City of Edmonds Police Department for over 30 years. Anway gave the bulk of his time to helping organize events in the City. He was the go to guy for organizing and arranging the police presence, routes and safety for the public at parades, festivals and fireworks. He knew every inch of the City of Edmonds and used that knowledge to make sure traffic and people could get to and from these big events safely and with the least amount of hassle possible for all. Dick Anway had a huge heart and truly cared about his fellow man and fellow Officers. He always had a smile and a greeting for people. This park location struck most of us at the Police Department as perfect for another reason. While Richard Anway served the City as a reserve Officer for over 30 years, it was not a real paying prospect. Most of his time was donated and the time that wasn't was not a money maker. He was a public servant at the core. He did however, work directing traffic at the Ferry lanes. He was a frequent face and always ready with a joke or a laugh for fellow officers and for the public who passed through his lanes. He was patient with those who were confused or lost and quite often would answer the same questions about "when is the next boat" many, many, many times without any frustration and with a smile on his face. Richard Anway is missed by all at the Police Department and many people in the community. I believe that there couldn't be a better location for a park to remember him! 84. Richard (Dick) Anway Memorial I have recently become aware that the city is looking at naming a park by the ferry holding names. After finding out about this I thought that Park naming it something like Richard (Dick) Anway Memorial Park simply because of the time he spent working ferry traffic and the constant contributions he made to the City of Edmonds and the Police Department. I recently read Sgt. Ploegers submission to this committee and now can only further agree Richard Anway is the name that should be and is most appropriately placed as an attachment to the park. 85. Richard Anway Memorial Park Please consider naming the park as Richard "Dick" Anway Memorial Park. 86. Richard Anway Park I couldn't think of a better memorial, he would have been honored. 87. Richard Anway Memorial Park It has come to my attention that a park in "Anway's area" is looking for a name. I say Anway's area as it is where he spent so much of his time and his career while being a Reserve Officer for the Edmonds Police Department and while working the off -duty ferry traffic j. Dick was a great resource, and a great friend, to the Police Department. He was so willing to step in whenever or to whatever role he was needed. As a reserve officer, they filled in on shifts that were short or if someone was unable to work. Dick also volunteered for so many of the Holidays to allow others to stay home with their families. He was very generous in nature. I would think he would be even more humbled by having a park named after him. Those of us at the Police Department would also be thrilled to see him be recognized and remembered by others as well. 88. Richard "Dick" Anway I too worked with Richard 'Dick' Anway for many years and will not ever forget seeing his face on a regular basis working the ferry lanes just Packet Page 590 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK next to our unnamed park. Others have expressed my sentiments exactly. 89. Richard Anway Memorial Park Dick Anway was an Edmonds resident that dedicated over 30 years of his life to serving the citizens of the City of Edmonds as a Reserve Police Officer. He didn't do this for money or the recognition; he did it out of a sense of service to his community. This location is fitting as Dick Anway spent every weekend I can remember working traffic control at the ferry dock wearing an Edmonds Police Uniform. He worked down there when he knew it would be a busy weekend. He worked down there on the holidays so other officers could have the time off to spend with their families. He worked down there whenever someone needed him. This would be a perfect location for the Richard Anway Memorial Park. I've attached a photo of Dick from 2009, working ferry traffic in the holding lanes at Sunset and Main St. 90. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 91. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 92. Veterans Memorial Park To honor the memory of our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom and the American way. We need to memorialize their commitment to our great nation. 93. Veterans Memorial Park More and more, our veterans need to be honored — a simple way to do it. 94. Veterans Memorial Park There is no memorial for veterans in Edmonds. 95. Veterans Memorial Park We need to honor our men and women who have fought for us. This park is in a visible place yet secluded bringing a sense of peace — very fitting for a memorial park. 96. Veterans Memorial Park It would be appropriate to honor our vets with a noteworthy memorial and site — one that would be prominent yet discreet, seen by a large number of visitors. 97. Richard "Dick" Anway Park I had the pleasure of working with him and I concur with the public servant role Dick did for the City never asking for anything in return. He loved Edmonds, the people, and was a longtime resident until his passing. 98. Richard Anway Memorial Park Dick was a reserve police officer with EPD for 30 years. He gave of his time generously to the city and to its citizens. He was a caring and good person —just the type of person we all want as a member of law enforcement in our community. Dick also spent countless hours directing ferry traffic, and was often the one who worked holidays so that other police officers could have the day off with their families. If there ever was one who would give someone the proverbial "shirt off his back", it was Dick. He was well known for doing the many extra things to help his fellow human beings — providing transportation, a jump start for a dead battery, giving funds out of his own pocket to help someone in need, unlocking a car with keys left in the ignition, talking with a kid to make a positive impression of law enforcement. Everyone loved Dick — a kind man with a gentle spirit. Naming a park in his honor, adjacent to the ferry holding lanes, is absolutely the perfect way to remember Richard Anway. 99. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 100. Veterans Memorial Park To forever honor all the men and women who have honorably served our country in the past, present or future and for those who died while serving. 101. Richard Anway Park I believe Richard Anway Park is the most fitting name for the park at 131 Sunset. Richard Anway was a local Police officer in the City of Edmonds for over 30 years. Richard (Dick) was very well known in the Edmonds' community. Dick worked off duty at the ferry dock for most of his 30 years at Edmond's PD. Sometimes working more than 30 hours a week at the ferry lanes alone. I In fact know Dick would sometimes catch some rays in the park, and grab a snack while in the park. I also know that if you asked any Edmonds Police Officer or Ferry Employee they would have very fond things to say about him and somewhere in the conversation the ferry terminal would come up. 102. Richard Anway Park I believe Richard Anway Park is the best option for the 131 Sunset St Park. Richard Anway was a local police officer in the City of Edmonds for over 30 years. I was a Police Explorer in Edmonds. I worked with Richard (Dick) on a day to day basis at every event in Edmonds. Dick was the most popular member in the department among staff. Dick worked off duty at the ferry dock for most of his 30 years at Edmond's PD. He would work holidays so Officers with family could be at home with them. Sometimes working more than 30 hours a week at the ferry lanes alone. Dick passed away in 2010. And i know that Dick would love to see that he was recognized for his 30+ years Packet Page 591 of 660 PARK NAMING ENTRIES - SR104 MINI PARK of hard work for the Edmonds Community. I also know that if you asked any Edmonds Police Officer or Ferry Employee they would have very fond things to say about him and somewhere in the conversation the ferry terminal would come up. 103. Anway Park or Richard Anway I would like to suggest that the mini park be dedicated to Richard Anway. Dick was a reserve Officer with the City of Edmonds Police Park Department and truly was dedicated to the citizens of Edmonds. He helped keep Edmonds a wonderful place to live, work and play for many years. Dick was a face for Edmonds to the ferry traffic coming through our city. I can think of no better name for a park located near the ferry where Dick spent so much of his time. 104. Richard Anway Memorial Park Richard (Dick) was an iconic figure in the ferry holding lanes; down at the terminal to direct traffic for over 30 years. He lived nearby (by the sewer treatment plant) and always made himself available to come in to work that detail at a moment's notice when traffic was too heavy for the staffing, or when someone called in sick. He routinely stopped by and conversed with the police officers working the ferry traffic detail, the ferry workers, and several of the commuters that use the ferry system. He was very well liked down there, and the park is directly adjacent to where he spent so much of his time. If this name is selected, I would love the opportunity to write a formal dedication script detailing all that Dick did for the community in that area. Packet Page 592 of 660 5 ge 5 a rn I 'A C0031 - SL br � w MR a 211 AJ The City of Edmonds is asking for your input on a name for the SR104 mini park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. We encourage Edmonds' residents to put on their thinking caps and help name this park! Names submitted may provide identity in relation to the following naming guidelines: • The geographic location of the site; this includes descriptive names. • An adjoining neighborhood or street, natural feature or an outstanding feature of the site. • No site shall be given the same name of an existing school site or public facility, except where the sites abut one another. • A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual (living or deceased). • Outstanding accomplishments by an individual for the good of the community. Quality of the contribution should be considered along with the length of service by the individual — this to be fully substantiated by person making recommendation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please submit one name per entry. Entries must be received by 4PM, May 30, 2013. Name Address Edmonds, WA, Zip Phone Email Name this park! Suggested name: Tell us why this name should be chosen: Submit form to: Or email to: parknaming@edmondswa.gov Park Naming Opportunity City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 All suggested names will go to the Planning Board for consideration and a hearing. The Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council has final authority to approve or amend any recommendation. EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 700 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 425.771.0230 Packet Page 596 of 660 City of Edmonds Park Naming Policy Purpose The purpose of the policy is to establish consistent standard procedures and guidelines for the naming of public parklands owned and/or operated by the City of Edmonds. The renaming of parks is strongly discouraged. Policy The naming of City parks, park areas and park facilities shall be the function of the City Council with assistance from Edmonds Planning Board and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Diversity, balance and creativity will be sought during adoption of names. The name selected for a site will be recommended to the Edmonds City Council for approval or amendment. City Council has final authority to approve or amend any recommendation. Objectives A. Provide name identification for individual parks, park areas or park facilities. B. Provide criteria for the process of naming parks, park areas or park facilities. C. Provide opportunities for public input including a public hearing at Planning Board. D. Ensure that the naming of parks, park areas, or park facilities is controlled by the Edmonds City Council through recommendations from the Planning Boarding.. Criteria The naming of parks, park areas, and park facilities should be approached with caution, patience, and deliberation. Names submitted for consideration should provide some form of individual identity in relation to the following: A. The geographic location of the facility; this includes descriptive names. B. An outstanding feature of the facility. C. An adjoining subdivision, street, school, or natural feature. No park shall be given the same name as an existing school site or public facility, except where the sites abut one another. D. A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual (living or deceased). Packet Page 597 of 660 E. An individual or organization that contributed significantly to the acquisition or development of the facility to be named. This can include either a deed or substantial monetary contribution, or contribution toward acquisition and/or development of the park or park facility (typically not less than 50 percent of the value of the property or improvements). F. Outstanding accomplishments by an individual for the good of the community. Quality of the contribution should be considered along with the length of service by the individual — this to be fully substantiated by person making recommendation. G. Any individual who provided an exceptional service in the interest of the park system as a whole. Typically, while serving in a public office, public officials should not be considered as a candidate for naming. Donated Land Parks and park facilities that are donated to the City can be named by deed restriction by the donor (i.e. Hutt Park in Edmonds). The naming and acceptance of land is subject to recommendation by the Planning Board and approval by City Council. Naming rights are not guaranteed if the donation of parkland is a dedication as required by the subdivision ordinance (parkland dedication). Naming Process Parks Department staff will notify the Planning Board about proposed naming opportunities. The recommendation of the Planning Board will be subject to final approval or amendment by City Council action. 1. Temporary Naming In the case of a new project, a temporary name will be designated by the City staff for identification during acquisition and/or development of the park area or park facility. Because temporary designations tend to be retained, the naming process for a new park should be carried out as quickly as possible after its acquisition or development. 2. Permanent Naming Citizen involvement in the naming process is encouraged and may be accomplished in a variety of ways throughout the naming process. A. Individuals, groups and/or organizations interested in proposing a name for an existing un-named park area or park facility may do so in writing using a "Park Naming Form" that outlines the naming criteria. These will Packet Page 598 of 660 be presented to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department for consideration by the Planning Board. B. A variety of means to encourage public participation to submit a name (citizen contests, recommendations from previous owners, historical review of the site, etc.) may be implemented by the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department at the request of the Planning Board. The "Park Naming Form" will be available through the City website, copies available at City Hall and the Anderson Center, and publicity through Public Service Announcements, Channel 21, and other means. C. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed names.. D. The Planning Board will make a naming recommendation to the City Council for final adoption or amendment. 3. Park Renaming Critical examination will be conducted to ensure that renaming the park will not diminish the original justification for the name or the prior contributors. Renaming will follow the same procedures as naming the park. A. Only parks and facilities named for geographic location, outstanding feature or subdivision should be considered for renaming. Parks that have been named by deed restriction shall not be considered for renaming. B. Parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it is found that because of the individual's character the continued use of their name would not be in the best interest of the community. Packet Page 599 of 660 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 26, 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 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Ian Duncan Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Mike Delilla, Utilities Engineer Ren6e McRae, Recreation Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20130006) Mr. Delilla said he was present to present the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and solicit feedback from both the Board and the public in preparation for a public hearing before the City Council. He explained that the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It guides the operation of the City's Sewer Utility by identifying and proposing solutions to known conveyance, maintenance and other problems; detailing the actions necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal State and local requirements; and presenting an operation and maintenance plan, capital improvement plan, and financial plan. Mr. Delilla explained that because Edmonds is primarily a built -out City, most of the identified Sanitary Sewer issues are a result of aging infrastructure, current size of infrastructure in relation to current and future population, root intrusion, and Packet Page 600 of 660 infiltration and inflow. He noted that most of the pipes date back to the 1950's and before, with some as old as the 1920s. He advised that the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2006. The purpose of the update is to reprioritize capital projects, reflect the actual changes in population growth that have occurred, accommodate future population growth projections based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the Planning Department, incorporate the wastewater treatment plant plan, and improve record tracing methods. Mr. Delilla pointed out that in addition to treating flows from properties in Edmonds, the City's treatment plant also treats effluent from the Ronald Wastewater District, the Olympic View Sewer District, and nearly all of the effluent from Mountlake Terrace. The City has agreements with each of these entities to pay for their respective portions of the facility. Mr. Delilla reported that since 2006, the City has significantly improved their tracking methods to identify current and potential issues in the pipe system. Every three years, the City sends a camera device into each pipe reach to record the existing conditions and provide visual data to identify potential problems. In addition, they now have the entire sanitary sewer system on a GIS Map. This enables them to tie the entire facility into real world coordinates to provide a good feel for the slope of the pipe in relationship to other pipes in the area. They also collect meter data from various locations in the City, and this allows them to bill other entities fairly for the service. Mr. Delilla advised that the City's current system has 10 flow meters, 3,200 manholes, and 679,227 miles of sanitary sewer pipe main. They have 14 lift stations and 1 wastewater treatment plant with 3 primary clarifiers, 3 aeration basins, 3 secondary clarifiers and 1 incinerator. He reviewed that the proposed plan update identifies the following capital projects: • Conveyance Projects. The goal of the plan is to provide a basic or essential level of service for the sanitary sewer utility. The City is currently working to complete citywide pipe replacement and restoration projects to correct issues related to excessive root intrusion, conveyance problems and old/damaged pipes. • Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plan calls for replacement of the emergency power switchgear system, which is used in the event of a power failure. The plan also identifies changes that are necessary to ensure the incinerator meets the regulatory requirements and recoating the clarifiers. Mr. Delilla advised that 100% of the Sanitary Sewer Utility is rate funded. Fees collected for the utility have been used for an increased number of items. Projects are driven by aging infrastructure that requires more maintenance as time goes by and as population and development increases. Any utility rate adjustment would require approval by the Edmonds City Council. Board Member Lovell asked if the update takes into account potential development that might occur on Highway 99, the hospital district, Harbor Square and the waterfront to ensure there is adequate capacity within the existing piping system. Mr. Delilla answered that the update incorporates the population growth data provided by the PSRC. In addition, he met with the Planning Manager to coordinate where the growth is anticipated to occur. A growth model was prepared, assigning an effluent factor to each of the areas where population is expected to grow significantly. The proposed plan addresses future capacity up to the years 2019, 2033 and ultimate build out of the City. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed plan would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate a substantial amount of multi -family development in any of the areas mentioned above. Mr. Delilla answered affirmatively and noted that the treatment plant is currently under capacity. Board Member Lovell referred to the two cost studies that were done for treatment and conveyance and maintenance and operations. He said it appears that the treatment and conveyance costs could be covered by increased rates, but the total package would require some subsidy. Mr. Delilla answered that the intent is for all costs associated with the Sanitary Sewer Utility to be funded by rate payers, and increases may be required. At this time, the City pays for about 50% of the costs of maintenance and operation, and the other entities share the remaining costs. Board Member Lovell observed that the plan does not appear to implement any infrastructure that would allow the City to reclaim and reuse the treated water. Mr. Delilla said he does not anticipate the City will implement a reclamation program within the six -year timeframe of the proposed plan. He pointed out that there are stringent regulatory requirements associated with reclaimed water. In addition, the treatment plant is site constrained and there is little room for the added infrastructure. He summarized that a study would be necessary to determine the feasibility of water reclamation, and this goes beyond the scope of the current update. Vice Chair Stewart said she is aware of a model program that has been implemented in both Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 601 of 660 Portland and IslandWood where a trademark system has been developed for reclaiming water. She suggested that perhaps this same type of system could be implemented at Harbor Square. Vice Chair Stewart observed that there is a worldwide trend to use alternative materials to get away from Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) because of expected life and the environmental impacts that occur in the production of PVC. She said she hopes the City will consider using an alternative material. She noted that several studies have been done on the various types of materials, and she agreed to forward the information she collected to staff. She said it does not appear that Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) would cost significantly more than PVC, and it is more environmentally friendly. Board Member Ellis said it appears from the report that all of the treated water is currently discharged into Puget Sound. He asked if it would be possible for this water to be utilized for secondary uses. Mr. Delilla agreed that would be possible, but it would require a second level of infrastructure for storage and conveyance and space at the current treatment plan for additional infrastructure is limited. Board Member Ellis pointed out the water reclamation would also be seasonal in Edmonds. Board Member Lovell asked how the projects in the Capital Improvement Plan were prioritized. Mr. Delilla answered that cameras are placed inside the pipes to ascertain their condition and identify potential problems in each of the pipes. Each problem is given a score, and the projects with the worst scores are given a higher priority in the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that projects that address conveyance problems are typically given priority. Board Member Lovell commented on the good plan prepared by staff and said it is great to see a plan that can actually be funded and implemented. Chair Reed pointed out that the draft plan provided in the Staff Report did not include Section 10 (Operations and Maintenance Program) and Section 11(Wastewater Treatment Facility Financial Plan). However, Mr. Delilla did provide a summary of each of the sections, and the actual documents will be included in the draft plan that is presented to the City Council for approval. Vice Chair Stewart asked which pipes typically require the most repair and maintenance. Mr. Delilla said root intrusion is a serious problem and is more difficult to address. Many of the pipes are old, and people have planted trees on top or nearby. As the tree roots grow, they often find their way into the pipes, eventually blocking the flow. There are also areas in the City where soils are poor and can expand and contract based on moisture. This can complicate the construction and reconstruction of the pipe, as well. Vice Chair Stewart asked if broken pipes are removed and recycled. Mr. Delilla answered that the majority of the City's pipes are concrete, which is recyclable. Again, he summarized that the current conveyance system is old, and the City is working to address the problems and be more proactive in the future. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONE OF PARCELS LOCATED AT 403 AND 405 — 3RD AVENUE NORTH (FILE NUMBER PLN20130030) Chair Reed reminded the Board that the rezone application is a quasi-judicial matter. He invited Board Members to disclose any communications that might have had regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing. None of the Board Members indicated an ex parte communication. Mr. Clugston advised that a site -specific rezone is a Type IV-B application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 602 of 660 Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. After conducting a public hearing and reviewing the Staff Report, the Board can vote to adopt the findings in the Staff Report or modify the findings as appropriate. Mr. Clugston advised that the property is located at 403 and 405 — 3rd Avenue North and is currently developed with two single-family residential homes. The parcel is zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM) 3.0 with a contract that was established in 1999. Prior to 1999, the parcel was zoned Single -Family Residential (RS) 6. The Edmonds Center for the Arts is located to the east of the subject property, and the downtown business (BD) zones are located to the south. The RS-6 zones to the east, west and north are primarily developed with single-family residences, while the RM and BD -zoned parcels to the south are developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The property immediately to the south is zoned RM-1.5 and is currently developed as an 8-unit condominium. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site as Multi -Family Medium Density, with Multi -Family High Density to the south. Board Member Lovell asked about the vehicular access for the two homes on the subject property. Mr. Clugston answered that one home is accessible from the street, and the other from an alleyway. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 13, which is an oblique aerial photograph of the subject property. He explained that the 1999 contract rezone limited development on the site to two, single-family units, and that is how the site is currently developed. The first home was constructed prior to the 1999 rezone, but was remodeled in 2007 to add a second story. The second structure was built after the rezone. Both the second structure and the addition on the first structure met the zoning code that was in place at the time of construction. Mr. Clugston explained that the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned from RM-3 with a contract to RM-2.4 with no contract, and the stated intent of the rezone is to allow for an additional dwelling unit at 403 — 3rd Avenue North. He reviewed the six criteria that must be considered when reviewing rezone applications as follows: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston explained that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcel is Multi Family -Medium Density, and compatible zoning classifications for this designation include both RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. Therefore, the proposed RM-2.4 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Clugston said the Board should keep in mind that, if approved, the rezone would eliminate the restrictions placed on development of the parcel in 1999, which specifically prohibits some RM-zone uses such as community facilities, boarding and rooming houses, bus stops and shelters. While these uses could be established if the subject property is rezoned, the applicant has indicated the intent now is to simply establish another dwelling unit within 403 — 3rd Avenue North. However, in the absence of a contract, there is nothing to prohibit the complete redevelopment of the site to RM-2.4 standards or the establishment of any of the permitted or conditionally -permitted uses allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. The purpose of the 1999 contract rezone was to create a "transition" or buffer between the RS-6 properties to the north and the RM- 1.5 zoned property to the south. The Planning Board and City Council found this transition to be compatible with the zoning ordinance at the time. If the rezone is approved, the applicant could redevelop the property into a residential triplex or some type of office building, both of which are allowed in the RM-2.4 zone, and the buffer for single-family residential properties would be lost. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Once again, Mr. Clugston said the applicant has indicated that the intent of the rezone is to create an additional dwelling unit within the 403 — 3rd Avenue North structure without altering the external appearance of the building and site. While this action would likely result in little change and fit fairly well with surrounding development, the rezone could alter the relationship of the subject site with respect to the surrounding area since the current or future owners could redevelop the site more fully in accordance with the standards from the RM-2.4 zone. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Clugston pointed out that with the exception of the remodel that was done on the 403 house and the addition of the 405 house, the character of the immediate and surrounding area has remained Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 603 of 660 unchanged since the 8-unit condominium was constructed in 1995 and the contract rezone was approved in 1999. There has not been significant change in City policy or the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the vicinity in the last 20 years, either. The 4"' Avenue Cultural Corridor concept was developed in 2003-2005 and was subsequently included as an element of the Comprehensive Plan in 2006, but it applies to the parcels on 4"' Avenue, south of the Edmonds Center for the Arts and not on 3rd Avenue. The Downtown Business (BD) zones were created in 2007 to simply replace the Community Business (BC) classification on the zoning map. Board Member Ellis pointed out that although the property to the south is zoned RM-1.5, many of the lots are still developed with single-family homes. Mr. Clugston noted that some of the single-family homes have been remodeled to accommodate uses other than residential. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Clugston said it does not appear the property would be suitable under the proposed RM-2.4 zoning. RM-2.4 zoning would increase the required setback from 5 to 10 feet, making the north and south portions of the existing building nonconforming. In addition, it does not appear that adequate off-street parking can be obtained as the structures are currently configured. As per code, no parking spaces may be located within the street setback. The structure currently has a two -car garage that provides the required off-street parking spaces for the single-family dwelling unit. If a duplex was allowed through approval of the rezone, additional off-street spaces would be required. Based on the length of the driveway and the required size of off-street parking spaces, there is currently not enough room on the driveway to establish the additional required spaces and significant changes to the structure would have to be made. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. The property owner would realize increased value and income if the 403 unit were altered to be used as a duplex as envisioned by the proposed rezone. There would also be a small gain in tax valuation if the duplex use was established. Chair Reed recalled that the current contract restricts the uses on the site. He asked if staff discussed with the applicant the option of placing similar restriction on the proposed new zone. Mr. Clugston said the issue may have been briefly discussed at the counter, but when the application was submitted, it was for a straight RM-2.4 zone. Even if approved with contract restrictions, parking would still be a problem and the setbacks would be nonconforming. Because the front unit was recently remodeled and the back unit was constructed in 2002, he does not anticipate the applicant will want to redevelop the site to accommodate new uses. Chair Reed noted that the subject property is 8,621 square feet in size. Board Member Lovell referred to the existing site plan for the subject property (Attachment 10) and pointed out that the side setbacks for the existing buildings appear to be out of compliance with the setback table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.30.030. As per the table, an RM-3 zone requires a side setback of 15 feet. Mr. Clugston advised that there is a caveat in the RM development standards that allows a developer to apply the RS setbacks to RS development in an RM-zone if the lot is less than 10,000 square feet. The side setback for RS zones is 5 feet. Board Member Ellis observed that the side setback would be nonconforming if the site is rezoned and the front unit is converted into a duplex because the property owner would no longer be able to apply the RS setback standards. Board Member Lovell said that, in a recent visit to the subject property, he found that the front unit appears to have been remodeled within the past year. Mr. Clugston said the remodel work was completed in 2008. A second story was added to transition the unit from a ramble to a two-story dwelling. Board Member Tibbott inquired about the size of the two structures. Mr. Clugston answered that the front unit is about 2,230 square feet, and the back unit is about 2,000 square feet. Board Member Tibbott asked how the size of the two structures compares with surrounding development. Mr. Clugston said the surrounding single-family homes are primarily ramblers that are between 1,400 and 1,600 square feet. Board Member Duncan pointed out that the subject property is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as being a single transition lot between RM-1.5 and RS-6 zones. He asked how this lot came to be designated as a transition lot. Mr. Chave explained that when the 1999 rezone was approved, the Comprehensive Plan was more general. It was later updated to be more parcel specific. It is likely the Comprehensive Plan was drawn to conform to the 1999 rezone decision. Since no other applicants had asked for a similar transition, the zoning remained the way it is. Board Member Duncan asked if neighboring property Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 604 of 660 owners would be allowed to rezone properties to become transition zones. Mr. Clugston explained that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended in order to rezone an RS-6 lot because the current land use is low -density residential. Board Member Ellis asked if the height limit for the subject property would change as a result of the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered that the height limit would remain the same. Board Member Ellis summarized that, if the rezone is granted, the applicant plans to convert the front unit to a duplex. However, an RM-2.4 zoning designation would also allow three single-family units or a triplex on the site. The side setbacks would remain in conformance if the site were redeveloped into three separate residential units, but the existing structures would be nonconforming if a duplex or triplex were constructed on the site. Steve Cohn, Applicant's Representative, said he has been a city planner for about 33 years, mostly working in King County suburban cities. He is semi -retired and has recently been doing consulting work for Sound Transit. He has known the applicant, Helena Parker, for 25 years, and agreed to help her with the rezone proposal. He focused his presentation on the six criteria that must be satisfied in order for the City Council to approve a rezone. He reviewed how the proposal is consistent with each of the criteria as follows: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cohn said the site is designated Multi Family -Medium Density in the Comprehensive Plan, and this designation permits both RM-3.0 and RM-2.4 zoning classifications. In addition, the proposal is consistent with a number of goals in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan: • Goal H calls for providing a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and compatible with the established character of the community. • Goal I calls for providing housing opportunities within activity centers consistent with the land use, transportation and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cohn summarized that the proposal will provide a choice for potential residents who want to live close to the downtown but do not want to be in a single-family home or in a three-story apartment or condominium. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Cohn explained that the first listed purpose of the RM zone is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. As noted in the Staff Report, the site is a transition zone. The question before the Board is whether or not there will be any real difference in impacts between development of the site under the existing RM-3.0 zone versus the proposed RM-2.4 zone. He noted that the RM-2.4 zone would permit one additional unit. He expressed his belief that if parking can be sited according to the regulations, if other code requirements can be met, and if there will be no exterior changes to the structure, then the impacts would be negligible. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. Mr. Cohn explained that the intent of the rezone is to permit one additional dwelling unit on the property. As the Staff Report states, this would result in little impact to the surrounding area. He expressed his belief that it is extremely unlikely that the property will be used for another use because the size and configuration of the existing front structure does not lend itself to another use and consolidation of the two structures would be difficult and expensive given they are under separate ownership. In the unlikely event that a future owner decides to develop another use in the existing structure, the impacts would be minimal because the structure is relatively small. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Cohn said the applicant agrees that there have been no physical changes in the surrounding area for many years, but there have been a number of use changes. In the last 10 years, both the hair salon and a computer repair store opened in vacant buildings near the subject property. Of equal importance are the changes that have occurred in City policy since the property was rezoned in 1999. For example, at the time of the rezone, the property was designated as Single Family Residential according to the rezone hearing record. Since then, it has been changed to Multi Family -Medium Density, which allows both the existing and the proposed zoning Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 605 of 660 designations. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide any direction as to whether RM-3.0 or RM-2.4 zoning would be most appropriate for the site. The designation for the arts corridor was also changed. The edge of the corridor district is less than a block away from the subject property. The purpose of the district is to support a vibrant downtown and art uses in particular. The intent is to intensify the uses in the district that currently are largely residential. Lastly, the downtown was designated as an activity area, which is important because Housing Goals I and I.1 encourage development in activity areas. The subject property is located within walking distance of the activity area. E. Whether theproperty is economically andphysically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Cohn said the main question raised in the Staff Report is whether the required parking could be situated on site given the street setback requirements. The applicant believes that it is possible to configure the parking to meet the requirements, but it will be tight. He agreed with staff that the side setbacks of the existing structures would become non -conforming if the property is rezoned to RM-2.4. The applicant would have to work with staff to modify the setback requirement or wait until the City changes its codes to allow a reduced setback. Another option would be to expand the multi- family zone further to the north. In any case, the applicant would be required to meet all of the City's current zoning requirements in order to create a third unit on the site. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Cohn expressed his belief that there would be a gain to the applicant and to the taxing districts if the rezone occurs and the property is used as a duplex. Other than that, there would be no appreciable impacts to the public. Helene Parker, Applicant, Edmonds, said she owns the property and building at 403 — 3rd Avenue North, but not the property and building at 405 — 3rd Avenue North. When she purchased her unit, it was listed in Snohomish County records as a condominium. Once again, Board Member Lovell referred to the site plan (Attachment 10), as well as a photograph taken in front of the building. He observed that if the front building is converted to two units, a total of four off-street parking spaces would be required, and they cannot be located within the street setback. Mr. Clugston clarified that the size of the units would indicate the number of parking spaces required, but it would likely be four. Board Member Lovell said it appears that only two vehicles can be accommodated in the current site configuration. Mr. Cohn explained that when the application was submitted, he did not realize that tandem parking would not be allowed. There are currently only two parking spaces on the site. He noted that the RM zone requires a 15-foot street setback, and the applicant could conceivably get two additional parking spaces in front of the unit. He acknowledged that parking would have to be addressed before the second unit would be allowed. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that there would be insufficient space to locate parking in front of the unit. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed rezone application and not focus on the specific layout of the site. Mr. Chave agreed that the purpose of the hearing is for the Board to consider whether or not the proposed rezone is consistent with land use patterns in the area. While suitability of the site is important, there may be multiple ways to address potential development other than keeping the property configured the way it is. Board Member Ellis expressed concern that changing the zoning would cause the existing structure to be nonconforming by way of setbacks. Mr. Cohn emphasized that the additional unit would only be allowed if the setback and parking requirements can be met. The applicant is asking for an opportunity to see if it can be done. Board Member Ellis summarized that changing the zoning would not make the building nonconforming. The structure would only be made nonconforming if it is converted into a duplex. Chair Reed recalled staffs earlier comment that if the zoning is changed as proposed, any of the primary and secondary uses allowed in RM zones would be allowed on the subject property with no restrictions. He asked if the applicant considered placing similar restrictions on the proposed rezone so the property would remain residential. Mr. Cohn said the applicant did not consider this option. As a long-time planner, he expressed his view that the unit is so small that most of the things that Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 606 of 660 are allowed in the current RM zone could not be accommodated on the site; and if the use were to change, the impact would be very small. Again, he reminded the Board that any change in use would require the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning code. He expressed his belief that zoning requirements would significantly limit the uses that could occur on the site. IIsmIa01:3a[e0IW.11:11O[efI.%VE4116Wa9J Chair Reed pointed out that staff is recommending denial of the application. If the Board disagrees, they will need to modify the six findings contained in the Staff Report to support their recommendation. Board Member Lovell observed that changing the zoning to RM-2.4 does not appear to do any damage. Staff s findings indicate that the site could be redeveloped in accordance with RM-2.4 zoning, but the existing structures would have to be eliminated. Mr. Clugston said it is difficult to make this determination based on the current layout. It may be possible for the applicant to find adequate space to meet the parking requirement. Mr. Chave clarified that, at this time, the City does not know what the ultimate design proposal will be for the site. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern about the conceivable uses that would be allowed on the subject property if it is rezoned to RM-2.4 with no restrictions. The property seems like an appropriate location for a transition between single- family and multi -family zones. She asked if the applicant has considered converting the top floor of her unit to an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Clugston pointed out that accessory dwelling units are not allowed in multi -family zones. Board Member Ellis clarified that approval of the rezone would not actually create another dwelling unit on the property. The applicant would have to submit a development application to the City that complies with all of the setback, parking and other code requirements before a permit would be granted. He said that staff s recommendation of denial appears to be based mainly on the lack of apparent feasible on -site parking. Mr. Clugston agreed that is part of the reason for the recommendation for denial. But the recommendation is also based on the fact that there has not been a lot of change in surrounding area or in the Comprehensive Plan to warrant the rezone. With the exception of a few buildings that might have changed uses, there has not been a lot of new construction and no changes in zoning. The only change in the Comprehensive Plan was the development of the arts corridor a few blocks away from the subject property. The arts corridor is a site specific area that does not necessarily impact the subject property. Board Member Cloutier asked what transition an RM-3 zone would offer the surrounding properties that an RM-2.4 would not. Mr. Clugston pointed out that either zone would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Board Member Tibbott asked if an RM-3 zone would have more restrictions on use. Mr. Clugston answered that the uses allowed in either zone are the same. However, the property is currently zoned RM-3 with a contract that further limits the uses. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need to restrict the uses as outlined in the 1999 contract rezone. Chair Reed asked if the upper level of the front unit could be occupied by another family if the rezone is approved as presented. Board Member Cloutier advised that the applicant would be required to submit an application to establish the additional dwelling unit, and all the current code requirements would apply. The rezone, itself, will not establish another dwelling unit; all of the setback and parking requirements must be met. If the rezone is approved, the property owner would have the flexibility to make a proposal to adjust the use of the land. Although he concurred with some of staffs points, Board Member Cloutier said he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny the application simply because there has not significant change in the area to warrant the rezone (Criteria D). Board Members Tibbott and Ellis concurred. Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that changing the zoning from RM-3 to RM-2.4 would be a minor change. The applicant is not proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan or the uses allowed. He said he supports the proposed rezone. Board Member Ellis said that when he first read staffs recommendation, he was convinced that the rezone should be denied because he was concerned about creating nonconforming buildings and the problems associated with parking. However, the conversation has convinced him that it is not the Board's charge to resolve these points. The rezone would not create a nonconforming property, but it would allow the property owners to talk about changes in the future. He agreed with Board Member Tibbott that the proposed rezone represents a minor change. Instead of Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 607 of 660 a transition from eight units to two and then one, the transition would be from eight units to three and then to one. He expressed his belief that giving the property owner more flexibility is appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart concurred. Board Member Tibbott said he is still concerned that the rezone would allow for office uses, which is very different than the uses on the multi -family zone to the south. While this change is not likely, it would be possible, and nothing would prevent the property owners to the north, west and east from proposing to do the same thing. Introducing a new zone could result in a number of different uses that could spread to other lots. From his perspective there has not been a lot of change in the neighborhood to warrant a rezone of the subject property and it could set the tone for a different type of development in the future. CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBER AMD20130006 (REZONE OF PARCELS LOCATED AT 403 AND 405 31tD AVENUE NORTH) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the RM-2.4 zoning classification is one of the possible implementing zones for the Multi Family — Medium Density designations. B. Whether the Proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The proposal to rezone the parcel RM-2.4 in order to establish one additional dwelling unit within "Unit A" at 403 — P Avenue North is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances and the zoning district. C. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property. The proposal would be appropriate in relation to the surrounding area. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. There has been sufficient change in the City's policy to justify the rezone. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. The site is currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit within the confines of Unit A at 403 — 34d Avenue North. F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. There is a gain in public health/safety/welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Board Member Ellis noted that Criteria E should be included in the motion as written by staff since it points out that further process is necessary before the project envisioned by the applicant could actually occur. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO REPLACE CRITERIA E WITH THE FOLLOWING: E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. The site is not currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit within the confines of Unit A at 403 — 34d Avenue North. Significant alternations would need to occur to Unit A in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. If the entire site were to be redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for it since the property is flat and located on an arterial. Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 608 of 660 BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED 5-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS DUNCAN AND TIBBOTT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for review and a public hearing. The applicant and other parties of record will be notified of the hearing date. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S PROCESS AND NAMING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SR- 104 MINI PARK (FILE NUMBER AMD20130007) Ms. Hite advised that the SR-104 Mini Park is located adjacent to the ferry holding lanes in downtown Edmonds. It is owned and operated by the City and has a variety of amenities, including a restroom, picnic tables and benches, and vending machines. It is heavily used during the peak season by people waiting in line for the ferry and by pedestrians enjoying a walk in the downtown area. At the request of the Planning Board, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff solicited naming proposals from the community, and 104 recommendations were received. The Planning Board formed a subcommittee to review the proposed names and present a recommendation to the Board. She referred to the complete list of proposed names, which was attached to the Staff Report. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to review the subcommittee's recommendation and solicit public feedback. Following the public hearing, the Board will make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Chair Reed referred to the City's Park Naming Policy, which was adopted approximately three years ago. He noted that staff has followed the policy procedures, as written. It is now up to the Board to review the recommendations, conduct a public hearing, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will take final action. Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, said that, out of respect for the Planning Board's time and energy, he was speaking on behalf of all of those present (fellow veterans, their wives and children). He was also present to speak on behalf of the Edmonds Rotary Day Breakers, the Edmonds Chamber, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and many citizens of Edmonds. He pointed out that there are over 40,000 residents in Edmonds. Most communities of this size across the United States have some type of memorial honoring veterans, but the City of Edmonds does not. They feel it is time that the City honor all those who have served in the armed forces. On behalf of over 1,000 members of the organizations he just outlined, they would like to thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to suggest a name for the SR-104 Mini Park located at 131 Sunset Avenue. He urged the Board to recommend naming the park "Veterans Memorial Park." Mr. Clyborne shared a quote from his commander as follows, "It is our sacred obligation to honor and memorialize all our veterans who sacrificed so much in the defense of liberty, freedom, and the American way. In light of the willingness of these men and women to sacrifice so much in the discharge of their duties, the dedication of Veterans Memorial Park would serve as a symbol of the community's lasting gratitude. For those they honor, their duties are now done, and it is our responsibility to memorialize their commitment and sacrifice to our great nation." Mr. Clyborne said that, in the event the Board looks favorably upon the suggested, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion are prepared to work with the City to create a suitable commemorative memorial. He said he recently learned that the Edmonds Museum is planning to relocate the few memorials that are presently located in front of the museum in the near future. The VFW and American Legion have had discussions with the Museum to relocate the three items, including the stone that lists the names of all the Edmonds veterans that died in combat in the past. It is their intent to relocate the memorials to the Veterans Memorial Park. In addition, they would like to add an education component at the park. If the proposed name is approved and the City embraces the idea of a veterans memorial, the VFW and American Legion is planning to establish an interactive monument in the park that would educate thousands of Edmonds and Woodway youth, as well as those waiting for the ferry, about the history of the country and the important roll service men and women play in preserving the American way of life. He respectfully requested that the Planning Board enthusiastically recommend to the City Council the name Veterans Memorial Park. Michelle Clyborne, Edmonds, said she was present to read the following letter from Maria A. Montalvo, Executive Director, Our Family Foundation, into the record: Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 609 of 660 "Edmonds offers great parks for a great many lucky citizens and visitors. We benefit from the joy and play that we receive from the variety of offerings in our City and County parks. Having a park named for something or someone is a further gift to those who visit it because we can take a moment to learn more about things outside of ourselves. We all likely remember visiting a park in another town or country and reading about who it is named after and what historic event. Our SR-104 Mini Park is the perfect opportunity for Edmonds to embrace an opportunity to allow us to remember important moments in our history, and the people who lived them: Veterans Memorial Park. We all know of the impact that veterans have on the American way of life. The men and women who serve in these wars have been remembered not only for what they were fighting for but for the sacrifices they and their families made. This small park is well -located to show our city's commitment to this important part of our population and make sure we never forget. Edmonds has a number of parents and grandparents of service members. Edmonds Community College is serving a growing number of veteran students (more than 350 and growing), so much so that they are initiating several new programs and campaigns for these veterans. Many of us are lucky enough to be able to work to support veterans and their families every day, as I am. I'd like to share a story about a man, a Soldier, who represents why I am speaking in support of naming SR-104 Mini Park the Veterans Memorial Park. Brian is just like many other 35 yer-old men —a father of three, a husband, a hard worker trying to support his family, and a big sports lover, especially of baseball and football. However, Brian has been deployed in a war zone on and off for several years, and as he prepared to return recently, he lost several of his closest fellow Soldiers. He is coming home to live his life and care for his family, but he will think about those men and women often. He will remember when they were lost and how important each was to their own mother, father, husband, wife, brother, sister, friend. This small park gives Edmonds a chance to show that it remembers them, as well. " Board Member Tibbott reported that the subcommittee considered a number of factors when reviewing the list of proposed names for the SR-104 Mini Park. They noted that the benefit of that particular location is it draws tourists and those passing through the City out of their cars, and the park offers a great opportunity to educate them about other aspects of Edmonds such as the arts and their parks and recreational opportunities. He said the subcommittee is recommending the park be renamed Anway Park to memorialize a man who was well respected by law enforcement and served the community in a variety of ways. It is a compelling choice to immortalize a public servant by naming a park after him. He said the subcommittee did consider naming the park Veterans Memorial Park because there is not a specific park for veterans. While the subcommittee had not heard that the Museum was going to relocate their veteran memorials, there is also a plaque to memorialize veterans in the public plaza by the public safety building. He said the subcommittee also considered the appropriateness of naming the park Veterans Memorial Park given that it is located in traffic and is not a particularly meditative or recreational place. They felt there are or will be better locations in the City for a veterans' memorial park. Again, he said the subcommittee is recommending the name Anway Park to identify with a person who would be known by those who work and use the transportation system. They also expressed a desire to consider ways to improve the park as an educational and informational zone for the rest of Edmonds. Board Member Cloutier clarified that no disrespect to veterans was intended or implied by the subcommittee, as he is also a veteran. He said he supports the name Anway Park because the site is not frequented by Edmonds residents. It is also loud and is used as a place for people waiting for the ferry to let their animals relieve themselves. It is not a place to relax and think about history or to take your kids to play. Mr. Anway served the City for over 30 years in that location as a volunteer. His exemplifies the small town character of Edmonds. Veterans should be memorialized, but he does not think this park is the right location. He suggested there are other locations coming forward that would be more suitable for a veterans memorial. Board Member Lovell suggested that the park be named Richard Anway Memorial Park rather than simply Anway Park. He felt that Anway was too close to Amway, which might confuse the public. He asked if the City has a plan for the future of the park. Ms. Hite answered that there is no master plan for the park, but it offers several park amenities such as a restroom, Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 610 of 660 walking path, vending machines, picnic tables, and a place for concession stands. The park is small and highly utilized by ferry traffic. Board Member Lovell asked if there is adequate space at the park to accommodate memorial events and/or celebrations associated with a memorial park for veterans. He said it does not appear that the site is suitable for this type of use from a size and location standpoint. Ms. Hite pointed out that there is no designated parking for the park, and it is not a destination park. It would not be possible to host events in that location, and it does not have the capacity for large gatherings. The park is too closed off by the ferry holding lanes. She summarized that there is no vehicular access to the park except for those waiting for the ferry. Board Member Lovell recalled that a few months ago, Mayor Earling presented a possible plan to address ferry traffic and the railroad crossing. He provided a rough schematic prepared by David Evans Associates for proving an underground crossing. This would be a major infrastructure project that will need to be addressed at some point. If the plan is implemented, the park would no longer be heavily used by ferry traffic. Chair Reed said he is also a veteran and he respects the service rendered by the service men and women and what they have done for the entire country. He expressed concern that the veterans' memorials that are currently located at the Museum will be relocated or put in storage. They need to find a new location for these three pieces. He said he also supports the name Anway Park as Mr. Anway did a lot to serve the Edmonds community. He said that if he had to choose, he is leaning towards Veterans Memorial Park. Vice Chair Stewart asked where the memorial plaza referenced earlier by Board Member Tibbott is located. Ms. Hite answered that it is located between the Public Safety Building and the Edmonds Museum. It was sponsored by the Sister City Commission, and it does have memorial plaques. Vice Chair Stewart asked if this would be a more suitable place for a veterans memorial plaza. Ms. Hite agreed that this would be a good location for a veterans memorial plaza, but there are likely other places in existing or future City parks that might be appropriate, as well. She agreed to work with the Veterans to look for a more suitable location for a memorial park. Vice Chair Stewart noted that some cities provide a wall that is inscribed with veterans' names. She suggested that a wall would not occupy a lot of space, but it would provide a way to memorialize those who have served our country. She said it is imperative that the City find a suitable location for a memorial to honor veterans. For the Board's information, Ms. Hite provided a photograph showing a front view of the SR-104 Mini Park. She also provided an aerial photograph of the park. Board Member Ellis said he is also a veteran. He acknowledged that numerous people have indicated support for the name Veterans Memorial Park, and he believes the name would be suitable, as well. He commended the veterans for their enthusiasm to make the park better, but he felt a veterans' memorial park deserved a grander location than the SR-104 mini park. A veterans memorial park should be more assessable to people who want to visit and commemorate those who have served. He questioned if it would be possible to capture the veterans' enthusiasm to help the City fmd a better location. Ms. Hite made a commitment to work with the community to try and figure out a more grand and suitable location and bring a recommendation back to the Board. Board Member Ellis requested more information about the Museum's decision to relocate the three veterans' memorials in front of their building. Mr. Clyborne explained that the Museum is interested in restoring the exterior of the building to its original architectural integrity in an effort to obtain national historic recognition. The bell will be given to a school, and the three veterans' memorial will be stored until a new location can be found. Board Member Ellis asked if those who nominated the name Veterans Memorial Park considered the characteristics of the park and the fact that it is not accessible to Edmonds Residents. While it would be great to show those who are passing through Edmonds the great esteem the City has for its veterans, it would not be a great place for Edmonds residents to visit. Mr. Clyborne said they did not consider this viewpoint. He said the veterans generally support a proposal to acquire a better location that is grander and more accessible to residents of the City, but their thinking at the time was that the City currently has nothing to memorialize veterans and the SR-104 Mini Park was an opportunity to remedy the deficiency. They wanted to Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 611 of 660 take advantage of the opportunity. Their original thinking was simplistic, and their goal was to honor all veterans, past, present and future. They considered the installation of flag poles with flags from all branches of the service, and they have already raised some money to fund the project. If they can raise enough money, they would like to provide interactive sculptures for the children visiting the park to play on. He observed that the best way to honor veterans is for children to come out of their cars and play on the sculptures. Mr. Clyborne said he has chaired the 4"' of July event for the Chamber for the past 12 years, and he had the opportunity to work with Dick Anway. He said he is happy to hear that Dick Anway will be honored. Perhaps with the Board and staff's support, they can find another location that is more suitable for a veteran' memorial park. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE BOARD FOREWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE SR-104 MINI PARK BE RENAMED ANWAY PARK. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Reed agreed with Board Member Lovell's previous comment that the park should be named Richard F. Anway Park rather than just Anway Park. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION BY CHANGING THE RECOMMENDED NAME OF THE PARK TO RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK AND ADDING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, IN ADDITION TO RENAMING THE PARK, THE CITY SHOULD INSTALL AN APPROPRIATE PLAQUE TO GIVE CONTEXT AND HISTORY ABOUT MR. ANWAY'S SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION, ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED 5-1-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING AND BOARD MEMBER REED VOTING IN OPPOSITION. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed reviewed the Board's updated extended agenda. He specifically noted that a public hearing regarding changes to the RM-EW and BC-EW zoning standards is scheduled for July loth. Also on July loth, the Board will discuss implementation of the Strategic Plan. He advised that he has reviewed the Strategic Plan and identified the action items that fall within the purview of the Planning Board and/or the Planning Division. He agreed to have a list available for the Board's review on July 1 Oth Chair Reed advised that the Board is tentatively scheduled to continue their work on the Westgate and Five Corners Plans on July 241h. He noted that construction of the Five Corners Roundabout is scheduled to begin in 2014. He said the Board will also discuss potential code amendments regarding the wireless communications regulations on July 241h Mr. Chave announced that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Manager has indicated that the Quarterly Parks Report will be postponed UNTIL September 1 Ith. That leaves an open agenda on August 14th. Chair Reed suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to continue their work on the Five Corners Plan on August 14th Chair Reed reviewed the pending items on the Board's extended agenda, which includes Community Development Code re- organization, Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Plans, further Highway 99 implementation, potential updates to the Economic Development Plan to implement the Strategic Plan, and exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development. Chair Reed announced that the Board would cancel their second meeting in November, which is scheduled the night before Thanksgiving, and their second meeting in December, which is scheduled for Christmas Day. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed thanked Vice Chair Stewart for preparing and presenting the Board's quarterly report to the City Council. He also thanked the Park Naming Subcommittee for their hard work reviewing the proposals for the SR-104 Mini Park. He said he hopes the City can find another suitable location for a memorial to recognize veterans. Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 612 of 660 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Ellis thanked the Park Naming Subcommittee, as well. He said the effort was much harder than he anticipated it would be. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the June 19th Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where it was announced that the EDC has prepared a draft ordinance to limit the amount of office space allowed in the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. They voted to forward the ordinance to the Planning Board for action. Board Member Lovell advised that each of the items in the Strategic Plan that the EDC believes it is responsible for have been assigned to one of the four subcommittees (land use, tourism, technology, and communications). The EDC Chair asked each of the subcommittees to report back with a plan for implementing their assigned action items. Board Member Lovell advised that the EDC's Land Use Subcommittee discussed the concept of potentially designating an area within the City as a planned development area. In conjunction with this effort, the City could undertake a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review that could be used as a governing document when future development proposals are proposed in the planned area. The idea is it would save developers both time and money to have a predetermination made of the environmental impacts. The costs associated with the study would be allocated to developers when projects move forward. He noted that this process has been utilized by the City of Mountlake Terrace. He said he forwarded information from Mountlake Terrace to the EDC, and he would send the information to Planning Division staff, as well. Vice Chair Stewart reported on her attendance at the City Council's Mini Retreat where a portion of the agenda was dedicated to a presentation from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding their responsibility for certain roadways located in Edmonds. There were a number of questions pertaining to the Westgate Plan, but it did not appear that many were addressed. The consultant from the University of Washington team was prepared to present, but she decided to hold her comments for another opportunity. She did, however, answer some questions about the Westgate Plan as it relates to SR-104. A representative from WSDOT mentioned there is a policy that enables them to serve as consultant to towns to help them plan areas such as Westgate. They are willing to put on a workshop for the Planning Board and City Council members to discuss this particular site and forecast what might be the issues and some solutions. Vice Chair Stewart also reported that at the mini retreat, the City Engineer provided a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate some opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as raised crossings, high -intensity cross walks, and bike boxes that allow bicyclists to be ahead of traffic when waiting at intersections. The engineer provided visuals that got those in attendance thinking that there is hope for the intersection to move bicycles, pedestrians and cars. She said it was mentioned that, in general, vehicle miles traveled has plateau or declined in recent years. The prediction is that the level of service on 100th Avenue will not change significantly, depending on how the intersection at 100th Avenue and SR-104 is set up. The engineer was optimistic that things could be worked out. Vice Chair Stewart advised that no action or direction was given by the City Council about whether or not the Board should continue their work on the Westgate Plan. However, there was a favorable response to perhaps having a workshop about the intersection at SR-104 and 100th Avenue to discuss ideas for moving people and traffic in a safe manner. It was emphasized that in terms of grant funding, including plans to improve walkability is a significant plus. Vice Chair Stewart said she recently attended her daughter's 20-year high school reunion where one of her daughter's classmates who lives in Woodway commented that Edmonds is "getting really cool." She mentioned that there was a lot more to do downtown, and there is so much more life. However, she also commented that it is difficult to get a taxi to take you home in the evening. Chair Reed announced that a presentation regarding the Westgate Plan will be made to the City Council on July 23`d Board Member Tibbott commented said he recently walked through the SR-104 Mini Park, which did not take long. He was struck by the overwhelming sound from the ferry traffic and the aroma that permeates the area that will not go away. He said the subcommittee agreed that the City could find a better location for a veterans memorial, and he encouraged the Board to carefully consider upcoming opportunities that would be more suitable than the SR-104 mini park. Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 613 of 660 ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 614 of 660 AM-5900 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Type: Action Information Submitted By: 13. Jana Spellman Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Potential Action: Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new rules of Procedure. Recommendation Request the City Attorney bring to full Council a draft resolution including the four items suggested by Council President Petso. Previous Council Action February 1-2, 2013 Council Retreat: This topic was discussed at Council Retreat and forwarded to the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Below is an excerpt from those minutes: Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 2 "4. CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES A. ROBERT'S RULES Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has been operating for the past 39 years under Resolution No. 292. She acknowledged there are other ways, but she feels Robert's Rules is the best alternative. She referred to Attachment 4, a decision tree for determining whether to continue using Resolution No. 292 or adopt Robert's Rules. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested the City Council adopt a complete set of Robert's Rules as its official rules and distribute a shorter primer on the rules to Councilmembers to allow the Council to familiarize themselves with the rules. Councilmember Johnson suggested training on Robert's Rules be provided during a work session. Summary: Schedule a work session and have an ordinance prepared for review by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee." This agenda item was discussed at the 2/12/2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee. (Attachment Packet Page 615 of 660 5: Feb. 12, 2013 PS/Personnel Committee Minutes). The action taken by the PS/P Committee is in the excerpt below: "Presentation to Council on Robert's Rules of Order is on the extended agenda for our April 16 Council Meeting. Council President Petso will be asked to put the draft resolution adopting Roberts Rules of Order on the agenda for discussion and vote at a Council Meeting following this (April 23 or later)." April 16, 2013 Council Meeting: Ann Macfarlane from Jurassic Parliament made a presentation regarding Robert's Rules of Order. Attached to the agenda memo was a draft Resolution regarding the Council adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new rules of procedure which the Council did not take any action on but moved it to the April 23, 2013 Council agenda. Due to the lateness of the hour, this agenda item was put on the May 7, 2013 Council Agenda. May 7, 2013 Council Meeting: The motion was made and seconded to approve a Resolution adopting Robert's Rules with the four clarifications suggested by Council member Petso. The motion was subsequently withdrawn to allow Councilmembers time to review their Robert's Rules books. The minutes of that meeting are attached. (Attachment 8) June 11, 2013 Council Public Safety/Personnel Committee: The following action was taken: The Committee recommended that 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. Narrative This item is now before the full Council for potential action. Attachments Attachment 1 - Should Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order Attachment 2 - Which Parliamentary Authority Should Council Choose Attachment 3 - A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Attachment 4 - Decision Tree Attachment 5 - 2/12/13 PS/P Committee Minutes Attachment 6 - Draft Resolution regarding Robert's Rules of Order Attachment 7 - Resolution 292 Attachment 8 - 5-7-13 Council Minutes Attachment 9 - Parliamentary Motions Guide Attachment 10 - Proposed Resolution (Final Draft) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/11/2013 05:00 PM Packet Page 616 of 660 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/27/2013 11:34 AM Packet Page 617 of 660 Jurassic ATTACHMENT 9 Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of order? Ann G. Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian "Council/Commission Advisor" published by the Municipal Research S�Services Center of Washington, April 2011 The State of Washington gives city councils wide authority to decide how they will carry on their business: "The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order." RCW 3$A.12,120 Some councils have adopted, by resolution or ordinance, a set of guidelines for this purpose, and others have not. Many of these guidelines include reference to Robert's Rules of order, using such language as "meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order and these council rules of procedure. In case of conflict, the council rules of procedure shall prevail." Recently it was suggested to Jurassic Parliament that Robert's Rules of order is too complicated for small cities and towns, and they would do better not to adopt it. We agree that the book is complicated, but we believe that Robert's Rules still provides the best and most useful set of rules of order for civic bodies in our state —provided that folks are willing to do a little work and learn how to use Robert's Rules properly. our argument runs like this: 1. The fundamental principles in Robert are common to all our civic discourse and are not hard to learn. Everyone participating in council debate and discussion should understand that the majority will rule, that the minority have rights that must be respected, that members have a right to information to help make decisions, that courtesy and respect are required, that all members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, and that members have a right to an efficient meeting. z. The use of written motions and amendments provides an efficient and fair way to consider proposals and modify them in accord with the group's preferences. The method is a little unusual, in that amendments are taken up before the motion is voted on, but once groups get used to it, the system works well. 3. Robert's rule that no one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once is vital to equalizing power imbalances and giving everyone a fair shake in discussion. We believe that it should be observed by all groups, whether or not they have formally adopted Robert. I+ over A` Packet Page 618 of 660 4. Robert provides "special rules for small boards" that can be useful for smaller councils, should they choose to apply them. 5. Robert also allows groups to develop and apply their own "special rules of order," so if a body wishes to change something in Robert, it is perfectly free to do so. 6. In sticky situations, "do-it-yourself" rulemaking can lead to ad hoc invention of rules, likely supplied by the chair on his own authority. A chair who makes up rules or improvises on the basis of vague memories from student government days is a sure path to problems, especially if the rule -maker has an air of authority about him (or her). 7. While councils often rely on their attorney for advice in this arena, in our experience few attorneys have had serious training in parliamentary procedure and few correct the common and widespread misunderstandings about Robert's Rules. 8. A body cannot do its work without some guidelines. Failing to adopt Robert doesn't mean that there are no guidelines —but without a specific "parliamentary authority," in times of conflict a group will be driven back to rely on "common parliamentary law.' Finding out what "common parliamentary law" requires and how it applies to a given situation is likely to be complicated and expensive, requiring time and attention from legal counsel and qualified parliamentary consultants. Far better to have set the terms of discourse in advance, so that everyone knows and agrees to the way they will consider matters. We believe that adopting a set of common-sense guidelines based on Robert's Rules, incorporating Robert by reference for the more unusual or complicated situations that may arise, and then committing to the education necessary to get everyone on the same page, will pay big dividends for every council willing to make the effort. That education can be quite affordable. Every city budget ought to be able to provide a copy of Robert's Rules of order Newly Revised in Brief to each council member. This little book is a splendid summary of the rules applicable to all but the most exceptional situations. At $7.Oo it's an amazing buy, and you can read it in an evening. Should our council adopt Robert's Rules of order? O Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is provided for your personal use Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies provided that the material Is left unchanged_The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament- Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without noticetoyou. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part ofthese servicesfor any purpose_ All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.Jurassic Parliament herebydisdaims all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitnessfor a particular purpose,title and non -infringement- Nothingwritten here constitutes legal or business advice. Readerswith specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authority to address their issue,. 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 98iox TEL 206.542.8422 I FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com E www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 619 of 660 ATTACHMENT 2 Q Jurassic Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? Organizations intending to choose a parliamentary authority to guide their meetings have several different choices. This article describes some common authorities. We welcome feedback from our readers who use any of these authorities about the good points or disadvantages they find in them. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. This is the most commonly used authority in the United States. By some estimates about ninety percent of the voluntary associations in our country use Robert. Widespread use, breadth of coverage, and the availability of many excellent resources on Robert make this book our first choice. However, be warned that over the years, the book has become extremely detailed. At first glance, it is quite intimidating - the current official version is over 800 pages long. Jurassic Parliament offers many tools to help you get the most out of Robert and apply it in a pragmatic way to your meetings. Current version: iith edition. Be sure to use the official text, and not some publisher's knock -off based on earlier, out-of-date versions. See our article "Which Robert's Rules of order Should I Buy?" for guidance on this point. It is also useful to refer to Robert's Rules of Order In Brief - a short volume which is not an authority, but which serves as an introduction to Robert. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Alice Sturgis wrote the original version of this authority, referred to as "TSC" or "Sturgis" It is well -written and easy to follow. Many medical associations use Sturgis as their authority. However, the book does not cover as many situations as Robert, and it shifts some authority from the group itself to the person running the meeting (the presider). This seems more efficient at first glance, but the added authority may go to the presider's head, and cause him or her to behave in a dictatorial fashion. Sturgis also differs from Robert in some parliamentary actions like "to reconsider" or "to fill a blank." Current version: gth edition The Modern Rules of Order. Donald Tortorice prepared this slim volume for the American Bar Association, though the ABA does not use it during its own meetings. A mere 6o pages long, it may seem a tempting choice. However, Michael Malamut, an attorney and professional registered r► over Price $0.99 May not be photocopied Contact our office for multiple copy permission and pricing Packet Page 620 of 660 parliamentarian, has given it a poor review in one of the leading parliamentary journals. He states that the author derived his expertise from sitting through business corporation meetings, not meetings of nonprofit associations, and the result shows in his work. This book includes "typical minutes" and a chart of motions. Current version: 3rd edition. The Democratic Rules of Order. Fred and Peg Francis of British Columbia, Canada wrote these rules, 76 pages. It seems a good compilation of standard procedure, without a lot of detail. Includes a two - page summary and an example of a meeting governed by these rules. Current version: gth edition. Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Dave Rosenberg, a Superior Court Judge in California, has prepared these rules, available as an eight -page PDF on the World Wide Web. The rules seem unobjectionable but obviously do not provide the detail that may be needed in complex situations. We found the mathematics on voting given in the addendum to be rather peculiar. Many legislatures in the U.S. use Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Professional parliamentar- ians may turn to Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure and Riddich's Rules of Procedure. Bourinot's Rules of order is widely used in Canada. Hugh Cannon has written Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of order, a lively introduction. And if all else fails, you can turn to Thomas Jefferson for A Manu al of Parliamentary Procedure. We welcome suggestions about adding to this list or modifying the descriptions. Contact us at info @jurassicparliament.com. Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? © Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is sold for the personal use of the purchaser. Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies it number according tothe license which you have purchased. The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any Information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament. Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without notice to you. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office, URi-wwwJurassicparliament,com. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part of these services for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided `as is" without warrantyof anykind. Jurassic Parliament hereby disclaims ail warranties and conditions with regard to this information, indtiding all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non -infringement. Nothing written here constitutes legal cr business advice. Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authorityto address their issues. urass1C 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 983oa TEL 206.542.8422 1 FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com I www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 621 of 660 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Posted on November 5. 2012 by Byron Katsuyame One of the things that has always fascinated me as a student and observer of local government has been the process that local legislative bodies use to discuss, debate, and formulate policy decisions. To my- mind, much of what constitutes "good government" is a direct consequence of an open, fair, and effective legislative decision - making process. The open and fair parts are regulated by state laws relating to issues such as campaign finance reporting, public records disclosure, and open public meetings. Effectiveness, on the other hand, is Ieft to the local legislative body. While there are a lot of moving parts in this process and, therefore, lots of opportunities to improve it, one critical aspect, and the focus of this blog post, has to do with the way local legislative bodies deliberate on the policy issues that come before them. When acting in their formal legislative capacity, local councils come together for a very specialized purpose — to discuss, debate, and finally decide on important issues affecting their communities. It is at this point during the give and take of their policy discussions, where arguments are put forth, opinions are swayed, and votes are taken. It's not true that councilmembers always come to such meetings with their minds already made up, as some citizens and members of the press seem to think. So, it is important not only that these discussions take place, but that they be conducted in ways that promote the best possible exchange of information and ideas. To this end, one simple but effective technique designed to improve this process was suggested by Ann Macfarlane, one of MRSC's long-time Council/Commission Advisors, in her 2009 column, "Using the Round Robin Method for Efficient Council Meetings." Ann's column contains some sage advice for local legislative bodies interested in improving both the efficiency and the quality of their meetings. In it she argues that the "round robin method" for council deliberation contained in Roberts Rides of Order is one of the best ways to promote a "fair and judicious discussion of issues in which each member has an equal opportunity to participate." Of course, local government advisory boards and commissions can also benefit from this type of discussion format. In a round robin format, each council or board member participating in key policy discussions is given the opportunity to speak once, going around the table, before anyone can speak a second time. While this may seem like a minor procedural issue, anyone who has spent any amount of time participating on a council, board, or commission knows that who speaks, when, and for how long, can often have profound impacts on the outcomes of many important policy discussions. The round robin format seeks to level the playing field a bit by ensuring that all council and board members have the opportunity and, in fact, are prompted to weigh in on particular issues. Councils or boards that have no rules of procedure or that do not pay attention to the details of how their meetings are conducted are more prone to falling into habits and routines that can reduce their effectiveness as decision - making bodies. How many times have you been at a meeting where one or two members dominate the discussion, either because they are always the ones who speak up first or because they feel compelled to answer every challenge to their point of view? Members don't have to be rude or inconsiderate to end up dominating the discussion. They may just be enthusiastic, which, unfortunately, can have the same negative impact. In either case, to the extent that other members who have valuable opinions to share become less inclined or able to add their thoughts to the mix, the quality of the discussion and ultimately the decision itself can stiffer. Then there are situations where, for whatever reasons, some members may just be reluctant to jump in and offer their opiniomi. http://insi ht.=sc.org20l2/11/05/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet age 622 of 6 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 2 of 3 Sometimes this is because they may feel that they are not as well-informed as they should be on an issue, or perhaps because they are concerned that their opinion will be rejected by the rest of the group, or may be unpopular with a wider audience. Ironically, when called upon, these same individuals often end up making key contributions to the overall discussion. In my experience as a member of the city of Kirkland's Planning Commission for the past eight years, including a year as the chair, I know that we make our best decisions when all our members have taken the opportunity to weigh in on whatever issue is before us. When, on the other hand, we have just one or two members who dominate the discussion, or where, for whatever reasons, some members are reluctant to offer their own point of view, then we become less effective. Particularly in our role as an advisory body to the city council, it is always more helpful to have a thorough discussion of the issues that will, in turn, provide a stronger record of our deliberations for the benefit of the city council as they go on to make their final policy decisions. To be effective, councils and boards should conduct their meetings in ways that promote the fullest discussion of the issues with the broadest possible participation by all of the council or board members. One of the simplest ways to ensure that this takes place is to make use of the round robin discussion format. I'm not suggesting that this approach is necessary for every single discussion. It is intended simply as a tool. Experienced mayors and board chairs know when their council or board will benefit most from a more structured discussion format. Share this: Twitter Facebook Email Like this: *Like Be the first to like this. About AByron Katsu ' Byron has over 30 years of experience in local government police and administration research including such areas as forms of government, strategic planning, performance measurement, and general local government management. In his ov+n community of Kirkland, Byron is a member of the city'S planning commission. C icw ,ill post. by 13} ron Kat�oy.nna -- This entry was posted in Best Practices. Governance. Polity, ©ookmark the permalink. 2 Responses to A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making KHstiana Johnson says: Noveinber 16. 2012 at 3 45 pm Byron, Thank you for this timely post. We at the City of Edmonds are working to review our City, rules and procedures for our 2013 Council Retreat. i really appreciate your comments about the round robin approach in Roberts Rules of Order. i have been tasked with finding a modern and brief set of RRoO. Can you let me kno+, which publication you use? Kristian Johnson Reply Byron Katsuyama says: November 26, 2012 at 11.58 am Kristiana, Follow htt�7.111ngr•lit .l set frog/2012/11/05/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Page o A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 3 of 3 I asked Ann Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, Jurassic Parliament, who is one of our Council/Commission Advisors, and an expert on Robert's Rules, what she recommends and she provided the following response and attachments: We recommend that everybody use Robert. The best strategy is to have the presider and clerk buy the "big book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised rFth edition, and also provide every member v ith a copy of the "little book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, end edition. This latter volume costs $7 and can be read in an evening. It covers most situations. However, it cannot be adopted as an authority in itself. It is a signpost to the big book. By purchasing both, a city council is sure to have at hand what is needed for any situation. Attached are three articles that you are welcome to share with Kristiana (or anybody- else) on this topic: ■ Which "Robert's Rules" Should I Buy? ■ Which Parliamentar\ Authority Should We Choose? ■ should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order? Repay MRSC Insight 'llwmrploy at S4 ordPrvss.cojn. FoH ow http://insigsht.mrse.or /2012/11105/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Page 624 of 66G- DECISION TREE Rules of Procedures for Conduct of Council Meetings Should the City Council continue using: Resolution 292 YES Action: • Add Resolution 292 to Council web page as a reference for City Council procedures. • Add Resolution 292 to the new Council Reference Manual. Adoptin Rules of Procedure, 1974 NO Should the City Council adopt procedures based on Robert's Rules of Order? Yes Action: IBC • Work Session on Procedures • MRSC — Robert's Rules revised summary. Packet Page 625 of 660 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Edmonds City Code Updates Al Compaan, Chief of Police Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carrie Hite, HR Reporting Director Councilmember Bloom requested clarification on Item D. Even though this is the current language, she wanted to clarify the current practice. She would like to amend this to say "Council President approves travel and training for Councilmembers and Boards and Commissions." Councilmember Peterson agreed. This will be amended, and forwarded to City Council for approval on the consent agenda. 2. Robert's Rules Jeff recalled that council agreed to adopt Roberts Rules in its entirety, and use a shortened version. He also suggested that we may want to get training through Jurassic Parliament or perhaps MRSC. There are also self study options that could be purchased for Council library. We agreed to schedule training to be put on agenda for a work session. Suggest someone from MRSC be asked to present. 3. Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 — Marijuana The Committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 relating to controlled substances, Paraphernalia, poisons and toxic fumes. The Committee forwarded the ordinance to City Council to place on the Consent Agenda with an approval recommendation. 4. Animals Roaming at Large With Al Compaan and animal control officer, Debbie Dawson, discussed adding "with the exclusion of licensed, spayed and neutered cats" to the animals roaming at large ordinance. Agreed that Debbie Dawson will bring information related to licensing of cats to next Public Safety/Personnel Committee meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Language to Include on Agendas Related to Public Comment Agreed to adopt Frank Yamamoto's suggested language into the Council Meeting Procedures on the city website 6. Public Comment Bruce Witenberg: Re: questions at end of committee meeting- if not allowing, articulate what has been the problem in the past. Re: Adoption of Roberts' rules. Pointed out that there is a way to re -consider a vote. Can be brought back by someone on the opposing side of the issue. Don't know about time frame. Suggests training be held in council chambers so public can become educated about new rules as well. Roger Hertrich: Mr. Hertrich agreed with every one of Mr. Witenberg points. Re: roaming at large, suggested starting with a simple change such as licensing of cats. Evaluate the results. Re: Roberts' rules- Don't feel adoption of full rules is necessary. Like casual aspect of meeting, don't get too sticky about procedure. Re: Boards and commissions- choice of Mayor, sometimes in conflict with Council. Suggests applications be available to all (Council and Mayor) prior to final selection. Council members Peterson and Bloom explained to Mr. Wittenberg that it was not our intention to eliminate the option of citizens asking questions at a committee meeting. The intent was that the council members at the meeting would ask staff to answer the question(s), if the council member felt it was appropriate to do so. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Public Safety and Personnel Committee February 12, 2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 626 of 660 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of procedure for conduct of council meetings; and WHEREAS, Resolution 292 did not adopt Robert's Rules of Order; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the city council use Robert's Rules of Order, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 292 is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11t" Edition, as its official rules for conducting council meetings. The city council intends that the city official serving as parliamentarian should consult this version of Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the city council's official rules. RESOLVED this day of April, 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Page 627 of 660 RESOLUTION NO. 292 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS. WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council that more formal rules of procedure are necessary for the efficient and orderly conduct of public meetings, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, that the rules of procedure attached hereto; identified as Exhibit A and incorporated in full by this reference are hereby adopted as the rules of procedure for all meetings of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington. RESOLVED this 5th day of Februar , 1974. APPROVED: ATTEST JL"C/J CIT CLERK PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: MAYOR February 5, 1974 February 1, 1974 1 Packet Page 628 of 660 A. GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE. 1. 'Obtainingfloor. Before a member can make a motion or address the body upon any question, it is necessary that he obtain the floor by being recognized by the chairman. If'two or more members shall request the floor -at the same time the chairman shall recog- nize the first member requesting recognition. 2. Second. When a member obtains the floor and Makes a motion, that is in order, the chair should immediaLely inquire if the motion is seconded; if sec- untied the maker of the motion should then be regarded as having the refusal of the floor in preference to all oth-_,r members. 3, 1404-lification of motion. Before any subject is open to debate it is necessary, first, that a :notion be made by a member who has .the floor; second, that it be seconded; and third, that it be stated by the chairman. This does rot prevent suggestions of alterations, be- fore the question is statE:d by the chairman. The chair- man may consult: the members before stating the question tO clarify the motior:. The member who offers the motion, until it has been stated by.the chairman, can modify his motion, or withdraw it entirely; after it is stated he can do neither, without the consent of the body (major-. ity) . For example, the mover may starer, - "With the con - EXHIBIT A 2 Packet Page 629 of 660 sent of the body I will modify my motion to state as follows, * * *" If no one objects it shall be deemed that he has the consent of the body to modify his motion. When the mover modifies his motion, the one who seconds,it can withdraw his second. 4. Statinq the question. After a question has been stated by the chairman, it is in the possession of the body For debate; the mover cannot withdraw or modify it except by obtaining leave from the body as just described, or by moving an amendment. 5. Wi thdrawa 1 or. _ substitution of motion.- When a question is before the body and the mover wishes' to withdraw or modify it, or substitute a different one in its place, with consent of the body, the chairman shall grant perm tision; if any objection is made, it will be necessary to obtain leave to withdraw by a motion for that purpose. This motion cannot be debated cr amended. When a motion is withdrawn, the effect is the same as if it had never been made. 6. A`: stention f r-cin votincT . Any member may abstain from voting on any question, provided, at the time of declaring his abstention he shall 'state the reason. 7. Standin to question procedures. These rules shall govern the parliamentary procedures of the members _2_ 3 Packet Page 630 of 660 and by the members only. Procedures may be questioned only by members of the body, and then only in accordance with these rules. The decision of the chair will be final and conclusive as to all, subject. only to a motion by a member of the body, duly and timely made, in which case the ruling of the body shall be final and conclusive. Nothing in these rules will be construed to prevent the chairman or a member from requesting aid in the inter- pretation of these rules or other matters from the City staff or cfficials. 8. Precedence.. Motions having precedence are those that may be made while another motion is pending. -9. ToTield. Motions yield when they are pending and another matter can be considered while the yielding motion still pends. 10. Ahfalied. %here a motion can have no subordinate motion applied to it, the fact is stated. For example, the motion to continue may not be applied to the motion to 13y on the table. 11. Debate. Debate shall not take place until the chair has stated the question. Debate shall be limited to the immediately pending question, except that the main question is also open when the following motions are pending; postpone indefin.itely,.or reconsider a debatable question. -3- 4 Packet Page 631 of 660 12. Putting the c esL,on. When the debate appears to have closed the chair will ask, "Are you ready for the question?" If no one asks for the floor he shall put the question to vote, making it clear what the question is. 13. Majority_. A majority of those present shall constitute a majority of the body assuming a quorum is present. The chairman has the tie breaking vote, B. SPECIFIC RULES OF PROCEDURE. The following motions are permissible in considering any matter on the agenda, and unless otherwise specified shall rank in precedence and apI)lication as set forth numerically below. 1. UNDEEATABLE MOTIONS. a. (question of order and anneal. A question of order takes precedence of the question giving rise to it, may be put when another member has the floor, needs no second, and must be decided by the chairman without debate. If a member objects he may appeal, which if seconded, will immediately be put to the body. An appeal is waived if riot made immediately. On appeal the decision of the chair is sustained on a tie vote. b. SusDens.ion of rules. This motion may not be amended, nor another motion be applied to it, -4 -- 5 Packet Page 632 of 660 nor a vote on it reconsidered. Rules of the body may not be suspended except for a definite and specific purpose and by a vote of one more than a majority present. Nothing else may be done under the suspension. It may not be renewed at the same meeting if once defeated. It shall be in order to change the order of the agenda without suspending the rules. No rule can be suspended when the negative vote is as lafge as the minority protected by that rule. c. To lav_on the table. This motion may not be used for purposes of continuance of a matter which has been specially called for pub- lic hearing, which is done by a motion to con- tinue. It may not be amended nor an affirmative vote on it be reconsidered. If carried the subject tabled may not be considered again until the body votes to take it from the table, which motion is also undebatable. The object of the motion is to postpone the subject in such a manner 't:;at it can be taken up at any time, either at the same or some future meeting. It may be used to supress a question for that meeting, but not for a matter for which a public meeting has been specially set. The -5- 6 Packet Page 633 of 660 effect of the motion is to place on the table everything that adheres to the subject, so'that if an amendment be ordered to -lie on the table, the subject which it is proposed to amend is also tabled. Hawever, it may be limited to the par- ticular pending matter and if so adopted the remaining matters shall still be before the body. After demand for the previous question up to the time of taking final action under it, it is in order to move that the main question be laid on the table. Passage requires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present. d. The previous question. This motion is not amendable and applies to any debatable question, but is not debatable itself. It re- quires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present for its adoption. When called, and seconded, the chair shall immediately put the question. If the motion fails to carry by a majority plus one of the members present, the debate will continue as if the motion had not been made. If adopted the chair shall immed- iately bring the body to vote upon the pending question. If applied to an amendment to a pending 7 Packet Page 634 of 660 t. question it brings to a vote not only the motion to amend but also the question to be amended. However, the motion for the previous question may be limited.to the pending amendment, and, if adopted, debate will be closed only to the motion to amend. It shall be proper for a member to submit a motion and move the previous question thereon and thus cut off debate on the motion. In this case the chair shall first put the motion for previous question to vote. 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS. a. Continue to a certain day. This motion yields to all undebatable motions, and take precedence of all other debatable motions, except that it may be amended by altering the time, and the previous question can be applied to it with- out affecting any other motions pending. b. To commit or refer. This motion is to commit or refer a matter to a committee.- It can he amended by altering the committee, or giving the committee instructions. The debate on the motion opens the.debate on the main question it is proposed to commit. c. To amend. This motion takes precedence 8 Packet Page 635 of 660 over nothing but the question to which it is proposed to amend and yields to all questions except to postpone indefinitely. It can be applied to all but undebatable questions, an amendment of an amendment, to postpone indef- initely or to reconsider. It can be amended itself, but an amendment of an amendment cannot be amended. An amendment may be inconsistent with the one already adopted, or may be directly in conflict with the spirit of the original motion, but it must have a direct bearing upon the"subject of that motion. A motion to amend by inserting new words once passed may not be the subject matter of a new amendment to change the same words. The proper motion is the motion to reconsider the vote by which the words were inserted. A motion to amend may be made to "divide the question" into two or more questions as the mover specifies, so as to get a separate vote on any particular point or points. d. To nostoone indefinitely. This motion takes precedence of nothing except the question to which it is applied and yields to all motions except to emend. It cannot be amended, and opens 9 Packet Page 636 of 660 to debate the entire question which it is proposed to postpone. Its effect is to entirely remove the question from the body for that session. The previous question, if ordered when this motion is pending, applies only to it without :-effecting the main question. It cannot be applied to a matter that has been specially set for public hearing. A negative vote on it cannct be reconsidered. e. Princit}al cLue_sti-on. The main or principal question is a motion to bring before the body for its consider_aticn any partical)r subject. No principal motion can be mare when, any other motion is before the body. It takes precedence over nothing and yields to all. C. MISCET. fAN'FCt:1S MOTIONS. 1. To rescind. This motion cannot he made for a matter that has been voted upon for which a matter has been specially called for public hearing. However, for other. matters tr, whim it is appropriately addressed,, as wnere it is too late to reconsider the vote, :,.e motion is the course to pursue to rescind an objectionable policy, order or motion; it is debatable. 2. Tc reconsider. This motion is not in order after the body :.as votes: upon the principal question which is H= 10 Packet Page 637 of 660 the subject matter of a specially called public hearing unless made immediately after thereon and before any mem- ber of the public has left the public hearing. It is otherwise in order at and• time, even when another member has the floor, but not after that session has adjourned. It must be made by a member who voted with the pre- vailing side. It can be applied to the vote of every other question, except as Noted above, and except to 5u_ ljt:nd t:h% rules and an affirmative vote: to lay on the table or to take from the table. The motion may not be amended. Whether or not it is- debit-,ule depends upon whether the question to be recon- sidere:1 is debatable or undebatable. It may be laid on the table:, in which case, the reconsideration, like any other question, can be tziken from the table. 3. Roll calt. Any member may demand a roll call vote any time before or after any question is put. The demand needs no second and the chairman must ask for a roll call_ vote on demand. It is not debatable and may be applitA tc. any question. It is waived if after the vote it is not ir•„^.iediately made and prior to the next matter bei nq considered. 10. 11 Packet Page 638 of 660 c (V 04 0 c 0 -i 41 aj U)-P o m z .� .O .� 14 m 0 Z 44 UNDEBATABLE a. Question of Order - Appeal b. Suspension of Rules C. Lay on Table d . Previous Question DEBATALUE a. ContinLIO to Certain Day b. Comnit or Refer c. Amend d. Postpone Indefinitely e. Principle Question MISCELLANEOUS a. Rescind b. Reconsider C. Roll Call 1 A.V. N.V. c 0 0) ro 4j ro � m >t :. •-4 v) r-4 M +J M Q O -14 Q1 m, U vai Packet Page 639 of 660 12 SUGGESTED FORMS 1. UNDEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Question of order. Member: "I raise a point of order." Chair: "State your point of order." Member: States his point of order Chair: Ruling by the chairman, who may dive reasons. Member: "I appeal from the decision of the chair." Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the -body?" b. Susnei►sion of rules ari�ority` Aus (nee) Member: "I move to suspend the rules requiring..." c. To lay on table (majority plus one) Member: "I move to lay the question (stating it) on the table." Member: "I move to take the question (stating it) from the table." d. Previous question (majority plus ene) Member: "I call (demand or move) for the previous question." Chair: (If seconded)`, "Shall the main question be now put?" Member: "I call for the previous question on the amendment." 13 Packet Page 640 of 660 Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the question be now put on the amendment?" 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Continue to a certain d��majori_}�y) Member: "I move to continue the question of (stating it) to the next regular for recessed] meeting of (date) . NOTE: (1) Zoning matters must be decided and re- ported by the planning commission within 90 days of the application. (2) Plats and subdivisions must be approved, disapproved or returned to applicant for mod- ification or correction within 60 days from elate of filing, unless applicant files written consent for longer period in which to act. b. To commit or refer (majority) Member: "I move to refer the subject to a committee." C. To amend (majority) Member: "I move to amend the motion to 'add', or 'insert', to 'strike', to 'strike out and insert ', to 'divide the question' (into two or more questions), etc." d. To postpone indefinitely tma 'orit�) Member: "I move to postpone the question indefinit-ley." -2- 14 Packet Page 641 of 660 e. Principal question - (majority, unless otherwise indicated) Member: "I move that . [REZONE] "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 be passed." [REZONE DENIED] "...Planning Commission Resolution No. 123 be affirmed and.the requested rezone denied." [AMENDMENT TO "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 COMPREHENSIVE be passed." PLAN] [DENIAL OF "...Planning Commission AMENDMENT TO Resolution No. 123 be affirmed COMPREHENSIVE and the --requested amendment to PLAN] the comprehensive plan be denied." [LID -RESOLUTION "...proposed Resolution of OF INTENTION] Intention No. 123 be passed establishing the public hearing on the day of 196 NOTE : If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [LID -ORDINANCE "...that proposed Ordinance No. FORMING LID] 1234 be passed." NOTE: If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [STREET "...that the public hearing on the VACATION -SET proposed street vacation be fixed HEARING DATE] on the day of J 196 and that proposed Resolution No. 123 be passed." NOTE: Date must be not less than 20 nor more than 60 days from the date of passage of Resolution. [STREET °'...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 VACATION- be passed." APPROVAL] [STREET "...the proposed street vacation be VACATION- denied." DISAPPROVAL] 15 Packet Page 642 of 660 [ANNEXATION- "...a public meeting be set with the RECEIPT OF iniating parties to determine whether INTENTION TO the city will accept the proposed ANNEX BY 10%] annexation and whether it shall - require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed for the day of 196_ . " NOTE:Must not be more than 60 days after the filing of the request." [ANNEXATION- "...a public hearing be set for RECEIPT OF the day of 196_ PETITION FOR for the hearing on the proposed ANNEXATION-75%] annexation." (ANNEXATION- "...that` proposed Ordinance No. FINAL APPROVAL] 1234 be passed." [ANNEXATION- "...that the proposed annexation FINAL DENIAL] be denied." 3. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS. a. To rescind (majority) Member: "I move to rescind that motion, policy, etc." b. To reconsider (majority) Member: "Having voted on the prevailing side, I move that we reconsider the vote on the motion to (stating it) and have such__ motion entered on the record." c. Roll call (an member) Member: "I demand a roll call vote." No second needed. Chairman: "The secretary will please call the roll." 16 Packet Page 643 of 660 TO NOT DISCUSS THIS TONIGHT AND HAVE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PUT IT ON A FUTURE CALENDAR SO ANSWERS CAN BE PROVIDED TO QUESTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. Council President Petso referenced a list of current practices that she would like to retain in addition to Robert's Rules: 1. Members must be recognized by the Chair to speak or make motions. Unless there is an obvious consensus, a motion and second are required. 2. Councilmembers chairing the meeting may participate fully in the meeting, including discussion, debate and voting. 3. The Mayor participates in discussion and debate only with the permission of the Council and does not make motions. Tiebreaker votes by the Mayor will be as provided by Washington State law. 4. Actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers. Council President Petso explained she found the Rules of Order for Small Bodies suggest a small body may be so casual as not to require a second to motions. She did not envision the Council being quite that casual. With regard to her proposal that actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers, she noted it appeared Robert's Rules would allow a motion to change a decision at the next meeting. She observed a public hearing may have had a great deal of public comment and she did not want the Council to be able to take action at a subsequent meeting to undo the action taken at the public hearing. Her intent was to create more permanency for actions that require a public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ROBERT'S RULES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOUR POINTS SHE SENT OUT TODAY. Mayor Earling asked whether the intent was to use Robert's Rules in committee meetings. Council President Petso answered that was not her intent. Mayor Earling suggested that be included in the motion. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that the motion was to modify the resolution and place it on a future Consent Agenda. Council President Petso agreed that was her intent. Mayor Earling suggested a short delay to allow Councilmembers to familiarize themselves with the rules before they are put into practice at Council meetings. Council President Petso answered she and staff did not want to spend the money on Robert's Rules of Order books until it was certain the Council adopted Robert's Rules. She offered to purchase books for Councilmembers. Mayor Earling asked if the intent of the motion was to begin observing Robert's Rules at the May 21 meeting. Council President Petso was amenable to delaying implementation of Robert's Rules until the Council was ready. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are many versions of Robert's Rules. She preferred not to vote until she knew what she was voting on. She also suggested developing a cheat -sheet. Council President Petso offered to work with Ms. Spellman to create a cheat -sheet. Councilmember Yamamoto referred to page 21 of Robert's Rules that states every motion requires a second. He preferred to utilize Robert's Rules in its entirety and not make additions. Council President Petso responded the reason she suggested additional rules is the Rules for Small Bodies allow not having a second which she felt was too casual for the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 644 of 660 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the motion be withdrawn until the Council had an opportunity to review Robert's Rules. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Council President Petso provide her the correct title and she will purchase her own book. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported a panel comprised of staff, citizens and Councilmembers interviewed candidates for the Finance Director position. The number of candidates has been narrowed to two; the code refers to the Council interviewing three candidates. At his suggestion, it was the consensus of the Council to schedule the two interviews prior to Council committee meetings next Tuesday. Mayor Earling reported Tom Petruzzi, a Councilmember in the mid-1990s, passed away last week. Former Councilmember Petruzzi was a very knowledgeable, articulate, thoughtful person whom the Council valued enormously. He had a special interest and expertise in commercial properties and was instrumental in making important decisions including the decision to purchase City Hall. His analysis confirmed the City saved $1 million by purchasing the building versus purchasing a new building. Mayor Earling concluded he knew Mr. Petruzzi fairly well and would miss him. 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mayor Earling wanted Councilmembers to provide specific questions in advance of the Finance Director interviews. Mayor Earling suggested suggestions be submitted by Thursday. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Waterfront Festival will be held Friday, May 31 — June 2. Councilmember Johnson reported the 2013 summer concert series was unveiled at the recent Edmonds Arts Commission meeting. There are two venues this year, City Park and Hazel Miller Plaza. A presentation will be made in a few weeks and Councilmembers will be invited to introduce concerts. Councilmember Johnson reported an open house for the Edmonds Museum was held Friday; there is a new exhibit regarding the growing season featuring farming in Snohomish County. She reminded that the Summer Market is now open. Council President Petso reported she has been trying to schedule a mini retreat on May 31 for the Council to receive training recommended by the City Attorney and to discuss big picture items. Only three Councilmembers have responded, two of whom indicated that date is convenient. If she does not hear an overwhelming response to the proposed date, the mini retreat will not be held and she will work with the City Clerk to schedule the necessary training. Council President Petso reported a correction needed to be made to the minutes. It was the consensus of the Council to place the correction on the next Consent Agenda. Council President Petso reported Tree Board interviews will be scheduled for May 28. There are four applicants for the two vacancies. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 645 of 660 Parliamentary Motions Guide Based on Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (] ph Edition) The motions below are listed in order of precedence. Any motion can be introduced if it is higher on the chart than the pending motion. ANT TO: YOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE? F§21CIosemeeting I move to adjourn No Yes No No Majority e break I move to recess for No Yes No Yes Majority § 19 Register I rise to a question of complaint privilege Yes No No No None § 18 Make follow I call for the orders agenda of the day Yes No No No None § l 7 Lay aside I move to lay the temporarily question on the table No Yes No No Majority I move the previous § 16 Close debate question No Yes No No 2/3 § 15 Limit or extend I move that debate be debate limited to ... No Yes No Yes 2/3 § 1.4 Postpone to a I move to postpone certain time the motion to ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 13 Refer to I move to refer the committee motion to ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 12 Modify wording I move to amend the of motion motion by ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority I move that the § 11 Kill main motion motion be postponed No Yes Yes No Majority indefinite) § 10 Bring business before assembly l move that [or "to"] No Yes Yes Yes Majority (a main motion) ... Jim Slaughter, Certified Professional Parliamentarian -Teacher & Professional Registered Parliamentarian 336-378-1899(W) 336-378-1850(F) P.O. Box 41027, Greensboro 27404 web site: www.jimslaugliter.com Side 1 Packet Page 646 of 660 Parliamentary Motions Guide Based on Robert's Rules of Order Neivlj) Revised (I 1'hEdition) Incidental Motions - No order of precedence. Arise incidentally and decided immediately. OU WANT TO: VOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2°? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE? Enforce rules F§2 Point of order7 Yes No No No None Submit matter to 1 appeal from the assembly decision of the chair Yes Yes Varies No Majority I move to suspend the §25 Suspend rules rules which ... No Yes No No 2/3 1 object to the §26 Avoid main motion consideration of the Yes No No No 2/3 altogether question I move to divide the §27 Divide motion question No Yes No Yes Majority §29 Demand rising vote I call for a division Yes No No No None §33 Parliamentary law Parliamentary question inquiry Yes (if urgent) No No No None Request for §33 Request information information Yes (if urgent) No No No None Motions That Bring a Question Again Before the Assembly - no order of precedence. Introduce only when nothing else Bending. §34 'rake matter from table I move to take from the table ... No Yes No No Majority I move to rescind/ §35 Cancel or change amend something No Yes Yes Yes 2/3 or previous action reviously adopted... maj. w/ notice I move to reconsider §37 Reconsider motion the vote ... No Yes Varies No Majority Jim Slaughter, Certified Professional Parliamentarian -Teacher & Professional Registered Parliamentarian 912011 336-378-1899(W) 336-378-1850(F) P.O. Box 41027, Greensboro 27404 web site: www.jimsiaughter.com Side 2 Packet Page 647 of 660 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER WITH MODIFICATIONS AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of procedure for conduct of council meetings; and WHEREAS, Resolution 292 did not adopt Robert's Rules of Order; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the city council use Robert's Rules of Order with modifications identified by the city council, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 292 is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11'" Edition, as its official rules for conducting council meetings. The city council intends that the city official serving as parliamentarian should consult this version of Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the city council's official rules. Section 3. MODIFICATIONS TO ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts the following modifications to the Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11"' Edition: 1. Contrary to the ** footnote on Page 35 and first bullet point on page 488, motions before the city council must be seconded. 2. Contrary to page 43, line 23 of Robert's Rules of Order, The Mayor participates in discussion and debate only with the permission of the Council and does not make motions. Tiebreaker votes by the Mayor will be as provided by Washington State law. 3. Notwithstanding Sections 35 and 38 of Robert's Rules of Order, actions taken on matters at the same meeting after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers. Section 4. MATTERS NOT COVERED. Any matter of order or procedure not covered by the modifications set forth in this resolution shall be decided by the presiding officer pursuant to state law, city ordinance, and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11`" edition (in that order of priority), with the assistance and advice of the City Attorney. Packet Page 648 of 660 RESOLVED this day of July, 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 649 of 660 AM-5957 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Finance Type: Information Subiect Title Restoration of the Parks irrigation budget. Recommendation Council consider restoration of the Parks watering budget. Action 14. Previous Council Action Counicl approved the 2013 budget with various service level cuts, one being the irrigation in the parks, specifically fields. The Council Finance Committee is forwarding this to full Council for discussion. Narrative At the request of Council president Lora Petso, this agenda item is submitted for consideration by the Finance Committee. The total amount needed to restore irrigation in the Parks is $15,000. We would not need any corresponding seasonal labor to mow the parks, as we have already hired seasonal labor to cover the absence of a fulltime retirement. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/12/2013 Form Review Date 07/11/2013 01:12 PM 07/12/2013 12:31 PM 07/12/2013 12:32 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 11:53 AM Packet Page 650 of 660 AM-5953 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/16/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 9, 2013. Recommendation For information. Previous Council Action N/A Committee Action: Narrative Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes: • 07-09-13 Finance Committee Meeting • 07-09-13 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee • 07-09-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Attachments 07-09-13 Finance Committee Minutes 07-09-11 Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Minutes 07-09-11 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/11/2013 Reviewed By Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 07/11/2013 09:53 AM 07/11/2013 01:13 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 08:49 AM 15. Packet Page 651 of 660 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2013 Councilmembers Present Councilmember Yamamoto Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Public Present Ron Wambolt Roger Hertrich Bruce Witenberi Staff Present Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Stephen Clifton, Comm. Serv./Econ. Dev. Dir. Carrie Hite, Reporting HR/Parks & Recreation Director MaryAnn Hardie, HR Manager Phil Williams, Public Works Director Jeannie Dines. Recorder Councilmember Yamamoto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Item E was moved to follow Item G and an update on the Parks Impact Fee was added to the agenda following Item E. A. Reinstating Clerk Position Judge Fair described his request to reinstate a half-time clerk position to full-time, explaining filings have increased in 2013. Staff has been observed working during breaks and lunches. Reinstating the clerk position will not require an increase in the budget, only a transfer from unallocated funds in the public defender contract in the non -departmental budget. The cost to reinstate the half-time position is $25,000-$30,000. He estimated additional revenues of $75,000. Action: Finance Committee expressed support. Public Safety & Personnel Committee also supported, schedule on Consent Agenda. B. L & I Claims Management Ms. Hite explained HR has been reviewing the City's worker's compensation (L & 1) program as a continued part of risk management from a safety and a loss control perspective. Ms. Hardie reviewed options for claims management and potential cost savings by using a third party to manage claims. Discussion followed regarding the contract term, existing claims management, ability to get out of the contract. Action: Finance Committee expressed support. C. Interlocal with Snohomish County Regarding City Park Protect Fundinq Ms. Hite reported Snohomish County recently sold bonds to support various projects in Snohomish County. They awarded $80,000 for the City Park spray and play revitalization project. The request is for Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement to receive the $80,000. She described other funding for the project, advising the project is currently in design and expected to go out to bid this fall, with construction March — May, and open for the 2014 summer. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. D. Restoration of the Parks Irrigation Budget Ms. Hite relayed Council President Petso's request for $15,000 to restore the complete irrigation budget with funding from fund balance. Irrigation at fields and parks was reduced, and due to hot weather, grass is turning brown and there have been public comments. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas was concerned that not irrigating was not maintaining parks and that it affected citizens' ability to use parks. Ms. Hite assured parks were being maintained; the reduction in irrigation was intended to allow grass to go dormant in the summer which also reduced seasonal labor costs for mowing. Fields can be damaged by not being irrigated; fields in Hickman, Sierra, Seaview and City Park will be closed before any damage occurs which will affect service levels. Councilmember Yamamoto was concerned with reinstating cuts. Action: Schedule for discussion at full Council. Packet Page 652 of 660 07-09-13 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 F. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus CitV Vehicles Mr. Williams reported this is a police seizure vehicle, a 1994 Ford Explorer. Funds from the sale of the will be placed in the 511 fund. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. G. May 2013 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Neumaier reviewed the May 2013 Monthly Financial Report, explaining the City is on track to achieve the budget and slightly exceed revenues. A more thorough presentation will be made at the time of the quarterly financial report. In response to a question regarding the negative YTD trend in gas utility tax, he offered to review prior years' trends and email Finance Committee members. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. E. Discussion Regarding Budget Amendment to Fund the Development Services Director Position. Mr. Neumaier relayed Councilmember Bloom's request to fund the Development Services Director position. He reviewed the history of the Development Services Director position and options for funding the position. Anticipating there may be other items Councilmembers want funded in the 2014 budget, Mr. Neumaier encouraged the Council to make priority decisions as part of the 2014 budget. Mayor Earling explained he met with Councilmember Bloom to discuss her interest in funding the Development Services Director position. Funding that position now would cost $140,000-150,000, he preferred not to obligate those funds this late in the year but would consider it along with other potential staff additions in the 2014 budget. He anticipated a preliminary budget with revenue and expense projections would be available in 2-3 months. Councilmember Yamamoto recommended this be discussed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recommended discussion with the full Council. Action: Schedule for Public Safety & Personnel Committee. I. Park Impact Fee Ms. Hite provided an update regarding park impact fees. Mayor Earling vetoed the park impact fee ordinance; the primary concern was change of use, assessing commercial park impact fees at a different rate for retail versus office. The City Attorney has determined from an RCW that exempting change of use is not legal. Staff has worked with the City Attorney and consultant to draft an ordinance that will apply park impact fee to both resident and commercial; commercial will be defined in two categories, manufacturing and office/retail. Under the new ordinance, a park impact fee would only be assessed on new construction; a change of use would not be assessed a park impact fee. Action: Scheduled for full Council on July 23. H. Public Comments Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, referred to a miscellaneous salary expense in the amount of $33,000 and over $58,000 in attorney fees, costs and pre -imposed judgment interest payable to the law firm of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas that were approved on the June 25 Consent Agenda. No information was provided in the agenda memo. He expressed concern with the lack of transparency and said the Council owes the public a televised explanation regarding the expenditures and why attorney fees exceed the miscellaneous salary expense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the City Attorney will respond. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Witenberg's concerns. He pointed out the May 2013 Financial Report does not have projections. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. Packet Page 653 of 660 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting July 9, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Mayor Dave Earling The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. Staff Present_ Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Rec Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Comm Srvs Econ Develop Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner A. Quarterly Public Works Project Report Mr. English reviewed the 2nd quarter public works project report. Staff responded to questions about project status and financial information. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for information. B. Authorization to advertise a Request for Bids for construction services for the 224th Street SW Waterline Replacement Project. Mr. English described the limits of the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project and how the project was necessary to eliminate the conflict with the new sewerline in 2241" St east of 761h Ave. The 224t" St. sewerline project is currently under construction and is a joint project between the City of Edmonds and Olympic View Water & Sewer District. The project will be funded by the Water Utility Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. C. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of easements for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Mr. English provided a summary of the right of way acquisition requirements to construct the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project. Staff will place right of way documents on the consent agenda for approval as the documents are signed by each of the nine property owners. Four property owners have signed the necessary documents and the information will be on the consent agenda for the July 16th City Council meeting. D. Discussion on critical areas `allowed uses' provisions. Staff discussed the relationship of the city's Best Available Science (BAS) report to the city's critical areas regulations, noting that the BAS concepts related to allowed activities were not correctly translated into the current code language. Two recent project proposals have highlighted the problem, showing that the current code language is not allowing common sense implementation of the BAS recommendations. The proposed `fix' would be to amend the code to be consistent with the BAS analysis and approach, reflecting situations where a developed portion of a buffer is physically separated and functionally isolated from the critical area. This Packet Page 654 of 660 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes July 9, 2013 Page 2 approach is also consistent with feedback staff received from the Department of Ecology during previous discussions on critical areas and the SMP. ACTION: Recommend Planning Board review and develop recommendations for full Council consideration. E. Continued discussion on Park Impact Fees. ACTION: Forwarded to full Council discussion and action on July 23ra F. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County regarding City Park Project. ACTION: Forwarded to consent agenda next week. G. Public Comments No Comments. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm. Packet Page 655 of 660 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING J U LY 9, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom Councilmember Peterson City Staff Present: Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Carrie Hite, Human Resources Reporting Director Sandy Chase, City Clerk Also Present: John McGibbon Bob Rinehart The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda items were discussed in an order that would accommodate participants at the meeting. E. Review of appointment of two new members to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. John McGibbon and Bob Rinehart, Public Facilities District Board Members, were present to discuss this item. Councilmember Bloom commented that the City Attorney indicated that approval of appointment of new members to the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board must be made by Council based on the original ordinance. She noted that it is confusing that appointments to each board and commission are handled differently. Typically when the Council reviews applicants for appointment they receive the full list of candidates which did not occur in this process. She preferred to have all of the applications be forwarded to the Council in advance to discussing the appointment at a Council meeting. Councilmember Peterson noted that he is the Council representative to this Board and participated during the interview process, and he described the process. Mr. Rinehart also provided details surrounding the interview process. Mr. McGibbon confirmed the process used was consistent with what has occurred previously. The committee members requested that all of the applications for appointment to the PFD Board be forwarded to the full City Council for review. Approval of the appointment of two new members should be placed on the Council Consent Agenda for approval; only the applications of the two members to be appointed should be included with this agenda memo. The committee would also like to review and clarify the process for future appointments Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 1 of 5 Packet Page 656 of 660 B. Reinstating Clerk Position Judge Fair explained that case loads continue to increase in the court. As a result of the increased work load and the fact that funds are available, he was requesting reinstating the clerk position in Municipal Court. Responding to questions, Judge Fair stated that funds are available in the non departmental budget (unallocated portion of the public defender contract). The committee members agreed to place approval of reinstating the clerk position on the City Council Consent Agenda. C. L & I Claims Management Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager, referred to the memo provided to the City Council on this topic. She explained that her department analyzed options related to managing the city's L & I claims. The analysis came down to looking at a third party to handle the claims. Based on the analysis, costs would be lower using a third party. There is a fee for the services that at a minimum would be a break even cost with the potential of significant savings. Councilmember Peterson asked if the use of a third party would have any effect on labor agreements. Ms. Hardie stated they are having the City Attorney's Office check on this issue, however, they do not believe it is a subject of bargaining. They also did an extensive reference check of the firm being considered and all cities and counties have been very pleased. Responding to further questions, Ms. Hardie stated the third party would provide as much training as needed to employees. Committee members were supportive of moving forward to the next step. A. Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions Councilmember Bloom stated that she discussed a number of issues with the City Attorney today. The first issue is regarding the title of the Chapter "Confirmation and Duties of City Officers." She noted that there is not a definition of a City Officer. She made the assumption that a City Officer is a director level position or all the positions that include over site of code and have to be approved by Council. She believes "City Officer" needs to be defined. Councilmember Bloom also pointed out the Chapter includes reference to the Hearing Examiner, Executive Assistant to Council, and Mayor's Executive Assistant. She noted these positions are not City Officers. Councilmember Peterson suggested the title of the chapter could be changed from the reference to "City Officers" to referencing the positions that are included in the chapter. After discussion, the committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to bring back a definition of City Officer. Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Packet Page 657 of 660 Councilmember Bloom reported the City Attorney also suggested that the positions of City Clerk and City Engineer be included in this Chapter because they are called out in RCW. She agrees that it makes sense to include these positions as City Officers. Councilmember Peterson expressed wariness that this would add city staff that Council needs to confirm, which may cause more of the line between the legislative branch and the executive branch to get crossed. This would be going beyond confirming director positions. After discussion, the committee members agreed to bring to the City Council for discussion the addition of the City Clerk and City Engineer positions to Chapter 2. The next issue discussed by Councilmember Bloom was related to the Hearing Examiner being included in this Chapter. She questioned why this position is included. (Note: This issue was further discussed later in the meeting.) Next, Councilmember Bloom referred to language proposed for 2.10.010 A, and recommended the following changes: A. Whenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions listed in this section, the city council may will review the specifications of that position and revise it as needed before acting to confirm a permanent appointment. She further recommended the last sentence be removed as she does not see the need for it. Councilmember Peterson agreed with changing "may" to "will." With regard to removing the last sentence, he questioned if the City Attorney may have included it as a protection. Next, Councilmember Bloom referred to language proposed for 2.10.010 D, and recommended the following changes: D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the department direGter City Officer positions. The city shall have the following department direGter CitV Officer positions; With regard to the balance of Section D., she suggested the following: "The 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 two candidates for any vacant position. Councilmember Peterson disagreed commenting that if there is clearly only one qualified candidate it would be forcing the Mayor to have an unqualified candidate be interviewed, which would not be appropriate. It is always the council's option to require an additional candidate, but not always feasible. He believes the current language is fine. Councilmember Bloom stated this topic will be added as a discussion issue before the full council. (Note: This topic was discussed further in the meeting.) Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Packet Page 658 of 660 Next, Councilmember Bloom discussed 2.10.010 E., and proposed the following "Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the mayor shall have the authority to appoint, without city council confirmation, an acting director to any of the positions set forth in subsection D, above, PROVIDED that a search is initiated immediately to fill the vacancy, and there is budgetary authority to fill the position, AND 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, in that 6 month period of time, two or more suitable candidates have not been found for Council to interview, the mayor may request an extension of an additional 3 months to continue the search. Any extension of the 6 month initial "acting directorship" appointment shall be subject to city council confirmation." Council President Peterson stated he wants to be sure that if the Mayor finds only two qualified candidates that he is not able to move forward because he does not have three. Carrie Hite, Human Resources Reporting Director, joined the meeting at this time and suggested the committee consider two candidates versus 3, pointing out the recent experience in replacing positions. After discussion, the committee agreed to the language: two or more suitable candidates. Additional discussion was held regarding the Hearing Examiner being included in this Chapter. The committee concluded the City Attorney is to determine if there would be a conflict of interest if the Hearing Examiner is hired by the City Council. In addition, it was recommended to eliminate consideration of including the City Attorney under this chapter. Next, under 2.10.020, Assignment of Duties, Councilmember Bloom recommended: The city council shall define the functions, powers and duties of the city's directors and employees. The mayor s#a4 will direct, supervise, and be in charge of all directors and employees in the performance of their functions powers and duties. Councilmember Bloom also wanted language added that "all city officer job duties and job descriptions shall be reviewed and updated every five years." This would be limited to the City Officer job descriptions. Further, she would like language added that department directors will "assure compliance and accountability with federal, state and local laws and regulations." Councilmember Bloom stated that under 2.01.050, she would like to remove "or his or her designee." She explained there are certain matters such as legal determinations that should only be deferred in certain matters. Ms. Hite pointed out that there needs to be someone who can make decisions in the absence of the director. Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Packet Page 659 of 660 Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the code. Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this. Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the Council and the Mayor's Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they are not City Officers. Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions should be in a different section of the code. D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Kirkland. Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to include the requirement for members to "disclose a conflict of interest" as a standing requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on each agenda is a good reminder. Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a Code of Ethics Officer. After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Packet Page 660 of 660