The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-07-30 City Council - Public Agenda-1506'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JULY 30, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5985 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2013. B. AM-5983 Approval of claim checks #203360 through #203499 dated July 25, 2013 for $480,724.31. C. AM-5979 Repeal of Resolution No. 1290 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (30 Minutes) Closed Record Review of File # PLN20130030 and the Planning Board's AM-5980 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). 6. (10 Minutes) Discussion and possible action regarding authorization to fund the Volunteer AM-5982 Appreciation Day from the Council Contingency Fund. 7. (10 Minutes) Discussion and possible action to authorize funding the legal fees for the Hillman AM-5984 Closed Record Review from the Council Contingency Fund. 8. (15 Minutes) Presentation on critical areas `allowed activities' provisions. AM-5981 Packet Page 1 of 305 9. (60 Minutes) Continued discussion on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's AM-5942 Comprehensive Plan. 10. (30 Minutes) Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. AM-5955 11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 13. (30 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 14. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 305 AM-5985 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 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 23, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 07-23-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/26/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/25/2013 04:56 PM Sandy Chase 07/26/2013 08:08 AM Started On: 07/25/2013 11:46 AM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 305 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 23, 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 ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember * * (participated via telephone for Agenda Item 7) 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. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203230 THROUGH #203359 DATED JULY 18, 2013 FOR $661,388.69. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60316 THROUGH #60341 FOR $472,345.11, BENEFIT CHECKS #60342 THROUGH #60349 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $203,264.40 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2013 THROUGH JULY 15, 2013. C. MAY 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS ($7,050.15). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 305 E. COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY, 2013. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Rita Miller, Edmonds, requested the Council reinstate officers and programs in the Police Department and bring the Police Department budget back to full strength with regard to safety programs. She noted residential burglary rates have increased and displayed pictures of a break in at her house. She blamed this on budget cuts to the Police Department. The Police Department was very responsive following the break-in. She questioned whether the City has chosen beautification over safety in the use of tax dollars. Five officers have been cut, Crime Watch has been cut; citizens are willing to volunteer for Crime Watch but the Police Department needs a full-time person to oversee the program. She cited other cuts such as the DARE program, the resource officer in the high school and one officer in the K9 program. She plans to start Society On Cessation of Crime (SOCC), a support group for burglary victims. She displayed a map of burglaries in the Edmonds bowl. She relayed a statement from the Edmonds Police Department regarding impacts on their ability to disseminate information easily to citizens due to the defunding of the Crime Prevention Unit and loss of an organized block watch program. She read a list of safety tips from the Police Department that are available on the City's website. She pointed out one of the best tips is getting to know your neighbors and exchanging phone numbers. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on the Classic Car Show and raffle at Top Foods. John Hanlin won the 2-minute shopping spree; that event will take place at Top Foods on August 9 at 4:00 p.m. The winner of the second prize, removal of an oil tank, valued at $1500, donated it to the Edmonds Food Bank. Anyone interested in purchasing the oil tank removal can contact John Becker, Edmonds Food Bank at 778-5833. Dave Page, Edmonds, pointed out the City needs economic development. Edmonds has twice as many parks per capita than any city around; this is good but the City has to pay for them. He referred to Mr. Clifton's comment to the Rotary Club, communities should ask themselves what regulations or policies are in place that move the community in a positive direction. The #1 objective in the City's Strategic Plan is economic health and vitality. He relayed his discussion with builders and their concern with the Parks Impact Fee and cost of installing sprinklers; five builders said they are done building in Edmonds. He asserted the cost of building a house in Edmonds has doubled; it is 21/2 times the cost of building a house in Snohomish County. He pointed out the City needs a General Fund levy and needs to tax residents uniformly. 5. PRESENTATION ON STORMWATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) - USING RAIN GARDENS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained this presentation is informational only. He described low impact design (LID), a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic processes. He described the natural water cycle, explaining when it rains in a forested condition, water is absorbed by trees and plants (evapotranspiration), goes into the groundwater, or runs off the surface and into a stream. In a forest, 52% of rain is groundwater, 47% is absorbed by trees and vegetation and 1% is surface runoff. If half the forest is paved, 35% is groundwater, 26% is absorbed by trees and vegetation and 39% is surface runoff. He noted surface runoff picks up pollutants on its way to the stream, creating a quantity and quality issue. The intent of an LID such as a rain garden is to move a portion of the 39% surface runoff into groundwater and to the plants, mimicking a forested condition. Mr. Shuster described limitations to creating a rain garden: • Steep slopes, or landslide hazard area Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 305 • Hard pan or till soil • Space limitations • Underground utilities Mr. Shuster next displayed photographs of several rain gardens in Edmonds. Marilyn Jacobs, Rain Dog Designs, provided several reasons for rain gardens: • Filters pollution before storm drains • Provides wildlife habitat Prevents drainage problems Protects streams and Puget Sound Required by municipal stormwater permits She commented on Puget Sound watersheds before development, forest layers, roots' bio-geo-chemical processes, recent development where there is little space, and issues of water quantity and quality. She described water quality "hot spots" from homes that include roofs; chemicals; oil, gas and brake linings; and pet waste. She explained a LID is a design strategy with the goal of maintaining or replicating the predevelopment hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a functionally equivalent hydrologic site design. She displayed a diagram of LID tools such as retaining native vegetation, shallow swales, cisterns, pervious pavers, rain gardens and open conveyances. The anatomy of a rain garden includes inflow, ponding depth and overflow. The steps for a rain garden include, 1) plan, 2) build, 3) plant and 4) maintain. Considerations for planning a rain garden include the existing slope of the property; infiltrating capacity of underlying soil; distance from structures/foundations; location of utilities/septic systems; and depth of the water table. Ms. Jacobs described options for working with slopes, location of inflow and overflow, multiple inflows, method for determining the drainage, calculating the drainage rate, determining the contributing area, determining available spaces/sites, decide on the shape, call for locate, and criteria for locating. She further described how to build a rain garden. During her presentation, Ms. Jacobs displayed several photographic examples of rain gardens in Eatonville, West Seattle, Kirkland, Seattle Public Schools, Federal Way, and Port of Tacoma. Ms. Jacobs and David Hymel, Rain Dog Designs, described a green street project on 8th Avenue NW in Puyallup where several rain gardens were funded via a Department of Ecology LID grant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had an opportunity to tour a rain garden in Edmonds and has a good understanding what it takes to build a rain garden. She inquired about homeowners' responsibility for maintenance. Ms. Jacobs answered if a rain garden is constructed on a homeowner's property it is their responsibility to maintain; rain gardens can be designed to be low maintenance but they are not "no maintenance." Mr. Hymel explained in Puyallup homeowners signed a maintenance covenant and they are responsible for the rain garden for a period of time, typically five years. Council President Petso referred to the photograph Ms. Jacobs displayed of development, observing it would be nearly impossible to locate a rain garden 10 feet from a foundation in an area where development had minimal setbacks. She asked whether rain gardens would be precluded in such an area. Ms. Jacobs answered the requirement is 10 feet from a foundation with a basement; it can be as close as 5 feet from a crawlspace foundation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 305 Councilmember Bloom asked about plans for a public workshop. Mr. Shuster answered Rain Dog Designs is under contract with the City to do one community workshop; it has not yet been scheduled. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there were any grant funds available. Mr. Shuster answered the legislature's budget includes stormwater grant money; DOE is working out what will be available. 6. PARK LEVY EXPLORATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OF RECONSIDERATION. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled the Council formed the Metropolitan Park/Park Levy Exploration Committee last year, led by Councilmembers Yamamoto and Buckshnis. The committee has met during the past year and presented a recommendation to Council on May 21, 2013 to place a $2 million, 3 year parks levy on the November ballot, and to continue to explore a Metropolitan Park District for the City. At that time, the Council passed Resolution 1290 with a 5-2 vote in support of placing a parks levy on the November ballot and charged the committee with drafting ballot language. Since then additional information including the budget forecast as well as other factors have resulted in the committee reconsidering their recommendation. She relayed the City Attorney's recommendation that the Council either rescind Resolution 1290 by motion or rescind it by resolution and staff will return with a resolution on the Consent Agenda next week. She advised Resolution 1290 was a resolution of intent and was non -binding. There is no legal reason for the Council to formally rescind by resolution; it would be for the public perception. Bruce Witenberg, Metropolitan Park/Park Levy Exploration Committee Member, explained on May 21, 2013, the committee presented a report to the Council regarding the work to address the sustainability of Edmonds parks facilities and programs. At that time the committee reviewed the substance and result of their work to date, including a committee recommended draft resolution supporting a $2 million, 3-year levy as an interim measure to ensure stability and continuity of the City's highly valued parks system. The measure, if passed by voters, included funding for park facilities, operations, capital improvements and support for parks administration. Based on the financial information presented to the committee at its March 5, 2013 meeting, the committee also highlighted the need for urgency in addressing the proposed levy and advocated for including the measure on the November 2013 general election. The committee also referred the Council and public to elements within the recently adopted Strategic Action Plan which places a high priority on City parks and the budgetary challenge of street overlays. The committee also committed to continue considering a long term solution to parks funding, specifically the feasibility of establishing an Edmonds Metropolitan Parks District. On May 21, 2013, the Council voted 5-2 in support of the committee's recommendation. Based on information presented to the committee at their July 15, 2013 meeting, the committee now requests the Council rescind its decision to place a parks levy on the November 2013 ballot for the following reasons: • The November 2013 timeframe is inadequate to educate the public in advance of the vote • The City's revenue and budget for the next two years has stabilized to the extent a levy this fall is not necessary to ensure ongoing parks programs. The committee recommends the Council continue to seek a funding source for street overlays, consistent with the high priority this was given by citizens in the Strategic Plan. Delaying consideration of the levy would give the Council the opportunity to concentrate on street overlays during 2014 budget discussions. • Contact has been made with the Trust for Public Lands (TPL), a nationally established non-profit that conserves land and creates parks for human enjoyment and benefit. The Trust also assists public agencies in establishing protective ownership programs for parks and can help raise local, state and national funds. Phil Lovell, Metropolitan Park/Park Levy Exploration Committee Member, relayed the committee's July 15, 2013 discussion that determined there is not sufficient time between now and the November 2013 election to adequately finalize a ballot measure. A parks levy ordinance would need to be filed by August Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 305 6 in order to meet the ballot preparation deadline. A great deal of work needs to be done in advance of an election to avoid the measure's failure such as occurred a year ago when two parks -related levy proposals were defeated by Edmonds voters. Work to be done includes further study and public testing regarding makeup, size and duration of a proposed levy. A high degree of support for a levy is necessary from the Council, citizen volunteers and voting taxpayers via education, exposure and publicity. There is also a need to develop and understand the strategic options in the City's future budgeting process relative to success or failure in the voting booth and frame a specific funding strategy to achieve the high priority street overlay program. The MPD Exploratory Committee is also intrigued by potential for assistance from the TPL. Ms. Hite has recently had success in her contact with the Washington chapter of the TPL. This organization pursues and supports national and local initiatives, service and research toward benefiting parks and open lands. The urban land program in the 1970s and 1980s that created parks and gardens in major U.S. cities is representative of their work. TPL's public land program in the 1980s helped build major rural preservation and park areas within the United States. The committee and staff will explore potential resources through the Washington chapter of the TPL to provide: • Guidance and tools to help strategize long term park projects and programs. • Assistance in carrying out public awareness, education and voter polling toward achieving passage of ballot measures. • Assistance in the identification and resourcing financing mechanisms on behalf of parks. Assessing the merits and feasibility of the creation of an MPD still being studied by the committee. Recommendations related to the committee's advocacy and concurrently supporting street maintenance needs. Mr. Lovell explained deferring the recommendation made on May 21, 2013, will allow additional study time as well as consider strategies benefitted by additional data gain at the committee's recent meeting and in the future. Incorporating this and future data in the planning process, a ballot measure in spring or fall 2013 would be appropriate. While current projected revenues are improving, the City's financial picture has stabilized enough not to require a specific ballot measure this fall. Recently published real estate property assessments by Snohomish County indicate an average increase of 10.9%. This will likely lead to a tax for residents in addition to potentially greater revenue for the City. The additional time will also enable more thorough study and planning with regard to parks and street maintenance priorities. The Parks & Recreation Department is beginning the update of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan which will further refine long term needs, strategies and citizens' values toward sustainability and enhancement of these programs. With regard to street overlays, optional funding strategies need to be developed toward a solution to this high priority action plan item. Mr. Lovell relayed appreciation for the Council's support of Resolution 1290; based on the additional information, the committee recommends the Council reconsider the timing of any ballot measure while the committee continues its study. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Council was not required to make a motion. The resolution the Council previously adopted was non -binding and did not obligate the Council; it only expressed the Council's intent to adopt an ordinance to place the park levy on the ballot. If the Council wishes to formally undo that expression of intent, the best way would be to request he draft a resolution to repeal Resolution 1290 for consideration at a future meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 305 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. POTENTIAL ACTION: EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT INTERIM MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD'S PROPOSED BYLAWS. (Councilmember Buckshnis joined the Council meeting by telephone for this agenda item.) Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained on June 25, 2013, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board presented the City Council draft bylaws and a proposed 2013 work program and budget. The Council approved the work program and budget but did not approve the bylaws. Prior to the June 25, 2013 meeting, he and Mary Kay Sneeringer, a member of the EDBID Board, met with Councilmember Bloom, who submitted amendments to the bylaws which were considered by the Council at the June 25, 2013 meeting. The EDBID Board discussed and supported those amendments. Those amendments are identified in red text in Attachment 1 of the Council packet. During the June 25, 2013 meeting, Councilmember Bloom proposed an additional amendment to Section 5.1.a of the bylaws; those amendments are show in blue text in Attachment 2 of the Council packet. The Council requested the EDBID Board consider the amendments in their entirety. David Arista, President, EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board, relayed the Board unanimously approved the amendments to the bylaws shown in red in Attachment 1. The Board discussed the second amendment proposed by Councilmember Bloom and recommended not incorporating it into the bylaws. He provided reasons for this decision, first, when downtown businesses were contacted about the EDBID, open door businesses were told they would pay a higher BID assessment because open door businesses are perceived to receive more benefit from the BID. Although there are more by appointment businesses in downtown Edmonds, 50.5% of the assessments come from open door businesses. Second, if the amendment Councilmember Bloom proposed were incorporated into the bylaws, the number of by appointment businesses on the Board would be approximately 7-8 and 4 open door, creating a supermajority of by appointment businesses on the Board. The Interim Board, appointed by Mayor Earling, has 6 open door businesses and 5 by appointment businesses. He advised three by appointment business owners who are on the Board are present to answer questions. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BYLAWS WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT 1 OF AGENDA ITEM 7. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the recent EDBID Board meeting to learn how the Board would respond to the proposed amendments. She was pleased with the Board's unanimous support of the bylaws including the amendments. She appreciated the collaborative efforts of the Board and congratulated them for the work they have done. Councilmember Bloom invited Kevin Clarke, Board Member and owner of a by appointment business, to describe the alternate suggestion that he relayed to her that would somewhat correct the balance of by appointment business owners and open door businesses on the Board. Mr. Clarke explained he voted in favor of the amendment. He acknowledged there was not a perfect metric because of the discrepancy in land use between open door and by appointment businesses; there will always be more by appointment businesses in the BID than open door because by appointment businesses typically occupy less space than an open door business and there are buildings that are entirely occupied by appointment businesses. The way the BID was created, open door businesses pay more because their assessment is nearly twice the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 305 assessment for by appointment businesses. He summarized whatever metric is used with that structure will always create an imbalance. Mr. Clarke commented he, like most other by appointment businesses, recognize they will not receive any economic benefit from the BID, however, he did not object to the assessment because he recognized the City received a great economic benefit. He suggested retaining the same structure and rotating the leadership of the BID, allowing them to be elected one year by open door businesses and the next by the by appointment businesses. He recognized there was more camaraderie and unity amongst open door businesses and there has been more participation by open door businesses than by appointment businesses. Another option would be to have the President elected by open door businesses and the Vice President elected by the by appointment businesses and rotate the next year. Councilmember Bloom observed his suggestion was to have the President and Vice President elected by different groups each year and then rotate the next. Mr. Clarke answered that could be done; currently both the President and Vice President own open door businesses. The majority of by appointment businesses backed away from consideration as officers, due in part because the leadership for the BID came from the open door community. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD TO THE BYLAWS THAT THE PRESIDENCY BE ROTATED BETWEEN A BY APPOINTMENT BUSINESS OWNER AND OPEN DOOR BUSINESS OWNER FROM YEAR TO YEAR. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she visited Rapid City, South Dakota, which was mentioned in Roger Brooks' presentation, which has a parking structure and a retail only zone; Rapid City is booming. She did not agree by appointment businesses would not benefit from the BID. She did not support micromanaging the EDBID. She preferred to allow the EDBID to do what they wanted and if things went awry the Council could step in. She expressed support for the motion but did not support the amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was the potential for more by appointment businesses voting to elect the Board President and Vice President depending on who attended the membership meeting. She preferred to wait and see what happens over the next year. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified the membership selects the board; board members elect the officers. Action on Amendment #1 MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE BYLAWS TO STRIKE SECTION 9.2.g, "THE PRESIDENT OR DESIGNEE MAY DECLARE EMERGENCY BOARD MEETINGS AND WAIVE REQUIRED NOTICE; HOWEVER, AN EFFORT MUST BE MADE TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS IF POSSIBLE." Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that according to the Open Public Meetings Act, all Council meetings must be announced. City Clerk Sandy Chase responded that is correct; however, the RCWs allow for emergency meetings to be held without notice in the event there is not an opportunity to give notice such as an earthquake and action must be taken. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the RCWs also apply to commissions and boards formed by the City Council. The RCW allows the President to call a meeting in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. Mr. Taraday read RCW 42.30.070: If, by reason of fire, flood, earthquake, or other emergency, there is a need for expedited action by a governing body to meet the emergency, the presiding officer of the governing body may provide for a meeting site other than the regular meeting site and the notice requirements of this chapter shall be suspended during such emergency. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 305 Councilmember Bloom explained she proposed the amendment because the EDBID President already has the option of calling an emergency meeting. She did not believe the EDBID President should have more power to call an emergency meeting than the Mayor has. By striking this language, the BID already has that option in the event a natural disaster necessitated an emergency meeting. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Council could give an organization such as the EDBID more power than is allowed by RCW. Mr. Taraday answered no. He did not read 9.2.g to be an expansion of power; it was essentially paraphrasing State law. Council President Petso asked if State law includes the requirement that an effort must be made to meet all requirements if possible. Mr. Taraday answered it did not; State law states the notice requirements of the chapter shall be suspended; if anything 9.2.g is not as lenient as State law. If 9.2.g were eliminated, efforts to meet all requirements would not need to be made. Council President Petso summarized 9.2.g provided better notice of an emergency meeting than State law. Mr. Taraday agreed 9.2.g required more. Councilmember Bloom asked if Section 9.2.g would allow the President to call a meeting in the event of a nature disaster such as the RCW describes. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW does not expressly state that an emergency must be a natural disaster; the language states fire, flood, earthquake or other emergency. His reading of "emergency" in Section 9.2.g was an emergency of the same type; it could not just be an emergency due to timing. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Section 9.2.9 left it open for another type of emergency that was not contemplated in the RCWs. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW leaves open the possibility of other types of emergency. The City Council has similar discretion to determine when an emergency exists. The EDBID will also have that type of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, either by Section 9.2.g or RCWs unless the Council expressly removes it, which he did not recommend. He concluded it is not possible or advisable to define with precision what constitutes an emergency. Councilmember Johnson asked if inserting "consistent with RCW 42.30.070" into Section 9.2.g would provide clarification. Mr. Taraday replied if there was a concern that the EDBID Board could define emergency in a manner that was inconsistent with State law, reference to the RCW could be added to 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD, "CONSISTENT WITH RCW 42.30.070" TO SECTION 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #3 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Buckshnis discontinued her participation in the Council meeting by telephone.) 8. RE -INTRODUCTION OF WESTGATE / 5 CORNERS Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave introduced the topic and explained the reasons for the Westgate and 5 Corners Plans include: • Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Sustainability elements • Economic Development Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 305 o Jobs; Business & Employment; City revenue Social Interaction & Opportunity o Housing choices; interactive and creative environment; `place making' Environment & Climate Change Mr. Chave described economic issues: • Changing markets and suburban development/redevelopment patterns • Changing demographics and desires for choices in housing, shopping, jobs & living environments • Local examples: Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Bothell... • These also benefit City revenues & services Mr. Chave described social benefits: Urban Land Institute: o "Place Making" — "Form -based codes focus on end results — the creation of desirable physical places." o "Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places — places where people of all ages and background can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way." o "We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future... Residents and office workers are a sort of captive audience...." Mr. Chave described issues related to the environment: • Focusing development in mixed use centers provides the opportunity for land -efficient development, reducing sprawl and achieving other growth management goals • Land use is one of the few options available to local jurisdictions to address climate change... both in terms of mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation To the question of why form -based codes versus traditional coding, Mr. Chave explained: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. • Form -based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. • Form -based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space's users and fostering a unique local character. Mr. Chave highlighted form -based code elements: • Form -based coding can be designed according to context. • Form -based codes can be better suited to modern mixed -use development patterns and `place making'. • Regulating plan... map showing where different form standards apply • Building forms and standards • Public space specifications & relationships • Definitions, Administration & process • Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements • May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards • Can be a `hybrid' approach that incorporates traditional zoning standards where appropriate Jill Sterrett, FAICP, Sterrett Consulting, UW Faculty, explained although the study conducted in 2010-2011 also addressed 5 Corners, the Westgate Plan has moved forward. Due to the delay to allow the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 305 Planning Board to address other issues and because there are new Councilmembers, her intent was to provide a refresher regarding the plan and the process. She described her background that includes 30 years of urban planning experience and now teaching at UW. She pointed out Ms. Kriegh also has a Master's Degree in Architecture and 20 years of experience and is currently in the PhD program at UW. Ms. Sterrett displayed a map of Westgate and 5 Corners, explaining their study began by comparing those areas to downtown. The EDC worked with the UW team throughout the process; their goal was business growth and jobs which in turn would provide more tax revenue for the City. The EDC was also interested in moderate priced housing for young adults and local service workers. One of the reasons the plan was prepared was to assist developers in understanding what the City wants the area to be. This can result in a faster review process, reducing developers' risk and helping the City and residents get what they want. The plan uses the concept of form -based code. She compared traditional zoning codes, design guidelines and form -based codes: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses • Design guidelines modulate building facades and materials • Form -based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private space to support users and foster local character In the early portion of the study in fall 2010, they looked at what works in other commercial centers. They worked with Forterra, previously known as Cascade Land Conservancy; principles they followed include complete (a mix of uses within a given space), compact (close to each other) and connected (good transit, bike, pedestrian connection in the area and to surrounding area). As part of the study, a market analysis was conducted. She displayed a comparison of square footages in Westgate, current and future, with regard to retail, anchors, other retail and service, office, residential. The timing of redevelopment was estimated at 5-15 years. The economist who conducted the analysis concluded Westgate currently functions as neighborhood retail but has the potential to be community retail. She noted Edmonds collects approximately $12,000 per year per resident in retail sales tax; Redmond collects $18,000. Ms. Sterrett reviewed details of the participatory public process: • Community survey by mail and online (October 2010-March 2011) o Strong interest by all age groups in more outdoor public spaces and improved area walkability • Listening Sessions (January 2011) ■ Fears included: Change, traffic, losing favorites, and developers not listening Public Design Workshop (March 2011) o Public participation in a design workshop with local professionals o Identify community values o Design for life (activities) to determine the arrangement of spaces, and finally the placement of buildings o Incorporate a "green infrastructure" overlay o Developed a number of workshop summaries Alternatives Preferences Forum (May 2011) o Two preferred alternatives were presented to the public, EDC, Planning Board o Presented to Council in June 2011; Council directed Planning Board to work with UW Julie Kriegh, AIA, LEED AP, Kriegh Architecture Studios, referred to this as the form -based code plus plan because it considers the relationship between building, private spaces and public spaces as well as sustainable building practices, green features and open space, green infrastructure, diversity of commercial and residential housing types, multiple options for transportation and parking opportunities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 305 She displayed an example of possible development illustrating retail/commercial, office residential and parking. The plan does not regulate the uses, as that is typically market driven; the plan offers opportunity for property and business owners and leverages those on a neighborhood scale. She pointed out the plan has parking behind buildings, creating life spaces and activities in front of the buildings. Bike access, pedestrian streets and open green space are envisioned within each quadrant. She described the intent and goals of leveraging synergies: Create mixed -use walkable, compact, commercial centers; improve connections for bicyclists and pedestrians; enhance Westgate identity and visibility; prioritize amenity spaces; promote civic and private investments; incorporate sustainable features; regulate building placement and form; and create a variety of housing choices and retail options and parking options. Ms. Kriegh described what is regulated by the Plan: 1. Amenity spaces: common areas; plazas; sidewalks; lawns; pocket parks; trees; stormwater management. 2. Required build -to lines for each type of street 3. Street types 4. Building types • Rowhouse — townhome apartments or condominiums • Live Work — townhome apartments or condominiums with work studio • Stacked dwellings — two level living units with retail on the ground level • Courtyard residential — apartment or condominium flats • Side court — retail mixed use with office or residential above • Commercial block — office, retail, mixed use with office or residential above • Sustainable standards menu: LEED, evergreen, built green, passive house, living building challenge. 5. Building frontage types 6. Sustainable and green features • Based on successful Seattle Green Factor for commercial and multi -family zones • Flexible system to address ecological a neighborhood livability functions • Developer selects options to gain bonus stories Development requirements and options Ms. Kriegh explained the benefit for the community is there is a Plan for property owners and developers to look at and that provides choices and they can adhere to community values and vision and work with the City for a clear framework to meet the needs of the community today and in the future. Ms. Sterrett described administration and implementation of the Plan. She described City actions to encourage development: 1. Create a demonstration project through RFQ process 2. Create public art, temporary space activation 3. Allow community and non-profit uses for existing vacant buildings 4. City partnership in amenities, open space, and parking that are leveraged 5. with green stormwater infrastructure 6. Create Planned Action Environmental Statement 7. Publicize Special District Plan - Highlight FBC • Show developable parcels • Identify capacity of utilities • Feature desired activities • Demonstrate housing demand Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 305 Ms. Sterrett displayed a list of team members who contributed to the development of the Plan. Council President Petso acknowledged she voted against this Plan because she does not believe it will happen on a State highway. She observed the Plan considers five story buildings. Ms. Sterrett agreed, noting the location where 5-story buildings are allowed is defined in the plan; it is in limited areas up against the steep slopes. Council President Petso observed the Plan incentivizes small units to support low income/affordable housing. Ms. Sterrett answered the City does not currently have a low income/affordable housing program. The Plan includes workforce housing, smaller units that would be in the price range of young adults and service workers. Council President Petso commented redevelopment of the PCC property into a 5-story, lot line to lot line apartment may be more profitable than the current grocery store, yet the City needs the grocery store. If development of apartments was more profitable, she questioned how favorite uses would not be lost. Ms. Sterrett answered that was part of those company's business models. Many grocery stores have a model with the grocery store on the ground floor and including apartments above. Council President Petso observed parking requirements were reduced to one space per unit. Ms. Sterrett agreed the Plan suggest a formula for parking which the Planning Board will review. The concept was these would be smaller units and the parking standard would be one parking space per dwelling unit. Council President Petso commented when she reviewed the examples and incentives for extra height, she was able to develop a combination of factors that would allow a 5-story building with no public place - making amenities. She asked if that could be tweaked to ensure public spaces are created, recalling creating public spaces was the consensus of the survey respondents. Ms. Sterrett noted some amenities are required for 1-3 stories; incentives for additional stories can be tweaked. It was her understanding the Planning Board was considering that. Council President Petso asked whether the current proposal was to reduce the 5 lanes on 100th/9th to 3 lanes. Ms. Sterrett acknowledged the team that prepared the Plan are not traffic experts; that part of the Plan needs further review by the Planning Board and Transportation Department. Mr. Clifton answered the Plan is not to reduce the number of lanes on 100`h/9`h The traffic impact study determined it was not appropriate to put 9th Avenue on a "road diet" and instead recommended leaving the roadway as is. Councilmember Peterson referred to Council President Petso's comment about PCC constructing a 5- story lot line to lot line building, pointing out that would not be allowed in that space. Mr. Chave explained the Plan does not say Westgate in its entirety can be redeveloped with apartments; there is a mixture of uses by location. He pointed out QFC owns their property and it will not be redeveloped until QFC wants to. Councilmember Bloom asked how parking would occur behind the buildings, for example on the QFC or PCC parcels. Ms. Sterrett answered parking would only be moved as properties redeveloped. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Plan was based on property ownership. Ms. Sterrett answered yes; that was one of the difficulties of this Plan. Traditionally when a City considers redevelopment of an area, they acquire the property. This Plan respects the current property ownership and it is up to property owners to respond to the Plan and make it work for their property. The concepts lay a foundation for public space and connectivity and encourage developers to do internal circulation. Councilmember Bloom summarized as each property redevelops, there are incentives for additional stories to provide certain amenities. Ms. Sterrett agreed. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Planning Board was reviewing the incentives to ensure the correct ones are offered. Mr. Chave agreed the Planning Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 305 Board was reviewing the details. Ms. Sterrett explained the goal is commonality and compatibility in future development. The incentives that allow a developer to achieve additional height also allow the City to achieve the benefits it wants. Councilmember Bloom asked how that fit with the code rewrite. Mr. Chave answered it will fit into the zoning chapter that considers uses; the companion will be the added design features and form -based code that will apply specifically to these zones. The Planning Board will determine how it will fit with current zoning. 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE CITY UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENTS. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised City Engineer Rob English and Nihat Dogan, FCS Group, were present to answer questions. This is a discussion item with possible Council direction for use in preparing the 2014 budget and finalizing the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Sewer Mr. Williams provided history regarding sewer rates: • No rate increase in the last 9 years (2004) • Only adjustment in the last 9 years was a 2.4% decrease in 2006 He provided a comparison of current sewer rates: Seattle $116.50 Kirkland $ 91.15 Ronald Wastewater District $ 75.14 Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville Water District $ 65.77 Mukilteo Water & Sewer District $ 57.59 Lake Forest Park $ 55.44 Redmond $ 52.89 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 51.46 Lynnwood $ 39.57 Everett $ 34.94 Edmonds $ 27.85 Olympia View Water & Sewer District $ 23.66 Mr. Williams displayed a spreadsheet of sewer revenues and expenses 2013-2019, explaining a 6% base case annual rate adjustment is necessary 2014-2019 to cover current expenses and debt service. He displayed a chart illustrating the impact of a 6% rate adjustment; Edmonds' rate increases to $39.51. He described another option, to pay capital costs with rates rather than debt, which would require a 9.5% increase 2014-2019. At the end of that time period, rates would generate approximately $2 million/year for capital projects. Under that option, Edmonds' rate would increase to $48.01, still in the lower half of comparator cities. Councilmember Bloom asked how many years the 6% increase would be necessary. Mr. Williams answered the illustration was a 6% increase per year for 6 years; it includes current borrowing, borrowing again in 2 years, again 2 years later, etc. to provide capital funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any of the comparator cities' rates included water or stormwater. Mr. Williams answered they were strictly sewer rates. Water Mr. Williams explained the current Water Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Council in 2010, assumes 7.5% rate adjustments each year. He displayed a comparison of water rates: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 305 Shoreline $72.35 Lake Forest Park $72.35 Woodinville Water District $62.78 Seattle $59.65 Arlington $52.73 Kirkland $47.94 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $40.93 Edmonds $40.45 Mukilteo Water & Sewer District $40.44 Olympic View Water & Sewer District $38.10 Everett $30.24 Lynnwood $28.87 Average $48.02 He displayed a comparison of Edmonds water consumption CCF 1996-2011 that illustrates a downward trend, a 13% reduction, in water consumption, noting this affects revenue. He reviewed a base case rate adjustment of 6.25% for 2014-2019 to fund current expenses and debt service, increasing the rate to $58.19. To pay capital costs with rates rather than debt would require a 9% increase 2014-2019, increasing the rate to $67.84. Stormwater Mr. Williams advised the current Stormwater Comprehensive Plan assumes annual rate adjustments of 8% per year. He advised Edmonds' current stormwater rate is $12.44 compared to $24.09 for Seattle, the highest, and $6.89 for Arlington, the lowest or an average of $12.60. He explained stormwater rates do not need to be increased over the next six years to cover current expenses and debt service. However, avoiding borrowing over the next 6 years and using rates to provide funds for capital would require a 4.5% rate increase 2014-2019. He explained a study has not yet been done of the stormwater lines as has been done for sewer and water. If rates were raised by 4.5% over 6 years, Edmonds' rate would be $16.20, fourth in the list of 12 comparator cities. Mr. Williams relayed staff's recommendation to transition to cash funding for sewer line replacement/rehab, water line replacement and current stormwater capital needs. Staff will return in the near future with a plan to gather the remaining data regarding the stormwater system for inclusion in the Stormwater CIP. Council President Petso asked if the increase, for example 4.5% for stormwater, was in addition to the 8% increase assumed in the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams answered no. He noted the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan included an ambitious capital program; not all that work has been delivered. Council President Petso raised the issue of equity, bonding versus rates. She pointed out with bonding the cost is spread over the years when the asset is being used versus rates where a resident may move out of the city before the improvement is installed. Mr. Williams referred to the water line replacement program that replaces 1% of the waterlines a year, taking 100 years to complete. If rates generate $2 million/year for the next 96 years, everyone in Edmonds during those 96 years will pay their fair share of the cost. The same concept is true for sewer. Borrowing every 2 years for 20 years takes 20 years to pay off and requires repayment of interest which is not necessary with cash funding via rates. Council President Petso advised the City Council that Agenda Items 15 and 16 are not required this evening. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 305 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Observing the City has a combined utility, Councilmember Johnson asked whether the rate adjustments could be combined to provide an idea of the annual increase. Mr. Williams answered the City has a combined utility but separate accounting systems for each. The utilities are not allowed to have access to the rate revenues generated by another utility. The rates should be considered separately for each utility. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the percentage increase in a resident's combined utility bill. Mr. Williams advised he could provide an estimate of the impact to an average single family utility customer. 10. ADOPTION OF PARK IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Park Impact Fee Ordinance passed by the Council a few weeks ago was subsequently vetoed by Mayor Earling who requested staff make changes to the Park Impact Fee Ordinance and the fees due to a concern with the impact to small businesses. The specific concern was that the commercial Park Impact Fee was different for office versus retail; someone who purchased an office space and converted it to retail space would be charged a Park Impact Fee. Staff met with the City Attorney and the consultant, Randy Young, and developed an agreeable approach. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification regarding the changes made to the ordinance. Ms. Hite answered the change impacts the commercial Park Impact Fee only. An amendment was proposed to the Council previously that waived the change of use; the City Attorney determined the RCW does not allow for a waiver for change of use. To address this, the commercial Park Impact Fee was changed to only one use rather than separate rates for manufacturing, office and retail. In the first year, the rate would be $0.67/square foot for any new construction and $1.34/square foot in the second year and beyond. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3934, 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. Councilmember Peterson commented although this was a great improvement, he still had misgivings about the timing; he preferred implementation be extended over a longer period, particularly in view of economic vitality that is beginning to return to real estate development. Councilmember Johnson clarified the Park Impact Fee will be imposed citywide. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 11. PARK IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE 3928 RECONSIDERATION Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this item was necessary due to the Mayor's veto of the original ordinance. With the passage of the ordinance in the prior agenda item, reconsideration is unnecessary. 12. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported on the Economic Development Committee meeting. The committee was provided an update by the Highway 99 Task Force related to transit oriented development, parking restrictions and protecting single family neighborhoods that abut Highway 99. The Swedish Hospital Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 305 expansion was discussed; more information will be available as a result of a recent meeting with Swedish. The meeting also included discussion of the successful Arts Summit, Highway 99 enhancements, the festival retail initiative, and subgroup reports. For the technology subgroup, Mr. Clifton reported he is preparing an RFP/RFQ to develop a business and marketing plan for fiber. The EDC canceled their August meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Council President Petso to investigate whether the Highway 99 Task Force has met; neither she nor Councilmember Johnson, the Council representatives, have been notified of any meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Health Board did not meet in July. A Parking Committee meeting included discussion regarding streamlining the ticketing process. She and Councilmember Bloom also attended a Disability Board meeting where policies were discussed. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed the tree exchange with Edmonds' Sister City Hekinan, coordinating a one day tree inventory event, the Heritage Tree Program, Tree City USA criteria and definitions, developing a tree ordinance, grants for GIS mapping, and a citizen reported on trees surrounding his home that were topped and/or removed. Councilmember Bloom reported on the WRIA 8 meeting she attended in Councilmember Buckshnis' absence where $200,000 was allocated for the continued exploration of Willow Creek daylighting; an additional $50,000 may be allocated if other projects do not proceed. Councilmember Johnson reported on the 5 Corners artist selection; a presentation by the three artists that were selected will take place Thursday, July 25. Each artist will have 30 minutes; presentations begin at 5:30 p.m. The public is invited to attend and provide input. Councilmember Yamamoto reported SNOCOM continues its efforts with the New World System, an enhanced dispatch system. SNOCOM, SNOPAC and NORCOM were partnering on the system; NORCOM has withdrawn from the contract. Mayor Earling reported a great deal of time was spent working with the State Legislature during the last session. Representatives from the 32°a and 21" Legislative Districts were very responsive on issues important to Edmonds and Snohomish County. The Economic Alliance of Snohomish County helped solidify county representatives in speaking with a unified voice. The Alliance had a significant impact on a variety of issues important to Snohomish County; disappointingly there was little action on transportation improvements. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded the City Council of the webinar at 10:00 a.m. Wednesday on creating retreats that work. He urged Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Earling reported he will be in Centralia tomorrow afternoon testifying before the Joint Transportation Committee regarding the City's experience with train traffic. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported she also attended the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting last week. She recalled approximately a year ago the Council passed a motion 6-1 to have the EDC and Planning Board hold a joint meeting to discuss uses to be allowed in a retail only zone (now called festival retail), in particular real estate offices and banks. That joint meeting has not occurred and it appears members of both groups are not interested in a joint meeting. At the time the Council passed the motion, a joint meeting was supported because the EDC was newly reformed and may not have the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 305 background the Planning Board could offer. The EDC has now been in existence for nearly a year and has discussed festival retail several times. She asked for Council input regarding whether the joint meeting needed to be discussed as an agenda item at a Council, if she could simply advise the chairs that a joint meeting was no longer required, or if the Council wants the EDC and Planning Board to hold a joint meeting. Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for not requiring a joint meeting. He commented the EDC and Planning Board are two autonomous groups and opinions from each would be more beneficial than their attempting to reach a consensus. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said farewell and congratulations to Pat Ratcliff, the editor of the Edmonds -Beacon, who moved to North Dakota. Councilmember Bloom provided a reminder of the mid -week market at Salish Crossing at 3:00 — 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays through October. Councilmember Johnson requested an agenda item be added to the next Council meeting regarding funding the Volunteer Appreciation event from ending fund balance. 15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). This item was removed from the agenda. 16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. This item was removed from the agenda. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 305 AM-5983 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #203360 through #203499 dated July 25, 2013 for $480,724.31. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: Expenditure: 480,724.31 Fiscal Impact: Claims $480,724.31 Claim Checks 07-25-13 Project Numbers 07-25-13 Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Review Date 07/25/2013 04:29 PM 07/25/2013 04:53 PM 07/25/2013 04:55 PM 07/26/2013 08:08 AM Packet Page 21 of 305 Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 07/26/2013 Started On: 07/25/2013 11:02 AM Packet Page 22 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203360 7/19/2013 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2013 NARC BUY 1 2013 NARCOTICS BUY FUND - 1ST NARCOTICS BUY FUND - 1 ST 2013 104.000.41.521.21.49.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 203361 7/25/2013 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C113111451 KNEE PADS KNEE PADS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.27 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.99 Total: 54.26 203362 7/25/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 320082 MEADOWDALE CC MEADOWDALE CC 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 203363 7/25/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 321879 W WTP - PEST CONTROL W WTP - PEST CONTROL 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94 Total: 79.94 203364 7/25/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 713512 TSHIRTS FOR 2ND SESSION OF C/ TSHIRTS FOR 2ND SESSION OF C/ 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 54.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 5.16 713530 SUMMER SOFTBALL TSHIRTS SUMMER SOFTBALL TSHIRTS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 694.42 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 1 Packet Page 23 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203364 7/25/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX (Continued) 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 65.97 Total: 819.91 203365 7/25/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 76279 WWTP - LAB, ICP SCAN/MERCURY WWTP - LAB, ICP SCAN/MERCURY 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 Total: 75.00 203366 7/25/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6916126 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT. UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 52.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.03 Total: 57.97 203367 7/25/2013 074493 ARMAG CORPORATION 5354 INV#5354 - EDMONDS PD ATF SPEC STEEL DRY BOX (SWAT) 001.000.257.410 850.00 ATF SPEC PADLOCK (SWAT) 001.000.257.410 34.00 Freight 001.000.257.410 267.00 Total: 1,151.00 203368 7/25/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0452163-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,677.15 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 349.33 Total: 4,026.48 203369 7/25/2013 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 80920 SOFTBALLAWARDS SOFTBALL AWARDS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 210.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 2 Packet Page 24 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203369 7/25/2013 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC (Continued) 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 19.95 Total: 229.95 203370 7/25/2013 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 80925 Service Award Service Award 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 35.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 3.39 Total: 39.04 203371 7/25/2013 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST August AWC 2013 AUGUST 2013 AWC PREMIUMS August 2013 Premiums 811.000.231.510 56,112.76 Total: 56,112.76 203372 7/25/2013 074511 BAILEY, CORDELLA BAILEY 07192013 REFUND, INSUFFICIENT REGISTRA REFUND, INSUFFICIENT REGISTRA 001.000.239.200 33.00 Total: 33.00 203373 7/25/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 10396 INV#10396 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLI METAL NAME TAG (MCCLURE) 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.04 13762 INV#13762 - EDMONDS PD - VAN D, MEN'S KINETIC BLACK BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 154.95 BLACK CAP COVER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.95 BLACK BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 19.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.37 13763 INV#13763 - EDMONDS PD - CLARH Page: 3 Packet Page 25 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203373 7/25/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) MEN'S KINETIC BLACK BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 154.95 BLACK CAP COVER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.95 BLACK BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 19.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.37 Total: 412.43 203374 7/25/2013 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 515580 Unit 31 - Vactor Clutch Assembly and Unit 31 - Vactor Clutch Assembly and 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,538.71 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 152.72 515630 Unit 31 - Drive Ring Unit 31 - Drive Ring 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 359.03 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.11 Tota I : 2,153.45 203375 7/25/2013 072356 BRINSCHWITZ, JANICE BRINSCHWITZ 07102013 REFUND, FAMILY CRISIS REFUND, FAMILY CRISIS 001.000.239.200 35.45 INSTRUCTOR UNAVAILABLE 001.000.239.200 97.15 Total: 132.60 203376 7/25/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMAN 17447 PILATES YOGA FUSION 17447 PILATES YOGA FUSION 17447 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 444.87 YOGA 17117 Page: 4 Packet Page 26 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203376 7/25/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY (Continued) 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 232.65 YOGA 17120 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 137.70 YOGA 17112 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 456.66 YOGA 17106 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 208.35 YOGA 17109 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 254.88 YOGA 17122 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 531.00 Total: 2,266.11 203377 7/25/2013 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14196064 WWTP - PROGRESS REPORT/ON-( WWTP - PROGRESS REPORT/ON-( 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,982.25 Total: 1,982.25 203378 7/25/2013 074514 BURTON, CAROLE BURTON 07162013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 100.00 Total: 100.00 203379 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917078 PARKS AND REC IRC5051 PARKS AND REC IRC5051 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 12917082 IRC10301F PARKS AND REC IRC10301F PARKS AND REC 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 Tota I : 304.39 203380 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917076 INV#12917076 CUST#572105 - EDM MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL (4) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 COPY CHARGES 06/30 TO 07/31/13 Page: 5 Packet Page 27 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203380 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 246.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 78.69 Tota I : 906.94 203381 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12919163 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-05721 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 Total: 273.74 203382 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917073 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Contract charges for C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.33 Contract charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33 Contract charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 Total: 30.65 203383 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917077 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COPIER LEE Lease City Clerk's Office 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 12917079 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEA Recept. desk copier lease 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 Page: 6 Packet Page 28 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203383 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 Total: 533.35 203384 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12919164 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 12919165 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for July 2013 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier for July 2013 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for July 2013 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for July 2013 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for July 2013 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for July 2013 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 Page: 7 Packet Page 29 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203384 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 12919166 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 Total: 441.15 203385 7/25/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917072 Lease Council Office printer/copier Lease Council Office printer/copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 Total: 30.65 203386 7/25/2013 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 417 INV#417 CUSTOMER#391 - EDMON 1ST QTR 2013 CONTRACT ADJUST 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 21.71 2ND QTR 2013 CONTRACT ADJUST 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 21.71 Tota I : 43.42 203387 7/25/2013 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1306 E9GA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 E9GA.Services thru June 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 16,686.26 Total: 16,686.26 203388 7/25/2013 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 113001479 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 729.00 Total: 729.00 203389 7/25/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE85139001 WWTP - SECURITY DOOR - FRONT WWTP - SECURITY DOOR - FRONT Page: 8 Packet Page 30 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203389 7/25/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 68.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 6.48 Tota I : 74.68 203390 7/25/2013 066468 COAST PRODUCTS INC 113-0608 FAC - Window Mount Fan and Contrc FAC - Window Mount Fan and Contrc 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 501.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.91 Total: 563.70 203391 7/25/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2567883-1 Recycle - 2 Cases - 40x46 Clear Line Recycle - 2 Cases - 40x46 Clear Line 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 52.98 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 5.03 Total: 58.01 203392 7/25/2013 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY AD CEMETERY AD 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 409.65 Total: 409.65 203393 7/25/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3376 MINUTE TAKING 7-9 & 7-16 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 354.00 Total: 354.00 203394 7/25/2013 074515 DUFFY, MARY DUFFY 07082013 ONE HOUR MONITOR TIME NOT U: ONE HOUR MONITOR TIME NOT U; 001.000.239.200 15.00 Total: 15.00 Page: 9 Packet Page 31 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203395 7/25/2013 007625 EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL EAF 07192013 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 001.000.239.200 850.00 Total: 850.00 203396 7/25/2013 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E1249195 EMPLOYMENT TESTING SERVICE Employment Testing Services 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 747.00 E1251647 EMPLOYMENT TESTING SERVICE Employment Testing Services 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 595.00 Total: 1,342.00 203397 7/25/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC R716 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.55 Total: 17.81 203398 7/25/2013 074516 EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB PETANQUE 07182013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 1,000.00 Total: 1,000.00 203399 7/25/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20f WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20E 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 141.50 6-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9< WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94: 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 6-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 501 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,385.57 Total: 1,552.70 203400 7/25/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089160 COPIER CHARGES FOR C1030 Page: 10 Packet Page 32 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203400 7/25/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) Copier charges C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.00 Copier charges C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.00 Copier charges C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 8.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.86 Total: 29.54 203401 7/25/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089533 METER READING 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.21 6/21 to 7/21 meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 12.74 Total: 13.95 203402 7/25/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28883 Sewer - LS 8 - Roof Frame Sewer - LS 8 - Roof Frame 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 88.87 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.44 WAMOU29018 Fleet - Parts Fleet - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.29 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.12 Total: 98.72 203403 7/25/2013 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 68 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement Page: 11 Packet Page 33 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203403 7/25/2013 010660 FOSTER, MARLO (Continued) 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 407.79 Total: 407.79 203404 7/25/2013 074524 FRANKLIN EDMONDS LLC E7AC.Franklin E7AC.ROW ACQUISITION. FRANKLI E7AC.ROW 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,950.00 Total: 2,950.00 203405 7/25/2013 074517 FRASER, ROBIN FRASER 07112013 RETURN DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURN DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total: 200.00 203406 7/25/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LIl WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LIl 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 60.16 Total: 60.16 203407 7/25/2013 074518 GROSS, KELLYE GROSS 07102013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 690.00 Total: 690.00 203408 7/25/2013 074400 GYPSY SOUL GYPSY SOUL 07282013 CONCERT IN THE PARK 07282013 CONCERT IN THE PARK 07282013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 850.00 Total: 850.00 203409 7/25/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 138834/1 Water Inventory - W-RESET-01-006 4 Water Inventory - W-RESET-0 1 -006 / 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 716.16 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 68.04 139355/1 Water Inventory - -- Water Inventory - — 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,272.00 Page: 12 Packet Page 34 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203409 7/25/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC (Continued) Water - Parts and Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 549.40 Parts for LS 12 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 292.09 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 6.69 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.42 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 121.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 52.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 27.75 Total: 3,110.64 203410 7/25/2013 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 47 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 10.58 Total: 10.58 203411 7/25/2013 074096 HENDERSON, YOUNG & COMPANY 544-1305R IMPACT FEE STUDY 16.3 HOURS IMPACT FEE STUDY 16.3 HOURS 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 3,423.00 Total: 3,423.00 203412 7/25/2013 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 33191 E9FB.SERVICES THRU 6/28/13 E9FB.Services thru 6/28/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 445.62 Total: 445.62 203413 7/25/2013 074521 HOCHBERG FAMILY TRUST E7AC.Hochberg E7AC.ROW ACQUISITION.HOCHBE E7AC.ROW Acquisition. Hochberg Fa 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 6,923.13 Page: 13 Packet Page 35 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203413 7/25/2013 074521 074521 HOCHBERG FAMILY TRUST (Continued) Total: 6,923.13 203414 7/25/2013 074413 HOLDER, TERRY TERRY HOLDER 0725201 TERRY HOLDER CONCERT IN HMP TERRY HOLDER CONCERT IN HMP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00 Total: 500.00 203415 7/25/2013 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 540196-1 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 101.56 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.78 Total: 124.26 203416 7/25/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2307973 Office supplies Office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 26.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 2.47 2307974 Office Supplies - front desk Office Supplies - front desk 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 15.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.47 Total: 45.49 203417 7/25/2013 064655 INNOVATIVE VACUUM SERVICES INC WO-0179 WWTP - VACUUM CLEAN FLUIDIZE WWTP - VACUUM CLEAN FLUIDIZE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4,633.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 440.18 Total: 5,073.68 203418 7/25/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701012326 INV#1905701012326 - EDMONDS PI Page: 14 Packet Page 36 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203418 7/25/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) AA DURACELL BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 53.94 AAA DURACELL BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 53.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.25 Total: 118.13 203419 7/25/2013 062182 INTRACOMMUNICATION NTWRK SYSTM M9341 CABLING IN POLICE DEPT FOR PH Installation Cat 6 cabling for 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 460.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 43.70 Total: 503.70 203420 7/25/2013 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 587507 WWTP - CHLORINE WWTP - CHLORINE 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,651.83 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 250.18 Total: 2,902.01 203421 7/25/2013 074508 JULIE BERGER DESIGN LLC BERGER 07232013 DESIGN AND PRESENTATION OF 5 DESIGN AND PRESENTATION OF 5 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 700.00 Total: 700.00 203422 7/25/2013 074519 KELLY, SARAH KELLY 07052013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 56.00 Total: 56.00 203423 7/25/2013 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 808613 E3JA.T.O. 13-01.MATERIAL TESTIN( E3JA.Task Order 13-01.Material Testi 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 6,205.10 Page: 15 Packet Page 37 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203423 7/25/2013 069355 069355 KLEINFELDER INC (Continued) Total: 6,205.10 203424 7/25/2013 074512 KNOWLES, VANESSA KNOWLES 07222013 REFUND INSUFFICENT REGISTRAI REFUND INSUFFICENT REGISTRAI 001.000.239.200 33.00 Total: 33.00 203425 7/25/2013 016600 KROESENS INC 14098 INV#14098 CUST#1320 - EDMONDE EDWARDS PANTS - BLACK 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 80.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 7.68 Total: 88.53 203426 7/25/2013 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND KNUCKEBERG 17072 KRUCKERBERG BOTANIC WORKH, KRUCKERBERG BOTANIC WORKH, 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 204.75 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 159.25 Total: 364.00 203427 7/25/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07082013-03 City Car Washes City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.06 Total: 10.06 203428 7/25/2013 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN 07182013 MAYOR'S MEETING Supplies for annual Mayor's meeting 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 580.62 Total : 580.62 203429 7/25/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 31613 Prof Serv-Geotechnical Peer Review Prof Serv-Geotechnical Peer Review 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 2,287.50 31620 Prof Serv-Geotechnical Peer Review Prof Serv-Geotechnical Peer Review 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,500.00 Page: 16 Packet Page 38 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203429 7/25/2013 017135 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC (Continued) Total: 3,787.50 203430 7/25/2013 074406 LEAPFROG ENTERTAINMENT LEAPFROG 07302013 ROBERT MAGNIFICENT 07302013 ROBERT MAGNIFICENT 07302013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 600.00 Total: 600.00 203431 7/25/2013 066231 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC S1218579 YOST POOL SOLID RUBBER & HEA YOST POOL SOLID RUBBER & HEA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.50 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.88 Total: 102.34 203432 7/25/2013 068619 LINDA SWENSON 1249 FALL CRAZE DESIGN FALL CRAZE DESIGN 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,217.00 Total: 1,217.00 203433 7/25/2013 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 135589 WWTP - OFFICE HEATING/COOLIN WWTP - OFFICE HEATING/COOLIN 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 355.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 33.72 Total: 388.72 203434 7/25/2013 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 276805 INV#276805 CUST#980012 - EDMOI HOTSHOT FINGERPRINT DEVELOF 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 41.95 BACKING CARDS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 45.00 GEL PRINT LIFTERS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 18.50 Freight Page: 17 Packet Page 39 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203434 7/25/2013 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY (Continued) 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.97 Tota I : 126.42 203435 7/25/2013 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6699 SPARY PARK PLANNING 6/1-6/30 SPARY PARK PLANNING 6/1-6/30 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 10,460.22 Total: 10,460.22 203436 7/25/2013 074510 MADRID, LUIS LUIS 07192013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 134.00 Total: 134.00 203437 7/25/2013 069856 MASTER MAGNETICS INC 435141 Water - Red Handle Magnets Water - Red Handle Magnets 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 187.50 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 21.13 Total: 208.63 203438 7/25/2013 019940 MC COMAS, GARY 64 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 200.00 Total: 200.00 203439 7/25/2013 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 67 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 275.41 Total: 275.41 203440 7/25/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 55157730 WWTP - FLANGE, DUCT TAPE, SEP W WTP - FLANGE, DUCT TAPE, SEP 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1,026.58 Freight Page: 18 Packet Page 40 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203440 7/25/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 28.48 55222148 WWTP - SS BUCKLE, SS HOSE BAP WWTP - SS BUCKLE, SS HOSE BAP 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 428.82 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 42.18 Total: 1,526.06 203441 7/25/2013 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 62588 Fac Maint - (3) 15" Frued Player Kniv, Fac Maint - (3) 15" Frued Player Kniv, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.70 FAC - Walnut Shints 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.50 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.80 C 62639 Fac Maint - Adhesive, Activator Fac Maint - Adhesive, Activator 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.88 Total: 111.58 203442 7/25/2013 074513 MILLER, DIANE MILLER 07222013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total: 500.00 203443 7/25/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 171911 ROUND FILE ROUND FILE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.32 171994 CARBYERETOR Page: 19 Packet Page 41 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203443 7/25/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) CARBYERETOR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 99.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.43 Total : 146.95 203444 7/25/2013 067996 NAKAMURA, STUART NAKAMURA 7/23 DESIGN AND PRESENTATION FOR DESIGN AND PRESENTATION FOR 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 700.00 Total : 700.00 203445 7/25/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0351257-IN Sewer - Work Gloves Sewer - Work Gloves 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 720.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 68.40 Total : 788.40 203446 7/25/2013 024600 NEUERT, L L 69 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 41.54 Total : 41.54 203447 7/25/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 42960 WWTP - BISULFITE WWTP - BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,060.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 100.78 Total : 1,161.58 203448 7/25/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-701456 RENTALS PINE STREET PARK RENTALS PINE STREET PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-701866 RENTALS WILLOW CREEK FISH HF RENTALS WILLOW CREEK FISH HF Page: 20 Packet Page 42 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203448 7/25/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-702508 CIVIC PARK PLAYFIELD RENTALS CIVIC PARK PLAYFIELD RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-703407 RENTALS OLD CIVIC FIELD RENTALS OLD CIVIC FIELD 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 809.62 1-704160 HAINES WHARF RENTALS HAINES WHARF RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 1-705200 HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 Total: 1,479.79 203449 7/25/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 400 Minutetaker Hist. Presv. Corn. 7/11/1' Minutetaker Hist. Presv. Corn. 7/11/1' 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 160.00 Total: 160.00 203450 7/25/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 484805 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 74.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 7.05 Total: 81.27 203451 7/25/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 467105 PW Office Supplies - Stapler, 12 Casi PW Office Supplies - Stapler, 12 Cas, 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 396.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 37.69 Total: 434.41 203452 7/25/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 4140 YOST POOL SUPPLIES Page: 21 Packet Page 43 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203452 7/25/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC (Continued) YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 488.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.40 Total: 534.85 203453 7/25/2013 073221 ORCHID CELLMARK INC 010-056113 INV#010-056113 - EDMONDS PD 2 EVIDENCE TESTS #13-0474 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1013 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 NON -SWAB #13-1013 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 405.00 COLLECTION #13-1013 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 30.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1240 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1269 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1804 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #12-4202 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #12-4400 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #12-4486 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 2 EVIDENCE TESTS #12-4734 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1088 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 Total: 4,095.00 203454 7/25/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 61300214 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 6/7/13 E2CC.Services thru 6/7/13 Page: 22 Packet Page 44 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203454 7/25/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON (Continued) 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 14,214.84 Total: 14,214.84 203455 7/25/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00068293 Unit 31 - Check Valves Supplies Unit 31 - Check Valves Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,123.88 Unit 66 - Curtain Pres Slot 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 855.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 188.06 00068305 Unit 31 - Check Valves and Supplies Unit 31 - Check Valves and Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,130.80 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 109.62 Total: 3,431.19 203456 7/25/2013 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS FLOAT TRIPS 17131 WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 120.54 Total: 120.54 203457 7/25/2013 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-80134 E1FD.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 E1 FD.Services thru June 2013 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,205.09 Total: 3,205.09 203458 7/25/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 023038341 PAINT PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.58 Total: 52.81 Page: 23 Packet Page 45 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203459 7/25/2013 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount PETTY CASH #2 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH #2 PONY BEADS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 15.10 18 EGGS FOR EGG DROP 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 2.79 LIQUID STARCH 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 10.65 CORNSTARCH 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.67 BUTTONS FOR DINOSAUR TEXTUF 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.93 10LB FLOUR AND FOR CRAFTS AN 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.99 BACKING SODA, CUPS, RUBBERB/ 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 12.89 1000 SHEETS CONSTRUCTINO PAF 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 19.69 PHOTOS OF JC'S FOR BULLETIN B 001.000.64.575.53.49.00 1.91 US/WORLD MAP TO TRACK CAMP 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 13.13 INSTANT COFFEE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 1.00 3 WATERMELONS FOR DINOSAUR 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 10.47 ROUND PANS AND PETROLEUM JE 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 10.95 FLOUR FOR PAPER MACHE DINOS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 2.79 CORNSTARCH 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.67 PLASTER OF PARIS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 17.45 BIG GALLON OF GLUE AND WATEF 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 17.77 Page: 24 Packet Page 46 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203459 7/25/2013 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP (Continued) MISC SUPPLIES 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 13.14 WATERMELON FOR DINO EGG HUI 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.49 Tota I : 169.48 203460 7/25/2013 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC A01932 Water - Asphalt Blades Water - Asphalt Blades 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 346.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.00 Total: 362.00 203461 7/25/2013 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 101655 INV#101655 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1993 FORD P/U #1378893P FR 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 101744 INV#101744 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1993 FORD P/U #B78893P FR 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 197.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 18.76 101749 INV#101749 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1993 FORD P/U #1378893P FR, 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 562.28 203462 7/25/2013 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20100166.000-24 E2DB.SERVICES THRU 6/16/13 E2DB.Services thru 6/16/13 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,399.72 Total: 2,399.72 Page: 25 Packet Page 47 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203463 7/25/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 683 EPD Gas EPD Gas 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 72.32 Total: 72.32 203464 7/25/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 5178914 WWTP- CIRCUIT BREAKERS WWTP- CIRCUIT BREAKERS 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 110.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 10.54 5270540 WWTP - DC AMP/125 VDC WWTP - DC AMP/125 VDC 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 12.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 6.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 1.86 Total: 142.90 203465 7/25/2013 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES PLAY -WELL 16862 LEGO CAMPS 16862 LEGO CAMPS 16862 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,080.00 LEGO CAMPS 16864 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,730.00 Total: 4,810.00 203466 7/25/2013 074522 PUBLIC STORAGE E7AC.Public Storage E7AC.ROW ACQUISITION.PUBLIC E7AC.ROW Acquisition. Public Storag 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,000.00 Total: 2,000.00 203467 7/25/2013 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0014195-IN WWTP - HARDHAT, RESPIRATOR, I WWTP - HARDHAT, RESPIRATOR, I 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 357.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 33.97 Page: 26 Packet Page 48 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203467 7/25/2013 067263 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMP, (Continued) Total: 391.52 203468 7/25/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INV#000000137670 FISHER INSCRIPTION FISHER INSCRIPTION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 544.00 INV#00000137669 SPEE INSCRTIPTION SPEE INSCRTIPTION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 431.00 INV#00000137671 CEMENT FOUNDATION CEMENT FOUNDATION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 114.00 Total: 1,089.00 203469 7/25/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 83520 INV#83520 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2012 CHRYSLER # NOT TO Ci 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 237.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 22.52 84342 INV#84342 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2007 CHEV PU #1393816C 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 237.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 22.52 Total: 519.04 203470 7/25/2013 074509 RENCH, CHRIS RENCH 07232013 DESIGN AND PRESENTATION 5 CO DESIGN AND PRESENTATION 5 CO 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 700.00 Total: 700.00 203471 7/25/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 140.07 Total: 140.07 203472 7/25/2013 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & 03-798 E1 FM.SERVICES THRU 6/7/13 E1 FM.Services thru 6/7/13 Page: 27 Packet Page 49 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203472 7/25/2013 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & (Continued) 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 7,623.92 Total: 7,623.92 203473 7/25/2013 065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 65 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 136.90 Total: 136.90 203474 7/25/2013 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA 0000127464 Unit 98 -Sprocket Bore Unit 98 -Sprocket Bore 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 104.72 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.95 Total: 114.67 203475 7/25/2013 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 88702 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 6/29/13 E2FC.Services thru 6/29/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,949.75 88703 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 6/29/13 E2FC.Services thru 6/29/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 17,553.93 Total: 19,503.68 203476 7/25/2013 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS 16790 SKYHAWKS CAMP 16790 SKYHAWKS CAMP 16790 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 806.25 SKYHAWKS CAMP 16786 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 894.00 Total: 1,700.25 203477 7/25/2013 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000334780 Q2-13 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS Quarterly Liquor Board Profits 001.000.39.567.00.51.00 1,788.48 Total: 1,788.48 203478 7/25/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-1403-8 18500 82ND AVE W Page: 28 Packet Page 50 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203478 7/25/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 77.58 2011-9708-4 8030 185TH ST SW 8030 185TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 157.03 2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON 100 DAYTON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 372.82 2022-5062-7 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.86 Total: 640.29 203479 7/25/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 06/13 JAIL MEDICAL JUNE 2013 JAIL MEDICAL - EDMON MEDICATION 001.000.41.523.60.31.00 5.98 ER VISIT - 001.000.41.523.60.41.00 772.84 AMBULANCE 001.000.41.523.60.41.00 1,445.08 ER VISIT 001.000.41.523.60.41.00 2,431.67 ER DOCTOR CHARGE 001.000.41.523.60.41.00 775.00 Total : 5,430.57 203480 7/25/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Aug 2013 Standard AUGUST 2013 STANDARD INSURAI August 2013 Standard Insurance Pre 811.000.231.550 13,836.40 Total : 13,836.40 203481 7/25/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSET 16771 BEACH CAMP 16771 BEACH CAMP 16771 001.000.64.571.22.44.00 6,930.00 BEACH CAMP 16764 Page: 29 Packet Page 51 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203481 7/25/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 3,900.00 Total: 10,830.00 203482 7/25/2013 071119 THERMO ENVIRONMENTAL INST INC 317275 WWTP - PUMP REPAIR KIT WWTP - PUMP REPAIR KIT 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 153.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 91.89 Total: 244.89 203483 7/25/2013 068105 THORSON BARNETT & MCDONALD PC 65453 INV 65453 CITY OF EDMONDS MEB 2.1 HRS LEGAL CONSULT FOR ME 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 630.00 Total: 630.00 203484 7/25/2013 068256 TOTEM ELECTRIC OF TACOMA INC 138715 Receipt Hydrant Deposit Refund for Totem Ele Hydrant Deposit Refund for Totem Ele 411.000.245.110 950.00 Total: 950.00 203485 7/25/2013 073284 UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO August 2013 AUGUST 2013 PREMIUMS August 2013 Premiums 811.000.231.511 206,458.92 Gregory Wean August Premiums 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 927.28 Total: 207,386.20 203486 7/25/2013 062693 US BANK 2985 WWTP- MULTIPLE PURCHASES,— WWTP- MULTIPLE PURCHASES,- 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 194.26 WWTP - IPAD, WATERPROOF CASI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 80.83 WWTP - IPAD CHARGER 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 29.55 WWTP - STRAINER Page: 30 Packet Page 52 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203486 7/25/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 36.63 WWTP - ITUNES FOR IPAD 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.08 WWTP - STANCHION ASSEMBLY 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 235.00 Total: 577.35 203487 7/25/2013 062693 US BANK 3686 JULY MAYOR'S MEETING July Mayor's luncheon 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 12.00 Zapora lunch 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 15.33 4697 JUNE CHAMBER LUNCHEON June Chamber Luncheon 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 20.00 framing supplies for retirement poster 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 27.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 2.61 Total: 77.41 203488 7/25/2013 062693 US BANK 2813 OReilly Auto - Unit 42 - Bumper Coat OReilly Auto - Unit 42 - Bumper Coat 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.65 Costco - Units 5, 40, 95 - Backup 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 656.97 Good2Go - C Hite 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 4.41 Danfast Mufflers - Unit 7 - Install 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 409.75 OReilly Auto - Unit 123 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 145.93 Home Depot - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 52.45 Costco - Unit 40 , 46 - Backup Camer Page: 31 Packet Page 53 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203488 7/25/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 437.98 OReilly Auto - Unit 91 - Hyl Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.65 Amsoil - Unit 3 , 63 - Synthetic Poly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 65.63 3405 Guardian Security - Old PW Guardian Security - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 3439 Home Depot - Entrance Alarm - SeWe Home Depot - Entrance Alarm - Sewe 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.59 Svc Fee 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.00 3546 FAC - Dumpster area- Cement and FAC - Dumpster area- Cement and 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 139.88 Newegg - Video Monitor for Sewer Tb 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 247.98 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.54 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.54 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.54 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 8.54 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 4.27 MMI Dist - PW - Parts for Ice Machine 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.27 Evergreen Rural - Classes for L 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 580.00 Lowes- Sewer LS 2 - Roofing 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 26.71 Page: 32 Packet Page 54 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203488 7/25/2013 062693 062693 US BANK (Continued) Total: 2,912.28 203489 7/25/2013 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 597 USSAA REGISTRATION USSAA REGISTRATION 001.000.64.575.52.49.00 280.00 Total: 280.00 203490 7/25/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9708133898 C/A671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 72.92 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 172.83 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 78.93 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 13.97 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 85.01 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 352.60 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.13 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 35.43 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 13.84 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 40.22 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 40.22 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 141.18 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 53.34 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 40.20 Page: 33 Packet Page 55 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203490 7/25/2013 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Total: 1,328.82 203491 7/25/2013 071584 VILLALOBOS, JOEL VILLALOBOS 17138 SCIENCE AROUND US 17138 SCIENCE AROUND US 17138 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 396.00 Total: 396.00 203492 7/25/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29515921 WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 462.50 Total: 462.50 203493 7/25/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 49433 INV#49433 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1997 DODGE #1318730S 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 203494 7/25/2013 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9067 TREE REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 600.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 57.00 Total: 657.00 203495 7/25/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5977 BUSINESS CARDS MASTER 30,000 Bus Card Masters 001.000.141.100 745.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.141.100 70.78 Total: 815.78 203496 7/25/2013 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS P-65578-0 Fleet - Parts Fleet - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 317.54 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 34 Packet Page 56 of 305 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/25/2013 10:02:45AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203496 7/25/2013 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.17 Total: 347.71 203497 7/25/2013 072195 WESTERN GRAPHICS INC 9372 Unit 405 - Edmonds Police Decals Unit 405 - Edmonds Police Decals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 75.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.57 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.32 Total: 95.89 203498 7/25/2013 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 66 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 46.76 Total: 46.76 203499 7/25/2013 074523 YUNIS, SHAMAIL E7AC.Yunis E7AC.ROW ACQUISITION.SHAMAIL E7AC.ROW Acquisition.Shamail 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 550.00 Total: 550.00 140 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 480,724.31 140 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 480,724.31 Page: 35 Packet Page 57 of 305 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 7/25/2013 Packet Page 58 of 305 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 7/25/2013 Packet Page 59 of 305 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 7/25/2013 Packet Page 60 of 305 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 E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reduction etrofit S udy 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 dh WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Projec STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General JW6MA R99 Enhancement Progr STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corrido provements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road E7FG PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01 /08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 26th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E91MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 61 of 305 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) 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 7/25/2013 Packet Page 62 of 305 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 WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 63 of 305 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number STIR i005 E7AC STM m013 E7FG Project Title 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 64 of 305 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA 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 EYA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB 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 ElCA 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 Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 65 of 305 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA 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 E21FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 EYE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E31FC 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 E1DA 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 Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 66 of 305 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Proiect Title STIR Transportation Plan Update Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c391 E2AA Revised 7/25/2013 Packet Page 67 of 305 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 68 of 305 AM-5979 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subiect Title Repeal of Resolution No. 1290 Recommendation Council adopt resolution to repeal Resolution No. 1290 Previous Council Action 3. C. City Council received a presentation on the formation of a Metropolitan Park District on March 27, 2012. The Council requested the Finance committee to work with staff to formulate a plan to explore a MPD. The Finance Committee met on April 1 Oth, and decided to appoint Council member Frank Yamamoto and Council member Diane Buckshnis in a lead role to engage the community to explore this option for Edmonds. Council received a report and recommendation from the MPD Exploratory Committee on July 17, 2012, and decided to request the Exploratory Committee to continue its work, but not to put it on a ballot in 2012. Council received a report and discussed this committee's work at the Council retreat in Februrary 2013. Council member Yamamoto committed to reconvene the Exploratory Committee, discuss the merits of forming and MPD or exploring a Park Levy, and bring a recommendation back to Council. On May 14, 2013, the Finance Committee discussed and is forwarding to Council for discussion and consideration. The Parks committee discussed and Councilmember Buckshnis referred this to the Finance Committee for discussion. Councilmember Johnson referred this to full Council for discussion. On May 21, 2013, the Committee requested the Council consideration of a resolution to bring forth a ballot measure for Parks services, with additional allocation for budget authority for street overlays. The Council passed Resolution No. 1290 committing to consider a ballot measure for the November 2013 ballot. On July 23rd, two members from the MPD Exploratory Committee presented to Council and requested Council's reconsideration of Resolution No. 1290, and not go forward with a ballot measure for the November 2013 ballot. Narrative Packet Page 69 of 305 Council member Frank Yamamoto and Council member Diane Buckshnis recruited 40 people to serve on an MPD exploratory committee and formalize a recommendation for City Council prior to the August ballot deadline. The MPD Exploratory committee met in May and June to research, ask questions, talk to other people in the community in order to measure the merits of the formation of a MPD for Edmonds. In addition to the committee, Council members Yamamoto and Buckshnis, and city staff Hite and Hunstock delivered several community presentations, and sent information to the media about the MPD. Upon careful consideration, the MPD committee recommended to the City Council that they consider placing the MPD on a future ballot, for an Edmonds only service area, and governed by the City Council. The committee also recommended that they continue to explore this and other options, and come back to Council with a recommendation on the timing and level of a ballot measure. The committee thought it was too soon to put it on the November ballot. Council member Yamamoto, lead for the MPD Exploratory Committee, in consultation with staff, discussed this at the Council retreat in February 2013. The Council charged Council member Yamamoto and staff to continue exploring the merits of forming a Metropolitan Park District or a Park Levy with the Exploratory Committee. The committee reconvened and discussed many options. The consensus of the committee was that although the MPD is appealing, and makes sense for Edmonds, they did not think there was enough tolerance in the community to vote in an MPD at this time. The committee also considered the priorities in the strategic plan, and had several discussions about the need to prioritize street overlays. Since the strategic plan demonstrated a high priority for both streets and parks, the committee wanted to ensure there were funds for both. The committee recommended a $2 million, 3 year Park Levy Lid Lift, to be voted in November 2013. They also recommended that any unburdened funds that are a result of the Park Levy be dedicated to street overlays. They were also interested in having the Exploratory Committee continue its work toward an eventual goal of establishing a Metropolitan Park District. Two representatives from the Park Exploratory Committee presented the recommendation to the City Council and requested the Council's adoption of the resulting resolution, and the Parks funding options. The Council passed Resolution 1290 on May 21, 2013. After further discussion with several members of the Council, the Mayor, and staff, the Committee would like to request that the Council reconsider this resolution and the possible ballot for November 2013. Two representatives from the committee presented the reasons to Council on July 23rd, requesting that Council consider repealing Resolution No. 1290, and not commit to a ballot measure for November 2013. Council requested a new resolution be placed on consent for the July 30th meeting. Attachments Resolution repealing Resolution 1290 Resolution No. 1290 MPD Minutes 7-15-13 Packet Page 70 of 305 Presentation to Council 7-23-13 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/25/2013 Form Review Date 07/24/2013 02:33 PM 07/25/2013 09:52 AM 07/25/2013 10:04 AM Started On: 07/24/2013 12:25 PM Packet Page 71 of 305 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 1290, WHICH EXPRESSED AN INTENT TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO SUBMIT A PARK LEVY LID LIFT BALLOT PROPOSITION FOR SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS IN THE NOVEMBER, 2013 GENERAL ELECTION. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1290 which, among other things, expressed an intent to adopt an ordinance to submit a Park Levy Lid Lift ballot proposition not later than August 6, 2013, for submission to the voters in the November, 2013 general election; and WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since Resolution 1290 was adopted; and WHEREAS, the committee that originally recommended the above -referenced parks levy has recently changed its recommendation for reasons described more particularly in the July 23, 2013 city council agenda packet (Item 6), now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 1290 is hereby repealed. RESOLVED this day of 32013. 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 72 of 305 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. WHEREAS, in April 2012, the City Council called for action to form a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee, and appointed two Council members to lead this committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a recommendation from this committee in July 2012, and requested this committee continue exploring Park revenue options for the City; and WHEREAS, this committee has met several times and has decided to forward a recommendation to City Council in the form of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City recently adopted a strategic plan, which included a wide range of community input, and demonstrated strong citizen support and priority for Parks and Recreation services; and WHEREAS, this strategic plan also demonstrated a high priority to create a mechanism to fund street maintenance and overlays; and WHEREAS, this committee recommends the City Council adopt the following resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council intends to adopt an ordinance to submit a Park Levy Lid Lift ballot proposition not later than August 6, 2013, for submission to the voters in the November, 2013 general election; Section 2. The Park Levy Lid Lift ballot proposition is intended to raise $2,000,000 per year for three years commencing in 2014 and ending December 31, 2016. The ballot proposition will require that the Levy funds be used for restoring, retaining, and providing for capital expenditures for the City of Edmonds Parks, to be more fully defined before the Park Levy Lid Lift ordinance is adopted; Section 3. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the City Council will revise the REET 2 policy to dedicate all revenue generated by REET 2 to street overlays during the three years covered by the Parks Levy Lid Lift. -I- Packet Page 73 of 305 Section 4. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the City Council will dedicate any unburdened amount of the general fund, as a result of this levy, to street overlays during the three years covered by the Parks Levy Lid Lift; Section 5. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee will continue to investigate and explore the establishment of a Metropolitan Park District and provide its recommendation to the City Council prior to the 2017 expiration of the Parks Levy Lid Lift. RESOLVED THIS 21" DAY OF MAY, 2013. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 05-17-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 05-21-2013 RESOLUTION NO. 1290 -2- Packet Page 74 of 305 MPD meeting notes from July 15, 2013 Present: Ron Wambolt, Jerry Fireman, Carreen Rubenkonig, Bruce Witenberg, Phil Lovell, Farrell Fleming, Dick Van Hollebeke, Bob Rinehart, Lisa Conley, Riley Conley, Barbara Tipton, Bob White Elected Officials: Mayor Earling, Diane Buckshnis Staff: Carrie Hite, Roger Neumaier, Renee McRae Mayor Earling was present to inform the committee that the budget outlook was improving and that the Council would be receiving an update at Council tomorrow night. With this new information it seems like the fall isn't the time to place a levy on the ballot. Roger stated that the budget outlook is where it's at because staff made some very difficult decisions regarding cuts in the past. Carrie had done some additional research with Trust for Public Lands (TPL). TPL felt that the total levy amount was too high, as well as it giving money to parks and streets. Members reviewed a handout of levies run in 2011 and 2012 that included the type, amount, cost to homeowner, and result. We can work with TPL to test the tolerance in our community, and we can hire them to work with us. They are not free. The tolerance piece would be done with money they fundraise. They will help us promote and they will work with a community group. This group is a good start and a natural fit, but they will want community leaders too. We are beginning the process of updating the PROS Plan and perhaps there will be others on that group that would want to work with TPL and this group. TPL needs to work parallel with the PROS Plan. There will be some tolerance questions asked in the PROS Plan process, but not to the degree needed. The PROS Plan needs to be complete by March 1, 2014. We would probably have TPL test tolerance after that time. Some questions were raised about street overlays and how they fit in if funding isn't included in a parks levy. Some discussion followed regarding park impact fees, REET, and car tabs. This committee originally came together to discuss the possibility of forming a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). After several meetings the group felt the levy would be understandable to voters in the short time that was available to educate them. With a delay, perhaps we should revisit the MPD as a long-term solution to the funding of parks. In discussions regarding testing the community's tolerance, we need to be sensitive to the work that has been done on the Strategic Plan. Packet Page 75 of 305 A motion was made to approve a delay of the levy to a date yet TBD and ask City Council to rescind the resolution. Motion seconded. Motion approved unanimously (12 — 0). Bruce Witenberg and Phil Lovell will make a presentation to Council. The Mayor and Carrie expressed gratitude to this group and asked them to keep the momentum going, as this is only a delay. Meeting ended at 6:30pm. Packet Page 76 of 305 July 23, 2103 Update to Council, 7/23/13 from Metropolitan Park District [MPD] Exploratory Committee Bruce Witenberg: On May 21, 2013 the MPD Exploratory Committee presented a report to the Council regarding our continuing work addressing sustainability of Edmonds park facilities and programs. At that meeting we covered the substance and results of our work -to -date which included a committee -recommended Draft Resolution supporting a tax levy lift of $2mm for 3 years as an interim measure to assure stability and continuity of our highly - valued parks system. The measure, if passed by the voters included funding for park facilities, operations, capital improvements, and support for our excellent park's administration. Based upon the financial information from the interim Finance Director Ron Cone available to the Committee at its March 5, 2013 meeting we also highlighted the need for urgency in addressing the proposed levy and advocated that such a ballot measure be included in the November, 2013 general election. Additionally we referred the Council and public to elements within the recently adopted Strategic Action Plan for the city which places a very high priority on city parks value and another budgetary challenge, the maintenance of city streets or "street overlays". And finally we extended our commitment to continue our work in studying a longer term solution to our parks program, more specifically, the feasibility of establishing a Metropolitan Parks District [or MPD] for Edmonds. On May 21 the Council voted 5-2 in support of our recommendation, and while the proposed resolution is non -binding, agreed to work on the necessary ballot and ordinance language towards implementation. Based upon information that has come to attention of the Committee since we were last before Council we are now asking that Council reconsider its decision to place a parks levy on the ballot in November, 2013 for the following reasons: At the most recent meeting of our committee on July 15 we were joined by Mayor Earling, Councilmember Buckshnis, and our new Finance Director, Roger Neumaier. During this meeting we were appraised of and discussed additional informational resources which need our consideration during our ongoing efforts In summary these additional considerations involve 3 major developments: 1. The November 2013 timeframe is inadequate in which to put this all together while adequately appropriately educating the public in advance of a vote. 2. The city's revenue and budget picture for the next two years has stabilized to the extent that we don't need to rush into a levy measure this fall in order to assure ongoing parks programs. Also our budget picture needs further study given the Packet Page 77 of 305 most recent real estate property assessments published by Snohomish County. The Committee does not want the Council to lose sight of its recommendation to find a source of funding for street overlays consistent with the high priority this was given by our citizens in the Strategic Plan. Delaying consideration of the levy at this time will give the Council the opportunity to concentrate street overlays, which are a mandated service during the 2014 budget discussions. 3. We have finally made purposeful contact with the Trust for Public Land chapter in Washington. The TPL is a nationally established nonprofit organization since 1972 which conserves land and creates parks for human enjoyment and benefit. The trust also assists public agencies such as Edmonds in establishing protected ownership programs for parks and can help raise local, state, and national funds in such efforts. Phil Lovell will now update us on the ramifications of each of these aspects, which when taken in total indicate that we should avoid attempting a parks levy ballot measure this fall. Phil Lovell: As Bruce outlined a moment ago, our committee's discussion on July 15th drove home the reality that there's not enough time between now and the November's election to adequately finalize a ballot measure. As discussed in Council session following our May 21 briefing, a parks levy ordinance would need to be filed by Aug. 6th in order to meet the ballot preparation lead time. We agree with Council that a lot of work needs to be done ahead of any election in order to avoid the measure's failing such as occurred a year ago when two parks -related levy proposals were defeated by Edmonds voters. Work to be done includes further study and public "testing" with respect to makeup, size, and duration of any proposed levy. We need to assure high degrees of support for a levy from the Council, citizen volunteers, and voting taxpayers through education, exposure, and publicity of this necessary advance effort. We need to develop and understand the strategic options within the city's future budgeting process relative to success or failure in the voting booth, and in particular, frame specific funding strategy with respect to achieving the high priority street overlay program prompted by the city's strategic action plan. The MPD exploratory committee is also intrigued by potential assistance from the Trust for Public Land. Director Carrie Hite has been pursuing contact with the Washington Chapter of TPL since early this year and has recently succeeded in this effort. This U.S. nonprofit organization pursues and supports both national and local initiatives, service, and research towards benefiting parks and open lands. The Urban Land Program which created parks and gardens in major U.S. cities on both coasts is representative of their work. Likewise, their Public Land Program in the 1980's helped build major rural preservation and park areas within the country. Our committee and staff will be exploring potential resources through the Washington chapter of TPL in several areas: Packet Page 78 of 305 • Guidance and tools to help our strategizing long-term park projects and programs for Edmonds • Assistance in carrying out public awareness, education, and voter polling towards achieving passage of ballot measures • Assistance in identification and resourcing financing mechanisms on behalf of our Parks • Assessing the merits and feasibility of an MPD creation still under study by our committee. • Recommendations with respect to our committee's advocacy towards concurrently supporting the street maintenance needs of the city. In deferring immediate action following our recommendation of May 21st we will not only be gaining additional study time, but can also consider strategies benefited by additional data gained at the committee's most recent meeting and here -forward. By incorporating this and future financial data into our planning process we feel a better-resourced and publically-supported approach towards a potential ballot measure in the spring or fall of 2014 is appropriate. As to the matter of the budgeting process for the city we understand that while current projected revenues are improving all we can say at this point is that the picture has stabilized sufficiently to enable putting off a specific ballot measure this fall. Furthermore, recently published real estate property assessments by Snohomish County indicate an average increase of 10.9%. This will most likely lead to some tax increase for our residents in addition to potentially greater revenue for the city. The additional time will also enable more thorough study and planning with respect to both parks and street maintenance priorities within our adopted Strategic Action Plan. The Parks and Rec. Department is just starting a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan [known as PROS] for Edmonds which will further refine long term needs, strategies, and citizens' values towards sustainability and enhancement of these programs. As to the matter of street overlays optional funding strategies need to be developed towards an optimum solution to this high priority action plan item. In summation, we appreciate Council support of the resolution proposed on May 21st, but based on this additional information covered tonight we recommend that you reconsider the timing of any ballot measure while we collectively continue our study. Packet Page 79 of 305 AM-5980 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 30 Minutes Michael Clugston Planning Action Information Committee Action: 5. 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 80 of 305 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: 07/25/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 07/24/2013 02:33 PM Dave Earling 07/25/2013 09:52 AM Sandy Chase 07/25/2013 10:04 AM Started On: 07/24/2013 01:27 PM Packet Page 81 of 305 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 82 of 305 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 83 of 305 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 84 of 305 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 85 of 305 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 86 of 305 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 87 of 305 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 88 of 305 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 89 of 305 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 90 of 305 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 92 of 305 - -t,- . - . I RECEIVE.� h%/�gi�sno e gSo6pf dc ag (g/output/Assessor_pmz-arcims2 8 52490 82818 jpg 4/5/2013 0 U N N cs U u> 00 U Cl).0 camt 7 GD N f9 N� U 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 ht*, w4W. (�8gorg/proptax/(fkohso55pofvhtgjlrcae245)/search.aspx?paree1_number--00... 4/5/2013 U b R E aXEUVED APR 2 3 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES coUNTER n 4/5/2013 httpiggjs0ageo' B�.,y�&Zoutput/Assessor_pmz-arcims285249082723 jpg httg�4W*N6, ogo,qrg/docs/sas/photos/0090/00906200000200RO I I ipg 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; httAVgrc@5org/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 99 of 305 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 100 of 305 Site �` J� 4�p J_ ML Mediii 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 101 of 305 403 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 o'er rtrPT - 9E2.29 Imo``, APR 2 D 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER SHT 2 OF 2 Attachment 5 PLN20130030 Packet Page 102 of 305 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 103 of 305 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 104 of 305 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. 189' 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 105 of 305 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 106 of 305 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 107 of 305 - • 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 108 of 305 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I S.S. Packet Page 109 of 305 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 110 of 305 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 111 of 305 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 112 of 305 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;'3d cn PUBLIC p 2-17-2016 823561 Packet Page 113 of 305 <� 7 2 0 0 A � c A o \ ° ow» / Aar 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 �t�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 115 of 305 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 116 of 305 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 117 of 305 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 118 of 305 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 119 of 305 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 120 of 305 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 121 of 305 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 122 of 305 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 123 of 305 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 124 of 305 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 125 of 305 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 126 of 305 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 127 of 305 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 128 of 305 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 129 of 305 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 130 of 305 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 131 of 305 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 132 of 305 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 133 of 305 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 134 of 305 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 135 of 305 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 136 of 305 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 137 of 305 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 138 of 305 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 139 of 305 3 CONFORMED COPY PG Y LE 200804141167 CITY of EDMONDS OW4I2W 4:22 12t . STH AVENUE NO, SNOHONISH COUN1�f , WASHINGTON EDMONDS, WA 98020 STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: Edmonds, Washington Legal Description: &lZ M A:7 G_ iN40 G,T_Cdrx.4 Ncr� Assessor's Parcel Number: �U �0(Pc2 000 o0l 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. :Notar �6 wust be smudged, Dated: s �\��SS�p��i/ Signature of =� s -I A/)' otary Public; Residing at; _ 62 �0' My Appointment F G Ex ires: �% g411F\WAS�.�`p THIS:DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH SNOHOMISH COU Attachment 11 P LN20130030 Packet Page 140 of 305 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 143 of 305 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 144 of 305 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 145 of 305 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 146 of 305 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 147 of 305 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 148 of 305 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 149 of 305 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 150 of 305 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 151 of 305 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 152 of 305 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 153 of 305 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 154 of 305 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 155 of 305 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) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Multi family medium density Revised on 8119111 Packet Page 156 of 305 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) j. 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 157 of 305 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 158 of 305 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 159 of 305 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 160 of 305 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 161 of 305 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 162 of 305 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 163 of 305 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 164 of 305 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 165 of 305 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 166 of 305 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 167 of 305 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 169 of 305 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 170 of 305 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 171 of 305 (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 172 of 305 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 173 of 305 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 174 of 305 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 175 of 305 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 176 of 305 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 177 of 305 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 178 of 305 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 179 of 305 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 180 of 305 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 181 of 305 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 182 of 305 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 183 of 305 AM-5982 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Department: City Council Committee: Submitted By: Jana Spellman Type: Action Information Subiect Title Discussion and possible action regarding authorization to fund the Volunteer Appreciation Day from the Council Contingency Fund. Recommendation Previous Council Action February 1-2, 2013 Council Retreat: During the February 2013 Council Retreat the Council discussed the item below: 8. STUDENT AND SENIOR VOLUNTEERS A. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION Councilmember Johnson proposed the Mayor and Council have an event to recognize all volunteers. The City has 16 different advisory boards, committees, commissions and taskforces that give advice to City Council; approximately 120 people. She relayed Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Yamamoto have agreed to make an initial recommendation. She is seeking a date, location, the nature of the event and the cost. A brief discussion followed regarding the possibility of holding an event at the Senior Center, volunteer recognition events held by other organizations and seeking participation from businesses. Summary: Councilmembers work with administration on a volunteer recognition event. March 12, 2013 Public Safety/Personnel Committee: This item was discussed as follows: Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. Narrative The Volunteer Appreciation Day has been scheduled for Sunday, August 25, 2013 at Edmonds City Park and City Park Shelter #2 has been reserved for this event. The City has the following Boards and Commissions consisting of approximately 81 members. Boards: Architectural Design Board Cemetery Board Disability Board Packet Page 184 of 305 Library Board Planning Board Tree Board Commissions: Arts Commission Civil Service Commission Economic Development Commission Historic Preservation Commission Salary Commission Sister City Commission In order to proceed with this event, a funding revenue source needs to be identified. Councilmember Johnson is respectfully requesting that the Council approve funding this event from the Council Contingency Fund for a total of $1,000. With $5,000 already committed for a coal train study, the fund at present has a balance of $20,000 with expected expenditures of approximately $17,000 as follows: $10,000 for legal fees for closed record reviews $ 7,000 for underbudgeted 2013 attorney fees. These expenditures will leave a balance of approximately $2,000 in the Council Contingency Funds. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase City Council Jana Spellman City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 07/26/2013 Form Review Date 07/25/2013 11:42 AM 07/25/2013 03:22 PM 07/25/2013 03:40 PM 07/25/2013 04:55 PM 07/26/2013 08:08 AM Started On: 07/25/2013 09:47 AM Packet Page 185 of 305 AM-5984 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Committee: Submitted By: Jana Spellman Type: Action Information Subiect Title Discussion and possible action to authorize funding the legal fees for the Hillman Closed Record Review from the Council Contingency Fund. Recommendation Previous Council Action May 28,2013 Council Meeting: The Council approved hiring a land use attorney to represent the Council during the Hillman Closed Record Review. Following is an excerpt from the May 28, 2013 Council Meeting regarding that agenda item (minutes attached). Narrative At the May 28, 2013 Council Meeting the Council approved hiring Carol Morris, Attorney at Law, to allow up to $5,000 in fees to represent the Council during the Hillman Closed Record Review. No funding source was identified. Council President Petso is requesting to pay this from the Council Contingency Fund budget line item. With $5,000 already committed for a coal train study, the fund at present has a balance of $20,000 with expected expenditures of approximately $18,000 as follows: $1,000 for the Volunteer Appreciation Day, $10,000 for legal fees for closed record reviews, $7,000 for under -budgeted 2013 attorney fees. These exenditures will leave a balance of approximately $2,000 in the Council Contingency Fund budget line item. Attachment: 5/28/13 Council Minutes and Invoice from Carol Morris, Attorney at Law Attachments Attachment: 5-28-13 Council Minutes - Morris Invoice re Hillman Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Form Review Date 07/26/2013 08:48 AM 07/26/2013 09:23 AM 07/26/2013 09:26 AM Started On: 07/25/2013 11:34 AM Packet Page 186 of 305 Final Approval Date: 07/26/2013 Packet Page 187 of 305 Council President Petso recalled the Planning Board Chair indicated the Planning Board needed to wrap something else up and that would be a better time for the Planning Board to take a break from the Westgate Plan and come to the Council after they had incorporated the Transportation element. She was supportive of giving the Planning Board direction that the Council did not want them to finalize the Westgate Plan until they have the Transportation Plan. Councilmember Bloom noted there needs to be an understanding of the transportation system in Westgate with regard to items such as turn lanes, bike trails, make it more pedestrian friendly and safe, etc. The Westgate plan needs to address internal circulation, reaching the area safely via all modes of transportation as well as pedestrian and bicycles crossing the street. She agreed with the Planning Board delaying the Westgate Plan until the transportation element is integrated. She anticipated the Westgate form based code would address setbacks, road and sidewalk widths, bike paths, turn lanes, ferry traffic, etc. Mr. Chave responded form based codes do not deal with details of the right-of-way design. He agreed it would be helpful to discuss a study with WSDOT. Mayor Earling advised the WSDOT representative indicated she will be available for the Council's June 17 retreat. He suggested exploring the potential with the WSDOT representative before the Council made a definitive decision. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Johnson agreed. She suggested conducting a tour of the area after the retreat. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City had much input into what can be done on SR104. For example, he did not anticipate a bike lane on SR104. Mr. Williams responded the City has some influence as SR104 serves as a City street and a State highway; WSDOT will make the final decision. He envisioned the Westgate Plan and transportation study could occur simultaneously. 12. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ALLOW UP TO $5,000 TO CONTRACT WITH A LAND USE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE DURING THE UPCOMING CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE HILLMAN VARIANCES. Council President Petso asked whether the motion was to hire an attorney but not specify the attorney. Councilmember Peterson recalled in a recent quasi-judicial hearing, the City Attorney worked directly with staff and the Council hired an outside land use attorney to advise them without any appearance of conflict. The Council will be reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision in a quasi-judicial setting. It is best practice to hire an impartial attorney to ensure the public process is as smooth as possible. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MADE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO: TO HIRE CAROL MORRIS. Councilmember Peterson explained the City Council hired Carol Morris to advise the Council during a previous quasi-judicial matter. She is working on the code rewrite so is very familiar with land use issues in Edmonds. According to the City Attorney, Ms. Morris is one of the top land use attorneys in the region. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it would be preferable to have the flexibility to hire a land use attorney rather than specify an attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he will inform the Council at their next meeting if Ms. Morris has a conflict. The Council has appointment authority when hiring legal counsel unless the Council delegates that authority. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 188 of 305 Counciimember Peterson requested Mr. Taraday provide names of alternate attorneys if Ms. Morris is not available. Mr. Taraday advised he would. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO AND JOHNSON VOTING YES, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported on the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board meeting. He is meeting with Executive Director Joe Mclalwain to review their Strategic Plan before it is forwarded to the City Council. The PFD Board will be interviewing for two board positions that will be vacated in June. A reception for the outgoing Board Members Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon will be held in June. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the State Historic Preservation conference and plans to share the information with the members of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board had a presentation from a member of the Floretum Garden Club regarding a tree exchange between Hekinan, Japan and Edmonds. The Tree Board discussed the Arbor Day celebration, the Museum Garden Market booth, the Watershed Fun Fair, and difficulties with new board/commission City email addresses. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting included discussion regarding: • Negotiations with additional fiber optic customers • A second meeting that was held with several businesses interested in providing space for incubator businesses who would utilize the fiber • Marine tourism • Attracting bed and breakfasts to Edmonds • Update on coal trains + Business incentives • How the EDC can support implementation of the Strategic Plan • Difficulties with board/commission City email addresses 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked everyone who attended the Memorial Day service. It was a great community gathering to acknowledge veterans in the community. He estimated 400-500 people attended the service including at least two Councilmembers. Mayor Earling advised the Waterfront Festival will be held this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. There will be many food vendors and exhibits. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson announced the Business Expo to be held this Saturday at the Conference Center. The Edmonds Historic Commission will have a booth at the Expo. Council President Petso advised the other candidate for appointment to the Tree Board arrived late due to a miscommunication regarding the time. Council President Petso invited Councilmembers to submit items for the Council's June 17 mini -retreat. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 189 of 305 Morris Law P.C. July 8, 2013 JUL 1 1; 2013 Finance Director City of Edmonds 121 — 5tn Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Re: Closed Record Hearing —Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision Hillman critical areas variance FEES Date Description Hours 6-17 Begin review of Hillman administrative record. 2.5 6-18 Continue review of Hillman administrative record. 4.8 Telephone call from Mayor Earling re: script, draft script. .4 Travel to Edmonds. 1.0 Attend hearing. 2.0 Travel from Edmonds. 1.0 6-19 Telephone call from Mayor Earling re: hearing. .2 E-mail to Jeff Taraday and Rob Chave re: CAO. .3 6-20 Begin drafting Findings and Conclusions. 1.4 6-21 Continue drafting Findings and Conclusions. 2.1 6-24 Continue drafting Findings and Conclusions. 5.0 Fees P.O. Box 948, 7223 Seawitch lane NW, Seabeck, WA 98380-0948 Phone: 360-830-0328 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol a morris(%msn.com Packet Page 190 of 305 Date Description 6-25 Continue drafting Findings and Conclusions Telephone call with Jeff Taraday re: Findings Total hours: Hourly rate ($250.00) x hours (24.1) _ TOTAL DUE: Hours Fees 3.2 .2 24.1 $6,025.00 $ 5,000.00 Packet Page 191 of 305 AM-5981 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation on critical areas `allowed activities' provisions. Recommendation Committee Action: No action is scheduled for this meeting; there is a follow-up discussion on the interim zoning ordinance scheduled for August 6th. Previous Council Action The Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the issue during it's July 9th meeting and asked the Planning Board to develop a recommendation. Narrative There is an inconsistency in the City's critical areas best available science (BAS) report and the terminology used in the critical areas code regarding "allowed activities." The Council's Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the issue on July 9th and asked the Planning Board to review the issue. This is an opportunity for the full Council to be briefed on the issue. This is also an opportunity for the Council to provide interim relief (via an interim zoning ordinance) if it chooses to do so. A more detailed discussion is provided in the attached memo (Exhibit 1). A technical memo from Kernen Lien and the minutes of the Council's PPP Committee are contained in Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. An interim zoning ordinance drafted by the City Attorney is attached as Exhibit 4; this ordinance is provided for Council information and can be considered on August 6th for potential action. Attachments Exhibit 1: Issue Outline Memo Exhibit 2: Kernen Lien Memo Exhibit 3: PPP Minutes Exhibit 4: Potential Draft Ordinance Form Review Packet Page 192 of 305 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/25/2013 02:15 PM Mayor Sandy Chase 07/25/2013 03:20 PM Planning Department Rob Chave 07/25/2013 03:31 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/25/2013 03:40 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/26/2013 12:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/26/2013 12:16 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/25/2013 09:40 AM Final Approval Date: 07/26/2013 Packet Page 193 of 305 MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 2013 To: City Council From: I Rob Subject: I Allowed Activities within Critical Area Buffers The Problem. The problem is simply stated: the City's critical areas regulations, as written, are not completely consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report. Critical Areas Best Available Science. The City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was developed based on `best available science' (BAS). The BAS assessment concluded that because the city was mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already -developed areas (see separate technical memo from Kernen Lien for further detailed discussion). It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO. The City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) addresses standards and enhancement strategies through a number of mechanisms, including the concept of "Allowed Activities." In the City's CAO, "Allowed Activities" are generally described as activities that can occur within critical area buffers. These allowed activities (sometimes referred to as `uses') can be conditioned, must use `Best Management Practices', and must be conducted so that there is no degradation of the associated critical area. Examples of "Allowed Activities" are generally what one would expect, including such things as utilities maintenance or replacement, maintenance of rights -of -way, and so forth. Also included are alteration of existing structures "...that does not increase the footprint of development or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer...." The relationship of an allowed activity to the "footprint of development" was directly related to the BAS discussion noted above, but the language also includes the key phrase "existing structures" which conflicts with the general concept of tying activity to the "footprint of development." This has had unfortunate consequences which are counter to the intent of the BAS. Two examples that have surfaced recently illustrate the problem. City Park Spray Park Project. A portion of the project being designed at City Park is located within a Class II wetland buffer, even though the project site is physically separated by a parking lot and access road from the associated wetland. As such, the project is located in an area that we would describe as "physically separated and functionally isolated" from the wetland. According the BAS report, this is the type of development the City should allow, in exchange for buffer enhancement. City of Edmonds c�q Planning Division Packet Page 194 of 305 American Brewing Company Project. An existing business is located within a developed area and wishes to add a silo to its site. The site is completely paved, so the added structure will have no impact on the critical area or its buffer. Again, this type of activity is envisioned in the Best Available Science analysis, but the restriction in the code to "alteration to a legally constructed structure" means that the project can't go forward. The business owner has already approached the City to seek a permit, and may need to relocate his business if he is unable to proceed. Solutions. The City Council's Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the problem at its July 9, 2013 meeting and asked the Planning Board to review the issue. However, greater urgency may be called for. Regarding the spray park project, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite notes, The current project area lies within the buffer of the wetland bordering City Park to the North. Steve Quarterman completed a wetland reconnaissance and determined that the northern portion of the play area falls within the boundaries. However, no in -water work or work in wetlands is planned for the project and the site work is focused on an area that is separated from the wetland and stream by an existing parking lot. This existing parking lot interrupts the vegetated wetland/stream buffer. We are on hold in the design phase of our project. We have completed 30% and in the process of working on 60% design, have been researching permit issues associated with this project. We are currently stalled until we can figure out how to 1. Mitigate the development within the buffer, which has been determined by Planning isn't legal. Or 2. Adopt an interim ordinance that clarifies the code, so that there is allowance to develop within already developed land within the buffer. Or 3. Move the project south into the park more, necessitating the removal of several large trees in City Park. Time is of the essence for this, as the design is on hold until we can resolve this issue. The more time we are at a standstill adds to the project time, scope, and budget. Our project timeline calls for 60% design to complete by August I st. We also need to be out to bid on the Spray equipment and the Play equipment by the end of July, which is on hold, pending the footprint and design. Given the clear intent expressed in the Best Available Science report, it appears to staff that it would be reasonable to consider adopting an interim zoning ordinance to provide immediate relief. The City Attorney has drafted an interim ordinance for Council consideration; this can be considered by Council at its August 6, 2013 meeting for further action while the Planning Board is considering a permanent fix. The interim ordinance would clarify the "footprint of development" concept, incorporate the language addressing "physically separated and functionally isolated" language, and also provide greater clarity regarding the expectation for buffer enhancement, all provisions consistent with the critical areas BAS report. Packet Page 195 of 305 OF EDA, O� ~� Edmonds City Council Agenda Memo Ib�. tg90 Meeting Date: July 3, 2013 Agenda Subject: Critical Areas `Allowed Uses' Provisions Staff Lead / Kernen Lien Author: Senior Planner Initiated By: ❑ City Council ❑ Planning Board 0 City Staff ❑Citizen Request ❑ Other: Port of Edmonds Allowed Uses within Critical Area Buffers In many instances critical area buffers engulf entire properties and may even extend across properties entirely separated from a stream or wetland. Often property within the critical area buffers has been developed. The City's critical regulations contain provisions for allowed activities within critical areas or their associated buffers. While the Best Available Science report prepared during the CAO update evaluated redevelopment with a developed footprint, the allowed use provisions of the critical area code allows additions to structures but seem to prohibit development within the previously developed footprint. Two proposals have been presented to the City recently that are impacted by strict interpretation of the critical areas allowed uses provisions. Staff wants to highlight this issue for the Council for a possible code amendment. Below is an analysis of the Best Available Science report and the critical areas allowed uses provisions. of Edmond Critical Areas Ordinance The Best Available Science (BAS) reports that were developed during the City's update of the critical area regulations also recognized that historical development exists within the critical area buffers and envisioned redevelopment within critical area buffers. The BAS report noted: The City of Edmonds is largely built -out with approximately 96% of the land previously developed. GMA density goals will be met through redevelopment. Instituting large buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. The CAO provides flexibility for City staff to work with landowners in developing a scientifically -based enhancement plan for such redevelopment. (pg. 31) A memorandum from the CAO update elaborates on this: City of Edmonds caR City Council Packet Page 196 of 305 The goal of the CAO is to protect public safety and the City's natural resources while providing for increases in urban density under the GMA guidelines. The CAO update reflects the City's particular needs regarding future growth and critical areas. The vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed, thus future growth will be concentrated in redevelopment of existing parcels. In addition, older residential neighborhoods are integrated with streams that have little or no native vegetation buffers. The challenge for the CAO is to provide opportunities to improve conditions along these streams in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. One of the challenges of updating the CAO was to balance projected growth to meet GMA goals and protection of natural resources using BAS in a city that is essentially built -out. Streams are a particular challenge in the city. Some streams flow through steep ravines with good native vegetation cover while many sections of streams flow through residential neighborhoods that have little or no native plant buffers. Streams often flow through areas dominated by lawn and suburban -type landscaping, within several feet of houses, under driveways, and through manipulated channels. Extending 200-foot-wide buffers throughout these areas was not practical and would offer no protection for most of the City, which is already developed. In addition to increase in buffers over the current code, the new CAO establishes a new requirement to provide buffer enhancement for new footprints from redevelopment, even if no native plant buffer currently exists. Given the vast majority of density increases will come from redevelopment this approach ensures incremental increases in wetland and stream habitat quality. While the Best Available Science reports addressed "development" and "redevelopment" within existing buffers, that terminology did not get transferred to the code. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 — Allowed Activities (General) 3. Permitted Alteration to Structures Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement (additions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its footprint; ECDC 23.50.020.E — Allowed Activities (Wetlands) E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. "Development" within the Best Available Science reports got transferred to "structure" within the language of the critical areas regulations. While "development" generally includes impervious surface with the "footprint of development", "structure" is more related to something that is "constructed and erected" on the ground and does not include impervious surface. So while the Best Available Science report envisioned redevelopment within an existing developed footprint as an opportunity for enhancement over current conditions, the current critical area regulations do not clearly reflect this concept. Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 197 of 305 The City is nearly 96% percent developed and a return to a predevelopment condition is unrealistic. Redevelopment of properties provides an opportunity for enhancement of critical area buffers and improving current conditions. As such, the Council may wish to consider an amendment to the critical area regulations allowed uses provisions that provides for some redevelopment with the previously developed footprint in association with enhancement opportunities. Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 198 of 305 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 199 of 305 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 200 of 305 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, the City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was developed based on `best available science' (BAS); and WHEREAS, the BAS assessment concluded that because the city was mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already -developed areas; and and WHEREAS, it was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO; WHEREAS, the relationship of an allowed activity to the "footprint of development" was directly related to the BAS discussion noted above, but the language also includes the phrase "existing structures" which conflicts with the general concept of connecting allowable development activity to the "footprint of development;" and and WHEREAS, this has had unfortunate consequences which are counter to the intent of the BAS; WHEREAS, two recent development proposals have raised awareness of the unintended limitations of the current code; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Page 201 of 305 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activites," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ). Section 2. Section 23.40.320 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Definitions pertaining to critical areas," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through). Section 3. Section 23.50.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activities — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo •g ). Section 4. Section 23.50.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thfo g ). Section 5. Section 23.90.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — specific habitats," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo •g ). Section 6. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date, after which point it shall have no further effect. Packet Page 202 of 305 Section 7. 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 8. 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. �. ... ism MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 203 of 305 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 AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 2 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 204 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 23.40.220 Allowed activities. A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 1.,Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development = Formatted: Font: Italic permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and d. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured; 2.Yodification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Formatted: Font: Italic Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; 3.Fe Fm i ttedAlte,;�ti en te Strqucmures Develo 12 rn en tv ro posals within foot tint o f Formatted: Font: Italic development Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted -alteration Formatted: Font: Italic Development proposals to ., legally constructed StFUct,,,-e existing within -, ,.;tical area or buge . that in the footprint of development within critical areas and/or buffers may be allowed as long as the proposed development&es-�_ a. does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint: of b. does not increase the impact to the critical area and/or buffer;. and there is ^^ c. does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site: d. does not increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed PA-nd-i-fic--ation,or-r-eplaeement development proposal: and Page 11 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 205 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. e. includes measures to enhance the critical area and/or buffer in a way that improves its function and value. (^aAdditions or expansions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area and or buffer that do increase the existi iglegally established footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see,. e... ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This subsection C.3 shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction and or redevelopment of a legal nonconforming h"structure within its footprint; 4. Activities Within the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway; S. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and light equipment: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Page 2 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 206 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; and d. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Or -El. 3927 § 2 20041. Page 3 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 207 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50. 23.60. 23.70. 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas located within 200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project - induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Page 4 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 208 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 1. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 4. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50. 23.60, 23.70. 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "One - hundred -year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Footprint of development" means the area of a site that contains legally established impervious surfaces. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and Page 5 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 209 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats, eel -grass beds, and wetlands. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Impervious surface" means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as it occurs under natural conditions prior to development, resulting in storm water runoff from the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow compared to storm water runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include (but are not limited to) rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, outdoor swimming pools, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of storm water. Landslide Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(B).] "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; Page 6 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 210 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when established, is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff"means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For areas of potential geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. Seismic Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(C).] "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by Page 7 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 211 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).] "Title" means all chapters of the City of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [See ECDC 23.50.010(B).] "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. rid. 352-7§2, 200 23.50.020 Allowed activities - Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. Page 8 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 212 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. E. Permitted alteration t a legally „A,-,,cte str-u tuF ;stir Development proposals in the footprint of development within a wetland and or wetland buffer may be allowed as long as the proposed alteration: a. does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint: b. does not^r impervious surfacing of increase the impact to a wetland and/or wetland buffer;. c. does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site; d. does not increase the risk to life or property as a result of the proposed alteration, replacement or redevelopment: and e. includes measures to enhance the wetland and/or wetland buffer in a way that improves its function and value. {9r�352-7 § 2, 20041. 23.50.040 Development standards - Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category 1 Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category 2 Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 2 wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. Page 9 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 213 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. E. Category 3 and 4 Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3 and 4 wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the vegetation is inadequate, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width (see subsection (F)(3) of this section). Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as follows: a. Category 1: 200 feet; b. Category 2: 100 feet; c. Category 3: 50 feet; d. Category 4: 35 feet. 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (17)(3) of this section may substitute. 3. Buffer Width Reductions Through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds development services director, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 and 4 wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than 50 percent of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be increased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer or through additional mitigation; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; Page 10 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 214 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance. 4. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the standard or reduced buffer width. 5. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 6. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. 7. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. b. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; Page 111 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 215 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. G. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. H. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and wetland buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 1. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; 2. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (F) (3) of this section; 3. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (F)(4) of this section; of Page 12 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 216 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 4. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averaging or S. Within buffer areas that: a. are physically separated from the associated wetland due to public roads, legally established structures, or similar circumstances: b. are functionally isolated from the associated wetland: and c. as a result of a and b, above, do not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether subsections a and b are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. I. Exemptions. The director may allow isolated Category 3 or 4 wetlands under 500 square feet in area to be exempt from the provisions of this title. A wetland exemption shall only be granted if a submitted critical areas report, in the form of a critical areas reconnaissance or delineation, provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is under 500 square feet in area; 2. The wetland is a low -quality Category 3 or 4 wetland; 3. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 4. Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. 1. Enhancement of Wetlands and Wetland Buffers. Where this chapter allows development within a wetland or wetland buffer, the director shall condition proposals for development by requiring enhancement measures consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions of development approval shall be required to enhance wetland and/or wetland buffers in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include without limitation: a. Planting of native vegetation: b. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species: c. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers: and d. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard wetland buffer widths of this section can be accommodated by the proposed development, the applicant shall be required to submit a wetland buffer enhancement plan or a wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report. The plan must demonstrate that post -project site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of wetland functions and wildlife habitat when compared to a standard wetland buffer and existing site conditions. .[Or-d. 3 52�7 § 2, 2 0 0T]. 23.90.040 Development standards - Specific habitats. A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. Page 13 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 217 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed within 800 feet of a verified nest territory or communal roost, a habitat management plan shall be developed by a qualified professional. The director shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. Page 14 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 218 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 regardless of the potential for designation as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or other critical area. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction. D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f. Type Ns: 25 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50 percent of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections equivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without enhancement; Page 15 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 219 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of three years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; b. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the reduced or standard width; and c. The functions and values of the stream and associated buffer will not be diminished through the use of buffer averaging. 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section). Provisions for standard stream buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and stream buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: a. Outside of the standard stream buffer; b. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (D) (2) of this section; c. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (D)(3) of this section; or d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averaging. e. Within buffer areas that: i. are physically separated from the associated stream due to public roads, legally established structures, or similar circumstances: ii. are functionally isolated from the associated stream: and Page 16 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 220 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. iii. as a result of i and ii, above, do not serve to protect the stream from adverse impacts of development. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether subsections i and ii are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. S. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110. 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city. 6. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nonimpervious surface materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. Page 17 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 221 of 305 Attachment A to Ord. 7. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; and b. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 8. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that postproject site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2 2004] Page 18 1 Attachment A to Ord. Packet Page 222 of 305 AM-5942 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: 60 Minutes Council President Petso City Council Type: Information "information Submitted By: Committee Action: J Jana Spellman Subject Title Continued discussion on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Discuss next steps in the Harbor Square plan process. Previous Council Action The City Council heard an introduction to the Harbor Square Master Plan at the November 20, 2012 City Council meeting, with subsequent public hearings held on December 4 and December 18, 2012. The December 18th public hearing was continued to January 29, 2013, and deliberation was continued to February 5, 2013. At the February 5, 2013 meeting, the City Council requested staff to develop a modified draft of the Harbor Square Master Plan based on comments provided by City Council and testimony received during the Public Hearings. Review of a potential revised version of the Harbor Square plan began during the March 19, 2013 meeting and continued review during the March 26, 2013, with the Council voting to use the staff revisions to the Plan (as contained in Exhibit 2) as a basis for discussion rather than the Port's original proposal (Exhibit 1). At the April 16, 2013 Council meeting, the Council discussed the Port of Edmonds withdrawal of their application to incorporate the HSMP into the City's Comprehensive Plan and continued further discussion to May 7, 2013. Technical difficulties at the May 7, 2013 Council meeting prevented the meeting from being video recorded. Given the technical difficulties, the importance of the subject and pending legal questions, Council decided to continue discussion to a future meeting. May 21, 2013 Council Meeting: This topic was discussed at the May 21, 2013 meeting. Exhibit 7: 5/21/13 Approved Council Minutes Narrative Given that the Port has withdrawn their application for a master plan, the Council needs to discuss how it wants to proceed. If the Council desires to continue with planning for Harbor Square, this would require docketing a new plan proposal that would need to go through the entire planning process. This would necessitate substantial staff time, review and hearing(s) by the Planning Board, and subsequent review and hearing(s) by the City Council. Given current priorities and staffing levels, we have serious concerns about whether we have sufficient resources to undertake this work. Packet Page 223 of 305 The exhibits with this agenda packet are the same ones provided the Council for March 19th, March 26th, April 16th, and May 7th agenda packets. Also included are the Port of Edmonds Application Withdrawal letters (Exhibit 6). The minutes of the May 21, 2013 have been added to this agenda memo as Exhibit 7. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Port of Edmonds' Harbor Square Master Plan Exhibit 2 - Harbor Square Master Plan - City Council Discussion Draft Exhibit 3 - Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table Exhibit 4 - Council Member Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan Exhbit 5 - Council Member Fraley-Monillas email Exhibit 6 - Port of Edmonds Application Withdrawal Letter Exhibit 7: 5-21-13 Approved Council Minutes Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 07/25/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 07/11/2013 01:12 PM Dave Earling 07/18/2013 01:46 PM Sandy Chase 07/25/2013 08:33 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 11:09 AM Packet Page 224 of 305 New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan APRIL 18, 2012 Revised for Planning Board Review August 29. 2012 INTRODUCTION The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the Port's Master Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of the 11-acre site into an economically feasible, environmentally responsible, and well -designed mixed -use transit -oriented development in the City's Downtown Waterfront District. Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community. The Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan provides important site planning and design principles to be used for future development plans. The preparation and adoption of the Plan is in the midst of a multi -phased planning process. Completed, ongoing, and future phases include: Phase 1 (complete) Prepared a generalized fiscal impact analysis of site redevelopment scenarios. Phase 2 (complete) An extensive outreach program to define the community's preferred use, connections, and design principles for the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan. Phase 3 (ongoing) Port Commissioners will adopt the Redevelopment Plan into the Port Master Plan. Following Planning Board public hearings and action by the Edmonds City Council the Redevelopment Plan, if approved, will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 225 of 305 Phase 4 (Future) Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Edmonds City Council, The Port will market the project to solicit responsible development interests. With the selection of a developer by the Port, negotiations between the Port and City will occur to address project issues including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site development issues. Resolution of project issues will likely occur through the preparation and approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and the selected developer. Upon approval of the development agreement by the Edmonds City Council construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Implementation of the Harbor Square Redevelopment Plan is intended to occur over several years, depending on the economic climate, existing lease arrangements and site planning considerations. REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND CONCEPT The Port has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of residential, office, and retail uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity, enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places. Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan This Master Plan is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and pursues a number of the Plan's goals and policies. Most of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to Harbor Square are located in the Waterfront Activity Center element. Below are some of the goals and policies from that element that guide this master plan. Additionally, the Physical Design Principles included in this Master Plan implement the design -specific Comprehensive Plan policies which are listed in that section. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are identified in "italics." Comprehensive Plan Goals • Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. • Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 226 of 305 2 • Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes (e.g. convenience shopping, community activities). • Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses. Comprehensive Plan Policies • E.1. Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues - and builds on - its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. • E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. • E.8. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. • E.9. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. • E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. • E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The Comprehensive Plan identifies individual districts within Edmonds Waterfront. Harbor Square is located in the "Downtown Master Plan District" and the Comprehensive Plan describes the intent for this district as quoted below: Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 227 of 305 3 Planning Principles The concept diagram on the next page illustrates the planning principles developed during Phase 2 of the planning process. The principles serve as design objectives and form the basis for the Plan Elements. The design intent as it relates to the uses, building character, circulation and parking, public spaces, and sustainability is defined below. ♦_W� LEGEND 114 Vehicle access and parking Pedestrian oriented storefronts and Village plaza actimlies Residentia[ Village -- - -- - - Pdrnary pedestrian route ❑ Mixed -use Gateway architectural element ■ ■ ■ W ■ Atlraciive streetscape edge Principles 1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Highway 104 / Dayton Street intersection which is the key link to downtown Edmonds. 2. Create an attractive street front along Highway 104. 3. Feature pedestrian -friendly facades and uses along Dayton Street W. 4. Establish a pedestrian -friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza (1) and the marsh. 5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh. 6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street W. 7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104. 8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment. 9. Locate residential development in the southeast portion of the site. 10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the railroad, within a parking structure designed to serve the entire redevelopment 11. Architectural character should emphasize a "Northwest Style" compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality traditional materials and a variety of colors, forms, and textures. 12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh. 13. Provide for a well -landscaped, Northwest -oriented, small town design theme. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 228 of 305 n PLAN ELEMENTS The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s). Uses and Site Planning • Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces. • Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection. • Locate most of the residential development in the southeast corner and southern part of the site in a village setting or well landscaped complex. • Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix geared toward a range of incomes. Circulation, Traffic and Parking • Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the railroad. • Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad. Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site. • Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians. • Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets. Public Amenities • Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market. • Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh.. • Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street W sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development and the streetscape. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan rj Packet Page 229 of 305 • Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to downtown and the waterfront. • Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104. • Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public benefit. • Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g.: storage racks) in circulation and open space planning. consistent with a village scale Flexible (retaillresidential) space on the ground floor Visual connection from �-��' = ` Dayton/SIR corner through the site to the marsh----,� Internal site connection to the marsh trail as well as the city wide trail system Pedestrian oriented central esplanade with Low Impact Development (LID) elements such as pervious pavement, rain gardens, etc. Public spaces for onsite residents and Edmonds as a whole Pedestrian friendly esplanade extending from public plaza at corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh Sustainability Edmond's Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and poli- cies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibilityto adapt to changing conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. Among the most relevant of this section's policies are: (See pages 19 through 26 in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 230 of 305 e A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and mutually -supporting whole. B.1 Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support mobility and access. 8.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system. D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs. E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City's infrastructure and planning process G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. The Harbor Square Master Plan responds to these policies in several ways. The multi -functional uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront called for in Master Plan's Planning Principles reflect the objectives of policies A.3 and EA Proximity and connections to bus, rail and ferry service respond to the transportation policies, especially B.1 and B.4. The Master Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infrastructure solu- tions as called for in Policy D.3 and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address Policy F.2's call for integrated recreational opportunities. Finally, the Master Plan encourages a residential type and setting unique in Edmonds. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objec- tives. • Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 231 of 305 • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. • Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. Dayton Street sidewalk character Physical Design Criteria In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner to create a unified and attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will establish design standards or guidelines that direct the design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the following goals and policies in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element: New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 232 of 305 E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and its economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. • E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: o Weather protection, o Street trees and flower baskets, o Street furniture, o Public art and art integrated into private developments, o Pocket parks, o Signage and other way -finding devices, o Restrooms. E 18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. E21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. • E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. The criteria described below present the general objectives and parameters that the standards or guidelines will implement. The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time. As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic, and Public amenities sections. Height and Bulk Buildings should be no higher than 55' above grade except for 1) roof -top equipment and other appurtenances that are not visible from ground level and do not block significant views, and 2) special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 233 of 305 9 All structures above 35' in height should not diminish the "human scale" experience of pedestrians on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35' should be set back at least 1' horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1' in height above 35' above grade. (This results in in significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships. Buildings modulated and enhanced with landscaping to provide pleasant pedestrian promenade from 104th/Dayton to the Marsh trail Buildings along All portions of buildings Dayton Avenue no (above 35' tall) set back taller than 4 from Dayton St - stores - sidewalk at least one foot horizontally for every one foot in height above 35' r: Ir.;n Vegetated setback & marsh Pedestrian oriented enhancements and boardwalk commercial activities on per Edmonds SMP ground floor along Dayton St. SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST Illustrating basic building height and setback requirements Dayton St. Furthermore, the "average building height" of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a whole shall not exceed 45'. The means of calculating "average building height" shall be as stated in the notes at the end of this Master Plan. Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on -site storm water improvements per the City's Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings (buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk. Small Scale Buildings All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building facade as a means of breaking up the building's apparent bulk. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 234 of 305 10 In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture. Buildings over 35' in height should be horizontally articulated with upper story setbacks, different materials or window patterns on different stories, balconies, canopies or other means. Street Orientation Dayton Street Frontage The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture, etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented offices, etc. Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The sidewalk should be at least 15' wide. SR 104 Frontage The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage. If WSDOT is amenable, the Port should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail. Architectural Character Provide for a well landscaped, Northwest oriented, small-town development character. Site Design and Landscaping Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses. Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways. Notes: Average Building Height" shall be calculated by.• 1. First, multiplying the foot print of each building on the Harbor Square site (as defined in the Harbor Square Master Plan) times the height (as defined in Edmonds Zoning Code) of the New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 235 of 305 11 respective building. (See conditions below for buildings with multiple heights) This calcu- lation will yield the volume for each building. 2. Then, adding together the products calculated in step 1 (building volumes) and dividing that sum by the sum of all building footprints on the Harbor Square site. Provided that: Existing and proposed buildings will be included in the calculations • Where the height of a building varies from portion to another (e.g.: one wing of a building is 3 stories in height and another wing is 5 stories high.) then the building volume (height x foot- print) of each building portion shall be calculated separately. The height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be calculated as the average of the height of the ridge and the lower ea ve. • For phased development where a portion of the site is developed, the maximum average building height for an early phase may exceed 45' if the average height of all buildings on site is less than 45' for all subsequent phases. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 236 of 305 12 Harbor Square Subarea Plan City Council Discussion Draft I March 19, 2013 Notes: This is a discussion draft attempting to illustrate how the Master Plan could be adjusted to respond to some of the public hearing concerns and Council discussion. In general, more details are left to a future zoning process, with any height considerations to be arrived at through an incentive system that would be included in a proposed zoning ordinance. Introduction The Harbor Square Subarea Plan has been prepared as an amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Its purpose is to provide a framework and solid foundation for the eventual redevelopment of the 11-acre site into a community asset that will contribute to the City's economic, environmental, and community sustainability. The intent is to take advantage of the subarea's unique location and attributes, including its: • location adjoining the Edmonds Marsh; • proximity to different modes of transit; • located at the bottom of "the bowl", at the southern end of public view corridors; • key location, near both downtown and the city's waterfront • potential ability to take advantage of unique infrastructure opportunities, such as public fiber networks or district heating from the treatment plant. Harbor Square is an important component of the Port's overall property holdings and when redeveloped will further the Port's statutory directive of "engaging in economic development programs" to benefit constituents of the Port District as well as the overall Edmonds community. The Harbor Square Subarea Plan provides important site planning and design principles to be used for future development plans. Because it is a conceptual plan, this subarea plan does not establish any specific amount of square footage (commercial or retail) or any specific number of dwelling units. Following approval of the subarea plan by the Edmonds City Council, the City and Port will engage in more detailed planning to address project issues including rezoning of the site, site layout, design issues, impact mitigation and other site development issues. Resolution of project issues may occur through the preparation and approval of a rezone and/or development agreement involving the City, the Port and, possibly, a selected developer. Implementation of the Harbor Square Subarea Plan is intended to be adopted as a subarea plan consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. The subarea lies within the "Downtown Master Plan" district identified in Packet Page 237 of 305 the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, and provides additional guidance for the future development of the Port's Harbor Square property. The plan will be implemented over a number of years, with the timeline depending on such factors as the economic climate, existing lease arrangements, and site planning considerations. Redevelopment Objectives and Concepts A key objective of the plan is that redevelopment of Harbor Square should complement and enhance the other features of the downtown/waterfront area that make it uniquely "Edmonds." These include such things as an active waterfront, natural amenities (notably Edmonds Marsh and the nearby trails and walkways), a pedestrian -oriented downtown that serves as both a business and employment center, and important multi modal transit facilities that provide benefits to both local and regional residents. In recognizing these features and amenities, certain potential concepts emerge that could take advantage of the unique opportunities that the subarea presents: Include a multi -use public space that offers opportunities for community gatherings and events, and providing opportunities to enhance the arts. Protect and enhance the Edmonds Marsh while providing enhanced public use areas and bike and pedestrian pathways that contribute to the larger downtown/waterfront activity area, improving connections between the waterfront and other parts of downtown. Focus on planning for and attracting employers and businesses who could provide a stimulus to the local economy and that take advantage of the site location. The availability of public fiber networks and transit could offer an attractive environment for technology or biotech companies, or arts or business incubators that are more dependent on community amenities and innovation rather than the scale advantages found in larger employment centers. Emphasize a mix of uses that contribute to an active subarea, which should focus on its location and potential for connections between the marsh, the waterfront, and downtown. Residential uses may be allowed that enhance this role, but should not be the principal use of the site. Apply a high level of sustainability principles in the site planning, infrastructure, and building design that takes place within the subarea. The result should be an example for the community to showcase and apply elsewhere. There are numerous examples of similar concepts employed successfully elsewhere. For example, Portland's Pearl District includes the idea of renovation and redevelopment of an older commercial/industrial district into a mixed use zone which includes public open space (Jamison Square) and ecological New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 238 of 305 G restoration (Tanner Springs Park). Themed redevelopment could leverage current interest in small industries such as breweries/brew pubs or arts workshops and galleries, similar to what the City of Tacoma is promoting for parts of its Brewery District. Farmers or arts markets could also be a feature included in this type of plan. Similarly, redevelopment of Harbor Square could seek to encourage space for incubator or start-up businesses, such as the TechStars or SURF Incubators in Seattle or the Environmental Business Cluster in i San Jose. Live/work space for artists a`P patterned after the Artspace Everett hem Lofts could also fit with these '� r t� � 0- 68L suaYcr �+ ' xS VE concepts. � 1 �"l `!` 5��:, p Wulf I• � � The Port of Edmonds has identified opportunities to redevelop the Harbor Square site with a mix of uses that promote economic development, environmental responsibility, and a high quality design character. The redevelopment concept includes increased public access opportunities and other amenities that capitalize on the site's waterfront setting and adjacency to Edmonds Marsh. Public benefits include an expanded tax base, increased downtown activity, enhanced connections between downtown and the waterfront, an improved pedestrian environment, promotion of transit oriented development, improved ecology, and increased waterfront view opportunities with public gathering places. Plan Elements The Port will incorporate the following elements into the redevelopment of Harbor Square through design guidelines or conditions of purchase/sale agreement(s). Uses and Site Planning • Create a "village" character with pedestrian gathering spaces. • Create an attractive street front along SR104 as an entry into downtown, with a pedestrian and visual "gateway" at the SR104/Dayton Street intersection. • Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that further the redevelopment objectives and concepts identified in this plan (see discussion, above). Ensure that the public view corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. Circulation, Traffic and Parking Provide vehicular access from Dayton Street approximately midway between SR104 and the railroad. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 239 of 305 3 Locate most of the parking near the western perimeter of the site, next to the railroad. Parking could be enclosed in an above ground structure designed to serve the entire site. Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians. Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets. Public Amenities Establish a pedestrian friendly esplanade with compatible adjacent activities and building facades that extends from the public plaza at the corner of SR104/Dayton Street across Harbor Square to Edmonds Marsh.. Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail or other pedestrian -oriented spaces that open onto the Dayton Street sidewalk. Small scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development and the streetscape. Whenever possible, spaces should be designed to be flexible and multi -use. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. Orient development in a manner that connects Harbor Square to downtown and the waterfront, and that recognizes the vistas toward the Marsh and Puget Sound. Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR104. Include bicycle connections and facilities (e.g. storage racks) in circulation and open space planning. Sustainability Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan includes a Community Sustainability Element with goals and policies to increase the city's sustainability based on three principles: flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, a holistic approach that integrates multiple actions to address the broad range of issues and a long term perspective that extends beyond the typical 20 year GMA time frame. The Harbor Square Subarea Plan is intended to provide a planning framework consistent with the city's sustainability principles. The multi -functional uses proposed for the site and the connections to downtown and the waterfront are intended to support the ability of Edmonds residents to work, shop and obtain service locally, while also serving to promote and support the local economy. Proximity and connections to bus, rail and ferry service respond to the need to integrate land use and transportation. The Subarea Plan provisions directly below include an emphasis on green building and green infra- structure solutions, and the integrated pedestrian and bicycle scheme and supporting principles as well as provision for the athletic club and the marsh boardwalk address the need for integrated rec- New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 240 of 305 M reational opportunities. Below are additional provisions to Edmonds' sustainability objectives. • Incorporate into individual buildings and the overall site redevelopment both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. • Employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. stories stepped back to mass High quality design features with long lasting materials Connection to the Landscape buffer between the sidewalk and traffic Spaces for pedestrian activity and gatherings and retail spaces opening onto the sidewalk Pedestrian oriented retail along Dayton Physical Design Criteria In order to direct the development of Harbor Square in an orderly manner and create a unified and attractive complex, the Port of Edmonds will develop design standards and/or guidelines that direct the design of individual buildings and spaces. The standards or guidelines will be used along with other zoning code and municipal code regulations to review projects within Harbor Square. The criteria are intended to be consistent with and implement the goals and policies in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown Waterfront Activity Center element: The physical design criteria for Harbor Square are necessarily general in nature because a specific lay -out for the complex will depend on development considerations and opportunities at the time. As noted above, they are intended to provide general guidance rather than serve as immutable New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 241 of 305 5 standards. See site development objectives the Uses and Site Planning, Circulation and Traffic, and Public amenities sections. Height and Bulk To implement the plan, future zoning shall provide for a base zoning height no higher than 35' above grade. The zoning may authorize additional bonus height, provided that any bonus height options may only be achieved through the provision of public benefits and/or amenities to be detailed in a subsequent zoning ordinance. The following public benefits and/or amenities are examples of the range of items that might be required in a future zoning ordinance to achieve bonus height on portions of the Harbor Square site [option: up to a maximum of 451: Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh. Provide a civic/cultural/view point/interpretive element within the development as a public benefit. Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual gateway to Edmonds Marsh from the intersection at SR104/Dayton Street. This public entry point will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds and also create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or public plaza in the center of Harbor Square that provides space for public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market. Establish a transfer of development rights program that serves to protect or reduce heights in another sensitive location — identified by the City — in exchange for a height increase at Harbor Square. Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions. Envisioned improvements could include such features as on -site storm water improvements to improve drainage and water quality, enhanced or restored vegetation plantings and buffers, and a nature viewing boardwalk. Pedestrian Scale Buildings All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the pedestrian scale found in Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the differential treatment of a building's fagade as a means of breaking up the building's apparent bulk. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 242 of 305 i In general, the articulation should be designed to reduce the scale of buildings so that the horizontal module is no greater than 60' in width. These preliminary dimensional provisions are intended to respond to Downtown Edmonds' historic 60' lot pattern and traditional architecture. Street Orientation Dayton Street Frontage The ground floor of buildings fronting on Dayton Street should feature "pedestrian oriented facades" and "pedestrian oriented uses". A "pedestrian oriented fagade" is one with transparent windows or window displays along most of the fagade front, pedestrian weather protection, signs oriented to the pedestrian rather than to the automobile passenger, a prominent building entry and other amenities such as building details, lighting, street furniture, artwork, etc. A "pedestrian oriented use" is a use that emphasizes human activity on the street such as retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, personal services and service oriented offices, etc. Where these types of uses are not envisioned, artwork, open space, or other amenities could be placed to invite public interaction and interest. Buildings fronting on Dayton Street should either front directly on the street or be separated by a pedestrian oriented space such as a plaza, garden, outdoor seating area, etc. The sidewalk should be at least 15' wide. Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street. SR 104 Frontage The site frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There should be a pedestrian/multi-use path along the entire SR 104 frontage with connections to other existing and potential walkways. The Port should enter into an agreement with WSDOT to improve the SR 104 ROW on the west side of the roadway to provide a much better streetscape, development edge and entry into downtown. Improvements should include street trees, landscaping, and if appropriate, a shared use (bike/pedestrian) trail. Site Design and Landscaping Use green space that relates to and complements the adjacent uses. Use landscaping to create buffers between sidewalks and adjacent roadways. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 243 of 305 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Residential Uses Comments regarding residential uses from the Council and citizens 1. No residential uses during the Public Hearing process were varied. In the revised HSMP, 2. Limit the extent of residential uses residential uses may be allowed to complement or enhance the overall a. Limit number of units development concept of Harbor Square, but should not be the principal b. Limit location along marsh use of the site. (Page 2) c. Provide for affordable housing d. Encourage live/work units 3. Allow residential development Height and Bulk Height: Heights are addressed on Page 6 of the revised HSMP. Base 1. Keep maximum height at 35 feet zoning heights are limited to 35 feet (as is currently allowed on the site) 2. Base height at 35 feet with possible increase in heights with with potential bonus heights if public benefits and/or amenities are incentives provide or a development rights transfer program is established. An 3. No mention of heights in Comprehensive Plan option is provided to cap any potential increase in height at 45 feet. 4. Establish a transfer of development rights program 5. Development should be pedestrian scale Bulk/Pedestrian Scale: Bulk and pedestrian scale design is addressed in 6. Limit building bulk a number of places in the HSMP including the following sections; Use and Site Planning (Page 3), Public Amenities (Page 4), Height and Bulk (Page 6), Pedestrian Scale Buildings (Pages 6 — 7), Street Orientation (Page 7), and Site Design and Landscaping (Pagel). Page 1 of 5 Packet Page 244 of 305 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Buffers, Setbacks, and other Environmental Issues Setbacks and buffers from the Edmonds Marsh will be proscribed 1. Redevelopment not allowed in current "developed footprint". within the updated Shoreline Master Program, which is currently under New development must meet SMP and CAO buffers. review by the City Council. Any future development or redevelopment 2. Provide adequate buffers and setbacks to protect marsh at Harbor Square must comply with the SMP as noted on Page 6 of the 3. Geological Hazard (liquefaction) HSMP. 4. Flooding The HSMP also emphasizes green building and green infrastructure (LID techniques) as noted in the Sustainability section on Pages 4 — 5. Contributing to the day -lighting of Willow Creek and improving the buffers surrounding the Edmonds Marsh are also highlighted as potential incentives under the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. Geological hazard and flooding issues are items that will be dealt with during project level SEPA review. Incorporation into City's Comprehensive Plan The Planning Board recommended that the HSMP be incorporated in 1. Subarea Plan the City's Comprehensive Plan rather just be incorporated by reference 2. Incorporate full text of HSMP (PB Recommendation #12). Whether the HSMP is incorporated 3. Incorporate by reference completely into the Comprehensive Plan or adopted by reference, the effect is the same in that the HSMP would then be part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This can be implemented through the adopting ordinance. Treating the HSMP as a subarea plan specifically emphasizes that the master plan only applies to the Harbor Square property. Additionally, considering the HSMP as a subarea plan addresses a recommendation from the Planning Board (PB Recommendation #10) that language from the City Attorney's memorandum be incorporated into the adoption of the HSMP. Page 2 of 5 Packet Page 245 of 305 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Special Districts or Incentive Zoning: All these ideas are supported in the Redevelopment Objectives and 1. Brewery/distillery/brew pub zone Concepts narrative on Pages 2 — 3 of the HSMP. 2. Create district energy area using waste heat from sewer treatment plant 3. Campus for tech firm or other business 4. Tourists destination (small hotels with first floor restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art galleries, studios, small shops that sell a variety of item these shops that may sell locally made arts, crafts, and jewelry). 5. Year-round farmers market 6. Roger Brooks' Concepts Parking Parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be 1. Limit parking requirements for residences in order to encourage consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in a single car ECDC 17.50, unless modified in a future zoning change approved by 2. Parking must be adequate for any development Council. Connectivity Improving the connections between the waterfront and downtown is 1. Provide connectivity between waterfront and downtown emphasized in the Redevelopment Objectives and Concepts on Pages 2 2. Provide connectivity to trains, ferries, and buses. — 3. The Public Amenities section on Page 4 also recognizes the need for connections between the waterfront and downtown. Also the Sustainability section on Page 4 notes that the proximity to bus, rail and ferry respond to the need to integrate land use and transportation. Page 3 of 5 Packet Page 246 of 305 Planning Board Recommendations: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times." 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". 8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street." 9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", "If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence. 10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Questions of have been raised about how the Planning Board's recommendations will be incorporated in the HSMP. Some of the recommendations from the Planning Board are no longer applicable with regard to the revised master plan while other recommendations have been incorporated. Below is a summary of how the Planning Board's recommendations have been addressed in the current draft of the HSMP. 1. The specific building heights in the recommendation are no longer applicable. The possibility of allowing some additional height through incentive zoning if certain public amenities are provided has been incorporated in the HSMP in the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. 2. With a base height of 35 feet spelled out in the current draft of the HSMP, this condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Base height has been limited to 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Language from this condition has been added under the Uses and Site Planning section on Page 3. 5. As noted above, parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in ECDC 17.50. The standards contained in ECDC 17.50 are intended to ensure that adequate off street parking is provided for all uses on a redeveloped Harbor Square. Only a zoning change approved by Council could alter parking requirements. 6. The base height of 35 feet may only be exceeded if public benefits and/or amenities are provided (Page 6). 7. The referenced graphic has been removed from the HSMP. 8. Language has been added under the Dayton Street Frontage Section on Page 7. 9. Wording has been removed under the SR 104 Frontage section on Page 7. Page 4 of 5 Packet Page 247 of 305 Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views. 10. The City Attorney memorandum addressed three issues. 11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square a. The height issue is addressed by limiting base height to 35 Master Plan that residential uses must be multifamily and not feet. Any increase in height above 35 feet could only be single-family residential. accomplished through incentive zoning approved by 12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the Council. City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the b. Concern with regard to precedent is addressed by treating Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference. the HSMP as a subarea plan. 13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and c. The third question addressed by the City Attorney's provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an memorandum had to do with the protection of private area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge views. No specific language with regard to this item has of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development preserves been addressed. The memo noted the City has discretion or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway. in how it addresses private views. Private view protection 14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to is not mentioned in any of the City's Planning Documents maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update or codes. However, as noted in the City Attorney's to be determined following submittal by the City and approved memorandum (Attachment 22 from the November 20, by the State in accordance with process deadlines existent 2012 agenda item on the HSMP), the City has designated between the State and the City. specific public view corridors (See page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan). Protection of the Dayton Street view corridor is called out under the Use and Site Planning section on Page 3. Additionally, language with regard to the Attorney memorandum could be incorporated in the adopting ordinance. 11. No specific language with regard to multifamily development has been added. As noted above, residential development in Harbor Square should not be the principle use, but provide to enhance and support the mixed use nature of Harbor Square. Any more specific provisions regarding residential uses would be the subject of a future rezone approved by Council. 12. See above with regard to incorporating the HSMP. 13. As noted above, setback from the marsh will be determined by the updated Shoreline Master Program currently under review by the City Council. 14. The Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh section on Page 6 recognizing the HSMP must comply with the HSMP. Page 5 of 5 Packet Page 248 of 305 This area is appropriate for development which takes advantage of its fiber access and strategic location between the waterfront and downtown, but which recognizes the environmental and geographic constraints of the area. . Ultimately, perhaps with the assistance of WRIA 8, Snohomish County Conservation Fu- tures, and other organizations, the southern portion of the near water- front area will be used for an expanded Marsh and/or Marsh buffer. To provide a necessary connection between downtown and the water- front. �t redevelopment in #iris the near waterfront area shall b� provide pedestrian friendly walking ar- eas and public gathering spaces or parks, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Public view corridors along Dayton and Main Street shall be maintained, and enhanced where possible (former Skippers site). Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the prop- erties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, land- scaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project. Due to view corridors and the need to maintain a pedestrian scale and small town character, building heights may not be increased, and build- ing bulk shall be limited. Parking must be adequate for any development, due to the need to also provide parking for the waterfront, the train station, and the ferry dock. Development shall include a destination for Edmonds residents and visi- tors, including but not limited to recreational, cultural, dining, lodging, hobby, commercial, tourist or entertainment attractions. Development shall not duplicate existing small scale retail or mixed use development or existing housing stock. Traditional housing such as mixed use, multi- family, transit oriented and condominimum uses shall be avoided, though a modest number of non-traditional housing options such as artist live/work studios may be considered in areas with adequate public ser- vices that are not geologically or otherwise hazardous. Packet Page 249 of 305 From: Clifton, Stephen To: Lien. Kernen; Earling, Dave Subject: FW: Draft comprehensive plan amendment Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:51:52 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Monillas, Adrienne Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:44 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Cc: Petso, Lora; Chave, Rob; Taraday, Jeff Subject: Re: Draft comprehensive plan amendment By the way how does the 14 recommendations of the planning board get incorporated into the plan??? Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Sent from my Pad On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:33 PM, "Monillas, Adrienne" <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov> wrote: > Thanks Lora for your thoughts. > I would also like my "vision" added to the plan. > I would like to see this become a tourist destination. I vision multiple small hotels with first floor restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art gallery's, studios, small shops that sell a variety of item these shops that may sell locally made arts, crafts, and jewelry. To include a year round farmers market in this space. This area should provide connectivity to trains, ferries and buses. This needs to be a walkable area only. > No more height than current zoning. > I would like to see a safe buffer for the marsh and care taken to maintain the fragile environmental aspects. > In my extensive travels the past couple of years internationally and nationally tourists are attracted to this type of development and they bring resources with them. > edmonds needs to become a destination! > Adrienne Fraley-Monillas > Sent from my Pad > On Feb 25, 2013, at 5:09 PM, "Petso, Lora" <Lora.Petso@edmondswa.gov> wrote: >> Stephen/Rob- >> I created the attached draft comprehensive plan amendment based on the public comment, and shared it with council via bcc. >> Since this version deals with entire near waterfront area, I will also work on a version that is specific to Harbor Square, and leaves the rest of the area as is. >> It is just a draft, but it includes most of the ideas raised in public comments. >> Lora Packet Page 250 of 305 >> 2-23-2013 4 42 05 PM >> <2-23-2013 4_42_05 PM.pdf> Packet Page 251 of 305 TORT OF E D M 0 N D S 336 Admiral Way • Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425) 774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org April 3, 2013 Ft Jil � Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner APR 0 City of Edmonds City of Edmonds 201,E 121 Fifth Ave. N. 121 Fifth Ave. N. p�Ald(�jf Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 G1. Re: Port of Edmonds Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment City of Edmonds File No. AMD20110009 Dear Rob and Kernen: This letter is to formally notify the City of Edmonds, through its Planning Department, that the Port of Edmonds is withdrawing its Land Use Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or Sub Area Plan Amendment to have the City adopt the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan as a City Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Sub Area Plan. This formal withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds Land Use Application is necessitated by the City Council's inability to substantively review the Planning Board's recommended decision approving, with conditions, the adoption of the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Council's failure to consider the City Staff s recommendation that the Council similarly adopt that Planning Board recommendation. Nonetheless, the Port of Edmonds understands that it is the City Council's ultimate prerogative to accept the Planning Board's and the City Staff s recommendations and with the Council's reticence to do so, the Port is left with its only realistic recourse, which is to withdraw its Application and terminate the processing of that Application. The Port of Edmonds would like to sincerely thank the Planning Department Staff for its significant time and energy expended in focusing on the substantive issues related to the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. The Port of Edmonds also sincerely appreciates the thoughtful evaluation and deliberation that the Planning Board undertook in reaching its decision on the Port's Application. Please confirm that the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and related proceedings pending before the City of Edmonds are terminated as a result of this withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds' Application. Again, thank you for your courtesies and cooperation extended through these proceedings. Ve truly yo r R bert Mc he ey Executive Dire for Cc: Port Commissioners Mayor Dave Earling City Council Members Planning Board Members Packet Page 252 of 305 1 1 A 336 Admiral Way - Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 • (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425) 774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org April 9, 2013 Honorable Dave Earling, Mayor Honorable City Council Members CITY OF EDMONDS 121— Fifth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Withdrawal Mayor Earling and Council Members: This letter provides notification that the Port of Edmonds has withdrawn its Application for an Amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Port of Edmonds Executive Director Robert McChesney's letter to Rob Chave and Kernen Lien, which effects the withdrawal of the Port's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and terminates the City's proceedings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, initiated by the Port's Application. The Port of Edmonds Commission made the decision to withdraw the Port's Application when, after a series of discussions before the City Council, it became apparent there was not sufficient support to obtain a majority vote for acceptance of the Planning Board recommendation to approve, with conditions, the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Instead, Council formally voted to stop consideration of the Port's proposed Master Plan, and instead, craft its own sub -area plan under the auspices of the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan Application. In developing of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Port followed the City's process as directed by the City's Staff. The process was conducted in an open and transparent manner, beyond any normal standard. The Port involved the public to the maximum extent practical. The Port also accepted all fourteen conditions of the Planning Board. The Port made its case and demonstrated broad public support. It is our sincere belief that what the Port proposed in the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment, represented a reasonable compromise that would have provided the community significant benefits, without jeopardizing its values. It is clear to the Commission that the process failed. Packet Page 253 of 305 While the Commission finds this unfortunate, it understands that the City Council is the decision maker with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Commission believes it was acting not only in the best interest of its constituents, but also in the City's interest by creating opportunities for future beneficial development in our community. The Port of Edmonds is in the business of creating economic opportunity for the benefit of the entire community, which includes 18,000 Port residents and also the Town of Woodway. Economic opportunity needs to be part of the future of the community and we believe strongly that our city cannot thrive if its focus is static or retrospective only. There are important and challenging questions to resolve. Their resolution requires vision, leadership and partnership with the City. Through this last exercise, we didn't quite get there. Frankly, the formal dismissal of the Port's Master Plan for Harbor Square has been disappointing and discouraging to the Commission, the Port Staff, as well as to the many Edmonds/Woodway residents who worked hundreds of hours in developing the proposal. Nonetheless, it is time for us to move on. Consequently, as stated above, the Port has terminated the processing of its Application. The Port Commission stands ready to work with the City to achieve a true partnership and to discuss the future of Harbor Square. What the City Council needs to accept, is that the Port of Edmonds is a separate legal entity; an independent public enterprise with a parallel mandate to the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, for economic development. The Port takes this opportunity to re -state that the fundamental driving premise of future redevelopment at Harbor Square is that it must be economically feasible enough to attract private sector investment participation, while also including the many public amenities the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan proposes. The Port of Edmonds is not a general purpose government and has statutory limitations on the uses to which it can put its property and a fiduciary obligation to generate a full market return from its investments. We invite continued discussion and partnership. Very truly yours, James Orvis, President Port of Edmonds Commission Cc: Port Commissioners Bob McChesney Attachment Packet Page 254 of 305 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 255 of 305 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 256 of 305 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 257 of 305 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 258 of 305 AM-5955 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/30/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmembers Bloom & Peterson Submitted By: Jana Spellman Department: City Council Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Information Information Subiect Title Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Recommendation Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) 10. April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee: This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat: This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9, 2013 PS/P Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). Narrative Discussions regarding the formation of an ethics policy have occurred in Public Safety/Personnel committee meetings in 2012 and 2013. After discussion during the July 9, 2013 committee meeting, committee members Peterson and Bloom agreed to forward to full Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the Bainbridge Island "Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees", with focus on "4. Conduct of Public Meetings." We will also discuss an Ethics Officer, which other cities have hired on a contract basis to deal with ethics complaints. After full Council discussion on all of these issues, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed." Attachment 1: February 3, 2011 City Council Retreat Minutes Attachment 2: April 10, 2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 3: Excerpt from 2012 Final Edmonds Personnel Policies Attachment 4: Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attachment 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Packet Page 259 of 305 Attachment 6: March 12, 2013 Public Safety/ Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 7: July 9, 2013 Public Safety/ Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 8: Kirkland Code of Conduct Attachment 9: Bellevue Code of Ethics Attachment 10: Bainbridge Island - Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees Attachment 11: City of Kirkland Chapter 3.14 Code of Ethics AffnehmPnfe Attach 1: 2012 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 2 April-10-12 Minutes Public Safety, Personnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6: Minutes 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Attach 7: Minutes 7/9/13 PS/P Committee Attach 8: Kirkland Code of Conduct Attach 9: Bellevue Code of Ethics Attach 10: Bainbridge Island - Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees Attach 11: CITY OF KIRKLAND Chapter 3.14 CODE OF ETHICS Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 07/25/2013 Form Review Date 07/25/2013 10:04 AM 07/25/2013 10: 10 AM 07/25/2013 02:15 PM Started On: 07/11/2013 11:40 AM Packet Page 260 of 305 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. 0 Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities' codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 Packet Page 261 of 305 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland's Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk's Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett's concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 262 of 305 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of "hands on" work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm 2 Packet Page 263 of 305 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on -going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: • All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens' rights, and showing courtesy to all. • Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City's actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. • City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. • They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. • They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City's business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: 53 Packet Page 264 of 305 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance duties, whether or not the action employment, and of the official's or employee's official is within the scope of the employee's (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: • Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. 54 Packet Page 265 of 305 • Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. • The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney M/S 504 Everett, WA 98201 (425)388-3333 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 Washington State Auditor Capital Campus P.O. Box 40021 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 If the above -listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory 55 Packet Page 266 of 305 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation: (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. 56 Packet Page 267 of 305 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke -free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City's buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work -related searches of an employee's work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City's property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise 57 Packet Page 268 of 305 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA's while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver's License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community -based fund raising effort. Packet Page 269 of 305 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non -work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non -work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City's electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non -work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City's credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. 59 Packet Page 270 of 305 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random drug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City's substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Z1 Packet Page 271 of 305 0006.90000 BFP: 5/21/08 ORDINANCE NO.3689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the city has contracted for professional services with firms that have hired former city employees; and WHEREAS, Chapters 42.20 and 42.23 RCW, which regulates conflict of interest in municipal contracting, does not specifically address dealings with former employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest of the city to adopt regulations establishing criteria for contracting with former employees or firms that hire former employees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 3.70 ECC, Conflict of Interest., is hereby adopted in Title 3 ECC, Revenue and Finance., to read as follows: Chapter 3.70 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 3.70.000 Definitions. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. {SFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 272 of 305 3.70.030 Exemption. 3.70.040 Penalties. 3.70.000 Definitions. The definition of words used in Chapter 3.70 ECC shall be consistent with the definitions, context and usage of the terms in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and their interpretation by Washington Courts. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year from the date of termination or city employment, accept employment or receive compensation from an employer if: (a) The former city official, officer or employee, during the two years immediately preceding termination of city employment, was engaged in the negotiation or administration of one or more contracts on behalf of the city with that employer and was in a position to make discretionary decisions affecting the outcome of such negotiation or the nature of such administration; and (b) Such a contract or contracts have a total value of more than ten thousand dollars; and (c) The duties of the employment with the employer or the activities for which the compensation would be received include fulfilling or implementing, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts or include the supervision or control of actions taken to fulfill or implement, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts. This session shall not be construed to prohibit a city elected or appointed official or a city employee from accepting employment with a city employee organization. 2. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, have a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was expressly authorized or funded by specific legislative or executive action in which the former city official, officer or employee participated. {BFP696127.DOQ1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 273 of 305 3. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, represent any person before any city board, body, agency, department, committee, examiner, adjustor, or commission regarding a specific project the former official or employee worked on, and was in a position to make discretionary decisions or recommendations, during his/her term of service or employment unless: (a) The former city official, officer or employee receives no compensation for representing that person; or (b) The specific project was a legislative issue; or (c) The matter involved in the representation by the former city official, officer or employee directly affects properties owned by the former city official, officer or employee. 4. Any elected or appointed official having the power to perform an official act or action shall, for a period of one year after the termination of his or her employment or term of service, refrain from lobbying the city department, agency, elected body, commission, or board on which they last served unless: (a) The former city elected or appointed official is receiving no compensation for such lobbying; or (b) The matter being lobbied directly affects properties owned by the former elected or appointed official. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. No former city official, officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged, confidential, or proprietary information gained because of his or her service or employment with the city. 3.70.030 Exemption. 1. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 notwithstanding, the city may contract with a former city official, officer or employee for expert or consultant services within one year of the latter's leaving city service upon determination and approval by resolution from the City Council that: {BFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 274 of 305 (a) It is important for the city to obtain the services in the contract, and time is of the essence; (b) The former city official, officer or employee is best qualified to perform the services, and contracting with another would result in undue burden on the city; and (c) The interests of the city, including but not limited to legal, financial and operations, will not be undermined as a result thereof. 2. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 shall not apply to a former official, officer or employee acting on behalf of a governmental agency, if the City Council determines that the service to the agency is not adverse to the interest of the city. 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit an official elected to serve a governmental entity other than the City of Edmonds from carrying out his or her official duties for that government entity. 3.70.040 Penalties. Any person violating any provision of ECC 3,70.010 and ECC 3.70.020 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and subject to punishment in accordance with ECC 5.50.020. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum, and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPRD D: Atle� - MAY G Y AAAKENSON {BFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 4 - Packet Page 275 of 305 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Ad'o��- z &:�� ' TY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVEDYTA : OFFICE OF EY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06/13/2008 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/17/2008 PUBLISHED: 06/22/2008 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/2008 ORDINANCE. NO, 3689 (8FF696127.n0C-.IA) aa.4000001y - 5 - Packet Page 276 of 305 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3689 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 17th day of June, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.3689. 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 PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 18th day of June, 2008, -'ear. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { €3FP696127.DOC; 1100006.9000001} Packet Page 277 of 305 Humann, Debi From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:00 AM To: Humann, Debi Subject: RE: Ordinance Search Attachments: Ordinance 3689.pdf Hi Debi, I believe you are looking for Ordinance 3689 (attached) that was adopted in May 2008 that relates to "conflict of interest", former employees, etc. I did a quick word search for anything to do with "ethics" and nothing came up. Also, I do not recall any other ordinance that may apply. If I come across anything, I will be sure to let you know. Sandy From: Humann, Debi Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:34 AM To: Chase, Sandy Subject: Ordinance Search Hi Sandy: I know you are too busy for words but I need help when you get a chance. At last night's PS/HR Committee meeting, Wilson and Bernheim reviewed the Ethics Board issue. They requested that I supply the ordinance that apparently was prepared when Don Fiene went from being an employee to working for a private company. No idea what this is about. Don left our employment 4/08 if that helps. If you can think of any other ordinance that might deal with ethics, that would be appreciate also. Thank you. Debi Packet Page 278 of 305 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich's suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent's monthly roundtable meetings. Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities' ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday's discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 279 of 305 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman's schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 280 of 305 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 281 of 305 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 282 of 305 CITY OF KIRKLAND CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The Code of Conduct is supplemental to the Kirkland Municipal Code and the Code of Ethics and applies to the City Council and all members of City advisory boards and commissions. The Code of Conduct describes how Kirkland officials treat each other and work together for the common good of the community. Conducting the City's business in an atmosphere of respect and civility is the underlying theme in this code. City Officials are responsible for holding themselves and each other accountable for displaying actions and behaviors that consistently model the ideals expressed in the code. Implicit in the Code of Conduct is recognition of the worth of individual members and an appreciation for their individual talents, perspectives and contributions. The Code will ensure an atmosphere where individual members, staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential. As a City Official of the City of Kirkland, I agree to these principles of conduct.• We consistently demonstrate the principles ofprofessionalism, respect and civility in working for the greater good of Kirkland, We assure fair and equal treatment of all people. We conduct ourselves both personally and professionally in a manner that is above reproach. We refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks on the character or motives of Council members, commissioners, staff and the public. We take care to avoid personal comments that could offend others. We show no tolerance for intimidating behaviors. We listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions and treat all people the way we wish to be treated. We serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. Our actions inspire public confidence in Kirkland government. Packet Page 283 of 305 Keeping in mind the common good as the highest purpose, we will focus on holding efficient meetings that achieve constructive solutions for the public benefit, We work as a team to solve problems and render decisions that are based on the merits and substance of the matter. We respect differences and views of other people. We adhere to the principles and laws governing the Council/Manager form of government and treat all staff with respect and cooperation. We will refrain from interfering with the administrative functions and professional duties of staff. We will not publicly criticize individual staff but will privately communicate with the City Manager any concerns about a Department or Department Director or staff person. We will refrain from negotiating or making commitments without the involvement and knowledge of the City Manager. We will work with staff in a manner that consistently demonstrates mutual respect. We will not discuss personnel issues, undermine management direction, or give or imply direction to staff. We will communicate directly with the City Manager, department directors or designated staff contacts when asking for information, assistance or follow up. We will not knowingly blindside one another in public and will contact staff prior to a meeting with any questions or issues. We will not attend City staff meetings unless requested by staff. I acknowledge that I have received and read this Code of Conduct Name Date Packet Page 284 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 6110 AN ORDINANCE repealing Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049, and adopting new Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 providing for a Code of Ethics - City Council and City Boards, Commissions and Committees. WHEREAS, the citizens and business of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity; and WHEREAS, adopting a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and the City's boards and commissions will promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and fair operation; and WHEREAS, the Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City officials both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049 are hereby repealed. Section 2. A new Chapter 3.92 is hereby adopted to read as follows: 3.92.010 — POLICY A. Purpose. The Bellevue City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and Council -appointed public bodies to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair operation. This Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City Officials, both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed. B. Intent. The citizens and businesses of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence. It is further the intent that City Officials be permitted to fulfill their duties to represent the public to the greatest extent possible unless circumstances exist where such engagement is impermissible. Nothing in this chapter is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict the pool of available candidates for service on the Council or service on Council -appointed public bodies, all of which are either part-time or volunteer positions. It is in the public interest to ensure that barriers to citizen public service are not created by the provisions of this chapter. In keeping with the City of Packet Page 285 of 305 1336-O RD 06/05/13 Bellevue's commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that: (1) public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; (2) public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their actions; (3) public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and (4) public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. 3.92.020 — DEFINITIONS A. "Official" means a member of the City Council or a member of Council - appointed City boards and commissions and other Council -appointed task groups or committees. B. "Relative" means spouse, domestic partner, child, step -child, parent, step- parent, parent -in-law and sibling. 3.92.030 — PROHIBITED CONDUCT A. Conflicts of Interest: Officials shall not participate in quasi-judicial or site - specific land use City decisions, the purchase or condemnation of property, or City decisions involving the awarding of a grant or contract in which any of the following has an interest: 1. The Official, 2. A relative, 3. An individual with whom the Official resides, or 4. An entity that the Official serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Officials shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision - making where conflicts exist. RCW 42.23.040 shall apply conflicts or potential conflicts with respect to remote interests in City decisions involving the awarding of a contract. B. Misuse of Public Position or Resources. Except for infrequent use at little or no cost to the City, Officials shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for other than a City purpose. 2 Packet Page 286 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. Representation of Third Parties. Except in the course of official duties, Officials shall not appear on behalf of the financial interests of third parties before the bodies on which the Officials serve or in interaction with the body's assigned staff. Further, the members of the City Council shall not appear on behalf of the financial interest of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, or in interaction with staff. D. Solicitation of Charitable Contributions. No official may make direct personal solicitations for charitable contributions from City employees. E. Gifts and Favors. Officials shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They may not solicit or receive any thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the thing of monetary value has been solicited or received or given, or to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, or received or given with intent to give or obtain special consideration or influence as to any action by the Official in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit campaign contributions which are solicited or received and reported in accordance with applicable law. They shall not accept or solicit any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits except as follows: 1. No Official may accept gifts, other than those specified in subsection 2 of this section, with an aggregate value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) from a single source in a calendar year or a single gift from multiple sources with a value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in accordance with RCW 42.52.150(1); provided, that if the fifty dollar ($50) limit in RCW 42.52.150(1) is amended, this section shall be deemed to reflect the amended amount. For purposes of this section, "single source" means any person, corporation, or entity, whether acting directly or through any agent or other intermediary, and "single gift" includes any event, item, or group of items used in conjunction with each other or any trip including transportation, lodging, and attendant costs. The value of gifts given to an Official's family member or guest shall be attributed to the Official for the purpose of determining whether the limit has been exceeded, unless an independent business, family, or social relationship exists between the donor and the Official, family member or guest. 2. The following items are presumed not to influence the vote, action, or judgment of the Official, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction, and may be accepted without regard to the limit established by subsection 1 of this section: a. Unsolicited flowers, plants and floral arrangements; b. Unsolicited advertising or promotional items of nominal value, such as pens and note pads; c. Unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation in the form of a plaque, trophy, desk item, wall memento, or similar item; 3 Packet Page 287 of 305 1336-O RD 06/05/13 d. Unsolicited items received by an Official for the purpose of evaluation or review, if the Official has no personal beneficial interest in the eventual use or acquisition of the item; e. Informational materials, publications or subscriptions related to the recipient's performance of official duties; f. Food and beverages consumed at hosted receptions where attendance is related to the Official's duties for the City; g. Admission to, and the cost of food and beverages consumed at, events sponsored by or in conjunction with a civic, charitable, governmental or community organization; h. Unsolicited gifts from dignitaries from another state or a foreign country which -are intended to be personal in nature; and i. Food and beverages on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of meals where attendance by the Official is related to the performance of official d uties. j. Any gift which would have been offered or given to the Official if he or she were not an Official 3. The presumption in subsection 2 is rebuttable and may be overcome based on the circumstances surrounding the giving and acceptance of the item. G. Confidential Information. Officials shall not knowingly disclose or use any Confidential Information gained by reason of their official position for other than a City purpose nor may the Officer use such information for his or her personal benefit, nor may the Officer engage in business or professional activity that the Officer might reasonably expect would induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose such Confidential Information.. "Confidential Information" means: 1. Specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to a person who files a public records request, and 2. Information made confidential by law. • �� :► T 9 A. In addition to Section 3.92.030 of the Code of Ethics, which shall be administered by the Ethics Officer, Officials shall comply with the following standards: Compliance with other laws. Officials shall comply with Federal, State and City laws in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: rd Packet Page 288 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 The United States and Washington constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies. See Appendix A. Officials shall comply with the requirements of RCW 42.17.020 through .060 regarding contract interests. As required by RCW 42.17.750, no Official shall knowingly solicit or encourage, directly or indirectly, any political contribution from any City employee. Except under limited circumstances described in RCW 42.17.130, no Official may use or authorize the use of the facilities of the City for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to office, or form the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition in a manner not available to the general public on the same terms. B. Officials are also encouraged to comply with the following standards: 1. Personal Integrity. The professional and personal conduct of Officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, threats of official action, personal accusations or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Council, boards and commissions, the staff or public. Officials shall maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise themselves for advancement, honor, or personal gain. Additionally, Officials shall not directly or indirectly induce, encourage or aid anyone to violate this Code of Ethics and it is incumbent upon Officials to make a good faith effort to address apparent violations of this Code of Ethics. 2. Working for the Common Good. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Officials will work for the common good of the people of Bellevue and not for any private or personal interest, and they will ensure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the City Council, boards and commissions. 3. Respect for Process. Officials shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council and boards and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff. 4. Commitment to Transparency. Transparency, openness and accountability are fundamental values of the City — and are also required by the laws of the state of Washington. The public has a right to inspect and copy public records unless exempt by law from disclosure. All materials relating to the conduct of City government that are prepared, possessed, used or retained by any Official, including Email and other electronic records, are subject to requirements for retention, protection and disclosure. Officials may assume that all copies of materials received from City staff have already been archived and do not need to be retained. Officials shall not discard, damage or destroy the original copy of any public record unless the City complies with the record retention schedules established under Chapter 40.14 RCW. In accordance with the requirements of state law Officials shall 5 Packet Page 289 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 promptly provide any records requested by the Public Records Officer in response to a disclosure request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. It is the responsibility for the Public Records Officer together with the City Attorney, to decide which records meet the definition of "public record" and whether or not such records are exempt from disclosure; Officials must not take it upon themselves to decide whether a record meets the definition of a public, record, that a record is exempt from disclosure, or to otherwise conceal a record. 5. Conduct of Public Meetings. Officials shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings. 6. Decisions Based on Merit. Officials shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand and on greater public policy considerations, rather than on unrelated considerations. 7. Ex parte Communications. In quasi-judicial matters, Officials shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the Council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision -making process. 8. Attendance. As provided in RCW 35A.12.060, a Council Member shall forfeit his or her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council. Unless excused, members of boards and commissions are expected to attend all meetings. 9. Nepotism. The City Council will not appoint Relatives of City Council Members to boards or commissions or other appointed positions. 10. Advocacy. When acting in an official capacity as a City Official representing the City, Officials shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board or commission to the best of their ability when the City Council, board or commission has taken a position or given an instruction. When a City Official is appointed to fill an Official role on a governing body in a capacity that is not dependent upon their status as a City of Bellevue Official, but, for example, as a representative of a geographic area, the Official shall endeavor to represent the policies or positions consistent with those of the constituency he or she has been appointed to represent. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the Gity of Bellevue, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Officials have the right to endorse candidates for all Council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to make or display endorsements during Council meetings, board/commission meetings, or other official City meetings. However, this does not preclude Officials from participating in ceremonial occasions, community events or other events sponsored by civic groups. C• Packet Page 290 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 11. Role of Legislative Officials. The Council shall have all the powers and authority granted to legislative bodies, except insofar as such power and authority is vested in the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 35A.13 RCW. UATITSYSTIT41 WMA Ch. 9A.72 RCW Perjury and interference with official proceedings RCW 35A.12.060 Vacancy for nonattendance Ch. 35A.13 RCW Council-manager plan of government RCW 35A.13.020 Incompatible offices Ch. 40.13 RCW Preservation and destruction of public records RCW 42.17.130 Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — prohibition — exceptions RCW 42.17.750 Solicitation of contributions by public officials or employees Ch. 42.23 RCW Code of ethics for municipal officers — contract interests Ch. 42.36 RCW Appearance of fairness doctrine — limitations Ch. 42.56 RCW Public Records Act 3.92.50 — NO RIGHT OF ACTION CREATED; EFFECTIVE DATE. A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as creating or providing a basis for a private cause of action against the City or against any Official by third parties. B. No retroactive application is intended by the adoption of this chapter which shall only apply to acts that occur after the effective date thereof. 3.92.060 — ETHICS OFFICER A. The City Council creates the position of Ethics Officer. The City Council will interview and choose the ethics officer(s) who shall operate under contract with the City of Bellevue. Such selection shall be by unanimous vote, and the Ethics Officer shall be admitted to the practice of law and shall have sufficient experience and training. The services of the Ethics Officer may be terminated only by a supermajority vote of the Council. B. The Ethics Officer will provide for annual review of this Code of Ethics, review of training materials provided for education regarding the Code of Ethics, and advisory opinions concerning the Code of Ethics. The Ethics Officer shall also be responsible for the prompt and fair enforcement of its provisions when necessary, and shall at all times maintain the impartiality of the office by revealing information provided to the Officer only in the context of rendering opinions to the City and its Officials and staff as necessary or in response to legal process. 7 Packet Page 291 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. The Ethics Officer, in addition to other duties, shall conduct a review of this ethics code in 2015 and again in 2017 and may recommend changes or additions to this Code of Ethics to the City Council designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of processing ethics questions. D. In rendering opinions under 3.92.070 or 3.92.080 below, the Ethics Officer shall consider the Intent section contained in 3.92.010 herein and in RCW 42.23.010. 3.92.070. - ADVISORY OPINIONS A. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer shall render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of Sections 3.92.030 and 3.92.040 of this Code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. The Ethics Officer will not render opinions on matters that are the purview of other government agencies such as the Public Disclosure Commission or the King County Prosecutor. B. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the Code of Ethics to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city- wide interest or policy. C. The Ethics Officer will endeavor to respond to requests for advisory opinions within fourteen (14) days of submission of the request, or more rapidly if the requester expresses urgency in the request. D. An Official's conduct based in reasonable reliance on an advisory opinion rendered by the Ethics Officer shall not be found to violate this Code of Ethics, as long as all material facts have been fully, completely, accurately presented in a written request for an advisory opinion, the Ethics Officer issues an advisory opinion that the described conduct would not violate the Code of Ethics, and the Official's conduct is consistent with the advisory opinion. The Ethics Officer reserves the right to reconsider the questions and issues raised in an advisory opinion and, where the public interest requires, rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion, but a modified or terminated advisory opinion will not form the basis of a retroactive enforcement action against the original requestor. Advisory opinions will contain severability clauses indicating that, should portions of the opinion be found to be unenforceable or not within the Ethics Officer's authority, the remainder of the opinion shall remain intact. E. All Officials subject to this chapter are strongly encouraged to seek advisory opinions from the Ethics Officer at the earliest possible Es3 Packet Page 292 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 opportunity whenever an official has reason to believe that his or her circumstances could present a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest or any other violation of this chapter. F. Advisory opinions are subject to the attorney -client privilege. WAI A. Complaint procedures. 1. Any natural person who believes an Official has committed a violation of the code may file a complaint with the City Clerk. Complaints shall be subject to the following requirements: a. The complaint must be based upon facts within the personal knowledge of the complainant; b. The complaint must be submitted in writing and signed under oath by the complainant; c. The complaint must include a detailed factual description of the alleged violation including the date, time and place of each occurrence and the name of the person or persons who are alleged to have committed a violation. The complaint must also refer to the specific provisions of the Code of Ethics which are alleged to have been violated; d. The complaint must be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the complainant to support the allegations of the complaint; e. The complaint must be filed within two years of the date of the occurrence or occurrences alleged to constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics. 2. Complaints shall be filed with the City Clerk who shall forward the complaint and any accompanying documentation and evidence to the Ethics Officer and the respondent Official within two business days. The Ethics Officer shall review the complaint for compliance with the requirements of subsection 1 of this section. Should the Ethics Officer find that: a. The complaint is untimely; or b. The complaint has not been signed under oath; or c. The complaint does not, on its face, state facts which, if proven to be true, constitute a violation of the provision of this Code of Ethics referred to in the complaint; or E Packet Page 293 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 d. The complaint fails to refer to a specific provision of the Code of Ethics which is alleged to have been violated, the Ethics Officer shall, within 10 working days of the filing of the complaint, enter a written order stating the Ethics Officer's findings and, except as hereinafter provided, dismissing the complaint. The written order shall be transmitted to the complainant, the Official that is the subject of the complaint, and the City Council. If the Ethics Officer finds that the complaint is deficient pursuant to the findings in subsection 1(b) or (d) of this section, the Ethics Officer shall issue an order notifying the complainant that unless a corrected complaint is filed within five days of the issuance of such order, the complaint shall be dismissed. The complainant may appeal the dismissal of a complaint under this subsection by filing an action in the King County superior court for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW within 10 days of the date of issuance of the order dismissing the complaint. 3. The respondent Official shall, within 20 days of the date of mailing or personal service of the complaint by the Clerk, file with the Clerk any response to the complaint the respondent Official wishes to make. A response to a complaint shall be made in writing signed under oath by the respondent. A response may include a detailed statement of facts pertaining to the complaint made on personal knowledge of the respondent and may include any matter constituting a defense to the complaint. A response should be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the respondent Official which the respondent wishes the Ethics Officer to consider. The respondent Official may stipulate to some or all of the facts alleged in the complaint and shall either admit or deny the alleged violation. If the violation is admitted, the respondent may also submit an explanatory statement and may request a particular disposition. 4. Upon receipt of a response to a complaint, the Ethics Officer shall review the complaint and response, together with all supporting documentation and evidence submitted by the complainant and the respondent Official. Within 10 days of receipt of the response (or, if no timely response is submitted, within 30 days of the date of mailing the complaint to the respondent Official by the City Clerk), the Ethics Officer shall issue a decision in writing, including findings of fact, conclusions of law and a determination of whether any violation of the Code of Ethics has been established. The final written decision shall be signed and dated by the Ethics Officer. The City Clerk shall deliver a copy of the final written decision to the complainant, the respondent Official, the City Council and to any other person who has submitted a written request therefor. 5. A Complaint for Ethical Violations filed under this Chapter shall be considered a claim filed against an Official pursuant to Chapter 3.81 BCC. 6. Either the complainant or respondent Official may, within 30 days of the date of the written decision, appeal to the King County superior court by writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW. 10 Packet Page 294 of 305 1336-ORD 06/05/13 7. If the final decision of the Ethics Officer contains a determination that one or more violations of this Code of Ethics has occurred, the decision shall also contain any recommendations of the Ethics Officer to the City Council for any remedial action or sanction that the Council may find appropriate and lawful under the Council's Rules. If no appeal is filed in superior court, the Council in consultation with the City Attorney shall, within 45 days of the date of the decision, determine what, if any, of the recommendations of the Ethics Officers to adopt. Such determination shall be adopted at an open public meeting by a majority vote of those Officials who are not respondents to the complaint or complaints. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after passage and publication. Passed by the City Council this " day of , 2013 and signed in authentication of its passage this 5 day of , 2013. (SEAL) Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney Attest: Myrna L. Basich, City Clerk Published t; Conrad Lee, Mayor 11 Packet Page 295 of 305 Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees The Bainbridge Island Ethics Program (revised March 23, 2011) now applies to the citizen members of advisory commissions and committees as well as city officials. Accordingly, advisory group members must comply with the requirements of the Code of Ethics in Article II of the Ethics Program. These requirements are summarized below; please consult the Code of Ethics for specific language and details of the requirements. 1. Gifts and Compensation. An advisory group member and his or her immediate family members may not accept gifts related to the advisory group member's services to the city, with some exceptions including unsolicited gifts of trivial value. 2. Confidentiality. An advisory group member or former member may not disclose or use privileged, confidential or proprietary information obtained in the course of his or her duties as a member. 3. Conflict of Interest. An advisory group member may not act officially on a matter in which the member or an immediate family member has any substantial employment related to the matter or other financial or private interest in the matter, or is party to a contract or owns an interest in property that would be significantly affected by the action. However, if the member fully discloses the conflict on the public record, the commission or committee may vote to allow the member to participate in discussion or vote. Members of advisory groups shall sign a conflict of interest statement upon appointment and reappointment. 4. Conduct of Public Meetings. Advisory group meetings should be conducted in a manner that maximizes transparency of relationships that could affect decision -making. Meetings should have a standing agenda item for members to disclose relationships with persons and issues on the agenda, and members should discuss these relationships to judge whether a conflict of interest exists. 7/14 Packet Page 296 of 305 CITY OF KIRKLAND Chapter 3.14 CODE OF ETHICS Sections: 3.14.010 Policy. 3.14.020 Definitions. 3.14.030 Prohibited conduct. 3.14.040 Financial disclosure statements. 3.14.050 Ethical standards. 3.14.060 Ethics officer. 3.14.070 Advisory opinions. 3.14.080 Complaints, investigations, hearings and enforcement. 3.14.010 Policy. (a) Purpose. The Kirkland city council has adopted a code of ethics for members of the city council and the city's boards and commissions to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair operation. This code of ethics will provide the basis for education and training for city officials, both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed. (b) Intent. The citizens and businesses of Kirkland are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence. In keeping with the city of Kirkland's commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that: (1) Public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; (2) Public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; (3) Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and (4) Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.020 Definitions. (a) "Official" means a member of the city council or a member of council -appointed city boards and commissions and other council -appointed task groups or committees, including youth members. (b) "Relative" means spouse or domestic partner, child, step -child, parent, step- parent, parent -in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, son - or daughter-in-law, brother- or sister-in-law. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.030 Prohibited conduct. (a) Conflicts of Interest. In order to ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, officials shall not participate in government decisions in which any of the following has a financial interest: (1) the official, (2) a relative, (3) an individual with whom the official resides, or (4) an entity that the official serves as an Attachment 11 Packet Page 297 of 305 officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Officials shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision -making where conflicts exist. This section shall not apply (1) to decisions regarding taxes or fees, (2) if the financial interest is shared with more than ten percent of the city's population, or (3) if the financial interest exists solely because of the official's ownership of less than one percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded corporation. (b) Appearance of Conflict. If it could appear to a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, that the official's judgment is impaired because of either (1) a personal or business relationship not covered under the foregoing subsection, or (2) a transaction or activity engaged in by the official, the official shall make a public, written disclosure of the facts giving rise to the appearance of a conflict before participating in the matter. (c) Misuse of Public Position or Resources. Except for infrequent use at little or no cost to the city, officials shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as city staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for other than a city purpose. (d) Representation of Third Parties. Except in the course of official duties, officials shall not appear on behalf of the financial interests of third parties before the bodies on which the officials serve or in interaction with assigned staff. However, the members of the city council shall not appear on behalf of the financial interest of third parties before the council or any board, commission or proceeding of the city, or in interaction with staff. (e) Solicitations of Charitable Contributions. No official may make direct personal solicitations for charitable contributions from city employees. (f) Gifts and Favors. Officials shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They may not solicit or receive any thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the thing of monetary value has been solicited, or received or given or, to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, received or given with intent to give or obtain special consideration or influence as to any action by the official in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit campaign contributions which are solicited or received and reported in accordance with applicable law. They shall not accept or solicit any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits except as allowed by Section 3.80.140. (g) Confidential Information. Officials shall not disclose or use any confidential information gained by reason of their official position for other than a city purpose. "Confidential information" means (1) specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to a person who files a public records request, and (2) information made confidential by law. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.040 Financial disclosure statements. All officials, except members of the city council, shall file a city of Kirkland disclosure statement annually. In accordance with Chapter 42.17 RCW, members of the Kirkland city council shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and creditors through the filing of a Public Disclosure Commission Form F-1, "Personal Financial Affairs Statement." Members of boards and commissions shall be advised, as part of the application process, that they will be required to file the applicable city of Attachment 11 2 Packet Page 298 of 305 Kirkland disclosure statement within ten days of appointment. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.050 Ethical standards. In addition to Section 3.14.030 of the code of ethics, which shall be administered by the ethics officer, officials are also encouraged to comply with the following standards: (1) Compliance with Other Laws. Officials shall comply with federal, state and city laws in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and Washington Constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures and open processes of government; and city ordinances and policies. See Appendix A. As required by RCW 42.17.750, no official shall knowingly solicit or encourage, directly or indirectly, any political contribution from any city employee. Except under limited circumstances described in RCW 42.17.130, no official may use or authorize the use of the facilities of the city for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to any office, or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition in a manner not available to the general public on the same terms. (2) Personal Integrity. The professional and personal conduct of officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, threats of official action, personal accusations or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of council, boards and commissions, the staff or public. Officials shall maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise themselves for advancement, honor, or personal gain. Additionally, officials shall not directly or indirectly induce, encourage or aid anyone to violate the code of ethics and it is incumbent upon officials to make a good faith effort to address apparent violations of this code of ethics. (3) Working for the Common Good. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, officials will work for the common good of the people of Kirkland and not for any private or personal interest, and they will ensure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the city council, boards and commissions. Officials need to be mindful that making special requests of staff —even when the response does not benefit the official personally —puts staff in an awkward position. (4) Respect for Process. Officials shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the city council and board and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the city council by city staff. (5) Commitment to Transparency. Transparency, openness, and accountability are fundamental values of the city —and are also required by the laws of the state of Washington. The public has a right to inspect and copy public records unless exempt by law from disclosure. All materials relating to the conduct of city government that are prepared, possessed, used or retained by any official, including email and other electronic records, are subject to requirements for retention, protection, and disclosure. Officials may assume that all copies of materials received from city staff have already been archived and do not need to be retained. Officials shall not discard, damage, or destroy the original copy of any public record unless directed by the city public records officer (the city clerk), who has responsibility to ensure that the city complies with the Attachment 11 3 Packet Page 299 of 305 record retention schedules established under Chapter 40.14 RCW. Officials shall promptly provide any records requested by the public records officer in response to a disclosure request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. It is the responsibility of the public records officer, together with the city attorney, to decide which records meet the definition of "public record" and whether or not they are exempt from disclosure; officials must not take it upon themselves to decide whether a record meets the definition of a public record, that a record is exempt from disclosure, or to otherwise conceal a record. (6) Conduct of Public Meetings. Officials shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings. (7) Decisions Based on Merit. Officials shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. (8) Ex Parte Communications. In quasi-judicial matters, officials shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision -making process. (9) Attendance. As provided in RCW 35A.12.060, a council member shall forfeit his or her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council. Unless excused, members of boards and commissions are expected to attend all meetings. (10) Nepotism. The city council will not appoint relatives of city council members to boards or commissions or other appointed positions. (11) Advocacy. When acting in an official capacity as a city official representing the city, officials shall represent the official policies or positions of the city council, board or commission to the best of their ability when the city council, board or commission has taken a position or given an instruction. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the city of Kirkland, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Officials have the right to endorse candidates for all council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to make or display endorsements during council meetings, board/commission meetings, or other official city meetings. However, this does not preclude officials from participating it ceremonial occasions, community events, or other events sponsored by civic groups. (12) Policy Role of Officials. Officials shall respect and adhere to the council- manager structure of Kirkland city government as outlined by Chapter 35A.13 RCW. In this structure, the city council determines the policies of the city with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards and commissions, and city staff. Except as provided by state law, officials shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the city or the professional duties of city staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement council policy decisions. Attachment 11 4 Packet Page 300 of 305 APPENDIX A Ch. 9A.72 Perjury and interference with RCW official proceedings RCW Vacancy for nonattendance 35A.12.060 Ch. 35A.13 Council-manager plan of RCW government RCW Incompatible offices 35A.13.020 Ch. 40.14 Preservation and destruction of RCW public records RCW Use of public office or agency 42.17.130 facilities in campaigns — Prohibition —Exceptions RCW Solicitation of contributions by 42.17.750 public officials or employees Ch. 42.23 Code of ethics for municipal RCW officers —Contract interests Ch. 42.36 Appearance of fairness RCW doctrine —Limitations Ch. 42.56 Public Records Act RCW KMC Kirkland code on acceptance of 3.80.140 g ifts Ch. 3.12 Limitations on campaign KMC contribution (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.060 Ethics officer. (a) The city council creates the position of ethics officer. The city manager will contract with one or more agencies to fill this position. The ethics officer will provide for annual review of the code of ethics, review of training materials provided for education regarding the code of ethics, and advisory opinions concerning the code of ethics. The ethics officer shall also be responsible for the prompt and fair enforcement of its provisions when necessary. (b) The ethics officer, in addition to other duties, may recommend changes or additions to this code of ethics to the city council. The ethics officer shall provide input into and review the training materials and program developed for this code of ethics. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.070 Advisory opinions. (a) Upon request of any official, the ethics officer shall render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of Sections 3.14.030 and 3.14.040 of this code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. The ethics officer will not render opinions on matters that are the purview of Attachment 11 Packet Page 301 of 305 61 other government agencies or officials, e.g., the public disclosure commission, the city public records officer, etc. (b) Upon request of any official, the ethics officer may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the code of ethics to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city-wide interest or policy. (c) The ethics officer will endeavor to respond to requests for advisory opinions within forty-five days of submission of the request, or more rapidly if the requester expresses urgency in the request. (d) A person's conduct based in reasonable reliance on an advisory opinion rendered by the ethics officer shall not be found to violate this code of ethics, as long as all material facts have been fully, completely, accurately presented in a written request for an advisory opinion, the ethics officer issues an advisory opinion that the described conduct would not violate the code of ethics, and the person's conduct is consistent with the advisory opinion. The ethics officer reserves the right to reconsider the questions and issues raised in an advisory opinion and, where the public interest requires, rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion, but a modified or terminated advisory opinion will not form the basis of a retroactive enforcement action against the original requestor. Advisory opinions will contain severability clauses indicating that should portions of the opinion be found to be unenforceable or not within the ethics officer's authority, the remainder of the opinion shall remain intact. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.080 Complaints, investigations, hearings and enforcement. The ethics officer shall resolve inadvertent and minor violations of the code of ethics informally and may resolve inadvertent or minor violations informally, unless the ethics officer determines that doing so would not serve the public interest. When a violation is neither inadvertent nor minor, the ethics officer may initiate an action in accordance with this section. (1) Complaint Process. (A) Complaint Requirements —Service. Any person may submit a written complaint to the ethics officer alleging one or more violations of this code of ethics by an official. The complaint must set forth specific facts with enough precision and detail for the ethics officer to make a determination of sufficiency. It must be signed under penalty of perjury by the person(s) submitting it in a manner consistent with Chapter 9A.72 RCW. (B) Finding of Sufficiency. The ethics officer shall make a determination of sufficiency within thirty days of receipt of the written complaint. A complaint shall be sufficient if the allegations, if established, would violate Section 3.14.030 or 3.14.040 of this code. The ethics officer's determination is not reviewable. If the finding is one of sufficiency of the complaint, then the ethics officer shall investigate the complaint as set forth below. (C) Dismissal. The ethics officer shall dismiss the complaint if the ethics officer determines that the violation was inadvertent and minor; or a violation occurred, but appropriate actions have been taken to fully address the allegedly unethical conduct. (D) Notice. Notice of action by the ethics officer shall be provided as follows- (i) Notice of a finding of insufficiency or dismissal of a complaint by the ethics officer shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against within seven days of the decision by the ethics officer. A finding of insufficiency or Attachment 11 6 Packet Page 302 of 305 dismissal of a complaint by the ethics officer is final and binding, and no administrative or other legal appeal is available through the ethics officer. (ii) Within seven days of the ethics officer rendering a finding of sufficiency, the city clerk shall send notice to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against, of the ethics officer's determination. If, after investigation, the ethics officer has reason to believe that a material violation of Section 3.14.030 or 3.14.040 has occurred, the city clerk shall give notice of the public hearing which will be held to determine if a violation has occurred. Notice shall be provided at least thirty days prior to the date set for the hearing. The person complained against shall have the right to file a written answer to the charge and to appear at the hearing with or without legal counsel, submit testimony, be fully heard, and to examine and cross examine witnesses. (E) Stipulations. At any time after a complaint has been filed with the ethics officer, the ethics officer may seek and make recommendations that the city council enter into a stipulation with the person complained against. The recommended stipulation will include the nature of the complaint, relevant facts, the reasons the ethics officer thinks a stipulation is appropriate, an admission of the violation by the person complained against, a promise by the person complained against not to repeat the violation, and if appropriate, a recommended remedy or penalty. The recommended stipulation shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against and forwarded to the city council for action. (2) Conduct of Hearings. (A) All hearings on complaints found to be sufficient by the ethics officer shall be conducted by the hearing examiner. The hearing shall be informal, meaning that the hearing examiner shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. The hearing examiner may call witnesses on his or her own motion and compel the production of books, records, papers, or other evidence as needed. To that end, the hearing examiner shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. All testimony shall be under oath administered by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may adjourn the hearing from time to time to allow for the orderly presentation of evidence. The hearing examiner shall prepare an official record of the hearing, including all testimony, which shall be recorded by mechanical device, and exhibits; provided, that the hearing examiner shall not be required to transcribe such records unless presented with a request accompanied by payment of the cost of transcription. (B) Within thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, make and fully record in his or her permanent records, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and his or her recommended disposition. A copy of the findings, conclusions, and recommended disposition shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and to the person complained against. Additional copies of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations shall be forwarded to the ethics officer and city council. (3) City Council Action. Final city council action to decide upon stipulations and recommendations from the ethics officer and findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the hearing examiner shall be by majority vote in a public meeting. If the proceeding involves a member of the city council, deliberations by the council may be in executive session. The member of the council against whom the Attachment 11 7 Packet Page 303 of 305 complaint was made will not participate in any executive session and shall not vote on any matter involving him or herself. However, upon request of the member of the council against whom the complaint was made, a public hearing or public meeting before the council will be held on the issue of penalties. (4) Disposition. In the event the hearing examiner finds that the person against whom the complaint was made has violated the code of ethics, then the city council may take any of the following actions by a majority vote of the council. The action of the city council shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal except as may be otherwise provided by law or as provided in subsection (5) of this section. (A) Dismissal. Dismissal of the complaint without penalties. (B) Referral. A complaint may be referred to another agency with jurisdiction over the violation, such as the public disclosure commission. Final action on the complaint may be stayed pending resolution of the matter by the agency to which it was referred. (C) Admonition. An admonition shall be an oral non-public statement made by the mayor, or his/her designee, or if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor or his/her designee, to the official. (D) Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the official by a resolution of reprimand by the city council. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor or, if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor. (E) Censure. A resolution of censure shall be a resolution read personally to the person in public. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor, or if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor. The person shall appear at a city council meeting at a time and place directed by the city council to receive the resolution of censure. Notice shall be given at least twenty calendar days before the scheduled appearance at which time a copy of the proposed resolution of censure shall be provided to the person. The resolution of censure shall be read publicly, and the person shall not make any statement in support of, or in opposition thereto, or in mitigation thereof. The resolution of censure shall be read at the time it is scheduled whether or not the official appears as required. (F) Removal —Member of Board or Commission or Other Appointed Task Group or Committee. In the event the individual against whom the complaint was made is currently a member of a city board or commission or other task group or committee, appointed by the city council, the city council may, in addition to other possible penalties set forth in this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Kirkland Municipal Code, by a majority vote remove the individual from such board or commission effective immediately. (G) Civil Penalties. The city council may assess a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars or three times the economic value of anything received in violation of this code of ethics or three times the economic value of any loss to the city, whichever is greater. Any monetary penalty assessed civilly shall be placed in the city's general fund. (H) Contract Void. As provided by RCW 42.23.050, any contract made in violation of Chapter 42.23 RCW, "Code of ethics for municipal officers— contract interests," is void. (1) Other Penalties. The city council may impose a restriction, loss of a committee assignment, or loss of appointment as a representative of the city for any regional or Attachment 11 8 Packet Page 304 of 305 multijurisdictional body or membership on any board or commission which requires an appointment or confirmation of an appointment by the city council. (5) Review of Civil Penalties. If the city council orders an official to pay a civil penalty, the official may seek a writ of review from the superior court pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW, within thirty days of the city council's order. (6) Protection Against Retaliation. Neither the city nor any official may take or threaten to take, directly or indirectly, official or personal action, including but not limited to discharge, discipline, personal attack, harassment, intimidation, or change in job, salary, or responsibilities, against any person because that person files a complaint with the ethics officer. (7) Public Records. Records filed with the ethics officer become public records that may be subject to inspection and copying by members of the public, unless an exemption in law exists. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by RCW 42.56.230(2), identity information may be redacted when an unsubstantiated complaint is made available in response to a public records request; however, in each case, the justification for the redaction shall be explained fully in writing. A finding by the ethics officer determining that a complaint is sufficient shall contain at the beginning the following specific language: NOTICE: ANY PORTION OF THIS FINDING DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF ANY PORTION OF A COMPLAINT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE ETHICS OFFICER. THE ETHICS OFFICER HAS ONLY DETERMINED THAT IF CERTAIN FACTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE DURING A LATER HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, THEN VIOLATION(S) OF THE CODE OF ETHICS MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED. The city shall release copies of any written reports resulting from an investigation of a sustained complaint, any hearing examiner orders, and any written censures or reprimands issued by the city council, in response to public records requests consistent with Chapter 42.56 RCW and any other applicable public disclosure laws. (8) Liberal Construction —Limitation Period —Effective Date. (A) This code of ethics shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose and policy and to supplement existing laws that relate to the same subject. (B) Any action taken under this code of ethics must be commenced within three years from the date of violation. (C) This code of ethics shall take effect February 18, 2012. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) Attachment 11 9 Packet Page 305 of 305