The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-08-06 City Council - Public Agenda-1507'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds AUGUST 6, 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-5999 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2013. B. AM-5997 Approval of claim checks #203500 through #203613 dated August 1, 2013 for $230,524.56. Approval of reissued payroll check #60350 $610.08. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (5 Minutes) Authorize the Mayor to sign a Conditional Settlement Agreement & Release with Gray AM-5998 & Osborne, Inc. 6. (5 Minutes) Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board request to amend City Code AM-6000 Section 3.75.120 - Extend Deadline for Submitting Annual Work Programs and Budgets. 7. (30 Minutes) Authorization to recruit for Development Services Director. AM-5991 8. (30 Minutes) Potential action regarding a proposed Interim Ordinance / critical areas 'allowed AM-6001 activities' provisions. 9. (60 Minutes) Continued discussion and possible action on incorporating the Harbor Square Master AM-5992 Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 1 of 192 10. (10 Minutes) Report on bids opened for the 5th Ave Overlay Project and possible award of contract AM-6003 to Interwest Construction, Inc. in the amount of $732,732.25. 11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 13. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending 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 192 AM-5999 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 07-30-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/01/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 08/01/2013 02:55 PM Sandy Chase 08/01/2013 03:23 PM Started On: 08/01/2013 01:07 PM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 192 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 30, 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 Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Michael Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SCHEDULE ITEM 10 ON THE AUGUST 20, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AND APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THAT CHANGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis asked to abstain from the vote on Item A. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203360 THROUGH #203499 DATED JULY 25, 2013 FOR $480,724.31. C. RESOLUTION NO. 1296 - REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1290. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested holding the Council meeting at Edmonds Night Out next year. He next announced the winner of the Top Foods shopping spree will be shopping at 4:00 p.m. on August 9. He welcomed new Edmonds Beacon editor, Paul Archipley. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 192 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). Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing is for the City Council to address the recommendation of the Planning Board to approve a site specific rezone at 403 and 405 3rd Avenue North. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling explained the City Clerk will make a recording of the proceedings. The hearing is not open to public testimony; this is a hearing on rezones requested by Helena Parker, Jack Shubic, Hattie Longmire, and Steve Cohn. It is not an open record hearing and there will be no opportunity during the closed record hearing for public testimony. Oral argument will be allowed from the applicants and parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this rezone matter outside the public hearing process. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Johnson, Bloom, Peterson, and Buckshnis, Council President Petso and Mayor Earling advised they had not. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Council President Petso and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Peterson, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling advised they had no conflicts. Councilmember Johnson disclosed she knows the applicant's representative, Steve Cohn; they worked together many years ago. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmembers' participation. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling described the procedures for presentation of oral argument: applicants and parties of record will be allowed 5 minutes each; the time can be extended if necessary. The Council's jurisdiction in the closed record hearing is to determine whether the applicant has made the showing required in ECDC Chapter 20.40. The Council was agreeable to the described procedures. Staff Presentation Planner Michael Clugston explained the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the rezone request on June 26, 2013. He displayed Attachment 2 to the Staff Report, an aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area. The site is currently zoned RM-3.0 with contract; the applicant has proposed to change the zoning to RM-2.4. He referred to the staff report, Exhibit 1; testimony from the applicant, Exhibit 2; Planning Board minutes, Exhibit 3; and public hearing sign in sheet, Exhibit 4. Mr. Clugston explained the code contains six criteria that must be considered for a site specific rezone. He referenced the Planning Board's consideration of the 6 criteria (page 9 of Exhibit 3, Planning Board minutes): A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board found the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the RM-2.4 zoning classification is one of the possible implementing zones for Multi -Family — Medium Density Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 192 designation. The current designation is Multi -Family — Medium Density. There are two implementing zones for that designation, RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. B. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and proposed zone district. The Planning Board found the proposal to rezone to RM-2.4 consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district. C. Whether the proposal to change the zoning is consistent with the surrounding area and nearby property. The Planning Board found it was 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. The Planning Board found there had been sufficient change in city policy to justify the rezone. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the proposed use. The request is to rezone the parcel from RM-3.0 with contract to RM-2.4. A variety of uses are allowed in the RM-2.4 zone that could be established via the appropriate permits. Although the applicant's primary interest is to establish one more dwelling unit in the front building on the parcel facing P Avenue (Attachment 10 to Exhibit 1), their request is to change the zoning from RM-3.0 with contract to RM-2.4. Although the site currently may not be suitable for inclusion of an additional dwelling unit as significant alterations would need to occur, the Planning Board wanted to provide that flexibility with the understanding that building permits and additional review would be required. If the existing structures were removed and the entire site redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for that use as the parcel is fairly flat and on an arterial. Mayor Earling extended Mr. Clugston's time for two minutes and advised the applicants they would have a total of seven minutes. Mr. Clugston continued his review of the criterion: 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 Planning Board found there was a gain in public health, safety, welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. Applicant Presentation Steve Cohn, professional land use planner, representing the applicants, advised his complete remarks are contained in the Planning Board minutes and the addendum submitted to the Planning Board (Exhibit 2). Mr. Cohn agreed with the Planning Board's findings as relayed by Mr. Clugston. Ms. Parker is interested in an additional unit but that would be done via a separate process and would only be allowed if all the City's regulations could be met. Due to the size of the site, it is unlikely other uses could be located on the site. Other regulations such as parking would limit the size and impact of other potential uses. Helena Parker, one of the applicants, introduced herself, stating she has lived in Edmonds for ten years. She would like to add another unit eventually but recognized the first step was appropriate zoning. Council Questions Mayor Earling explained the Council may now ask clarifying questions. Staff and the applicant will have the opportunity to rebut responses. He cautioned the Council not to request information outside the administrative record. Councilmember Buckshnis noted staff recommended denial, based primarily on criteria D, sufficient change in the character of the immediate surrounding area or city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Clugston responded once the Planning Board's public hearing is concluded, staff represents the Planning Board's viewpoint. When he reviewed the proposal, he did not find there had been sufficient change in the area; there had not been any additional rezones in the area and the Comprehensive Plan had not changed a great deal. The applicant testified and the Planning Board agreed, there had been a few changes in the uses of existing buildings in the nearby area. With regard to city policy, the Arts Corridor and the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 192 Downtown Activity Center have been established. The Planning Board concluded there had been sufficient change to warrant the request. Mr. Cohn advised the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site changed between the time it was rezoned and today; when it was rezoned it was designated Single Family and the Planning Board utilized other Comprehensive Plan policies to justify the rezone. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan designation on the site has been changed. Council President Petso pointed out the property, as currently zoned, serves as a transition between single family and multi -family. Mr. Clugston agreed, explaining there is an 8-unit apartment to the south and a single family use to the north. If the Council granted this rezone request, Council President Petso asked if the Council would also be required to grant a rezone request by the immediately adjacent single family property owner. Mr. Clugston answered no, explaining the Comprehensive Plan designation of the parcel to the north is still Single Family; they would need to request a Comprehensive Plan change and a rezone. If the goal was to add another unit, Council President Petso asked why the applicant did not request another contract rezone to add another unit rather than a rezone to RM-2.4 without a contract. Mr. Cohn answered in his experience it was much cleaner to have straight zoning and not have a contract rezone. Council President Petso pointed out the Planning Board did not make one of the required findings; for criteria E, the Planning Board stated the site was not currently suitable. In a past hearing, the Council was told that constituted an error. Mr. Clugston answered the Planning Board indicated although it was not currently suitable to establish an additional dwelling unit, with the rezone, it could be done with the appropriate permits. The applicant would be required to meet parking requirements, density, etc. To the question regarding whether the property is physically suitable, Mr. Cohn agreed that was the Planning Board's conclusion. The site is suitable although the current configuration on the site may not be. Mr. Clugston explained if the rezone were approved, both buildings could be removed and the site redeveloped under RM-2.4. The site is physically suitable because it is flat, has existing utilities and is on an arterial. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Planning Board indicated the site is not suitable until it is razed and redeveloped. The site is not currently suitable for inclusion of the additional unit with confines of Unit A. If the entire site were redeveloped, it would be physically suitable. Mr. Clugston referred to additional Planning Board language that significant alterations would need to occur to Unit A in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. He clarified the Planning Board recognized a duplex could not be established now; a permitting process would be required. The applicant's request is to rezone the parcel; they have expressed interest in adding a dwelling unit. The permitting process will determine whether that can be done. Councilmember Bloom asked staff to describe the transition. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 13 to Exhibit 1, an oblique aerial photograph of the area. He identified the two structures on the subject site, an 8-unit apartment building to the south and a single family parcel developed with a rambler to the north. When the initial contract rezone was approved in 1999, the intent was to create a transition between the more dense 8-unit building on the south and the rambler to the north. Councilmember Bloom asked for further clarification regarding staffs recommendation to deny. Mr. Clugston answered it was primarily because there had not been sufficient change in city policy or the area. He referred to page 4 of Exhibit 3, explaining other than the remodel at 403 and addition of the 405 house when the contract rezone was approved in 1999, there had not been enough change in the area. He referred to Attachment 13 to Exhibit 1, pointing out south of the 8-unit apartments there are several other RM-1.5 zoned sites that are not developed under that zone. With the exception of the 4'h Avenue Cultural Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 192 Corridor, he did not find there had been enough change in policy to approve the rezone request. The Planning Board indicated the difference between the potential of three units, which this rezone could result in, was not a large change. He read from page 8 of Exhibit 3, "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 [been] significant change in the area to warrant the rezone. Board Members Tibbott and Ellis concurred." The Planning Board concluded the change from RM-3.0 to RM-1.5 would be a minor change; at the most one additional dwelling unit. To the question of whether there had been enough change, Mr. Cohn said staff's focus was on physical change. He acknowledged there has not been a lot of physical change. The applicant's focus was on policy change; they showed there been a lot of policy changes and the Planning Board concurred. To the question regarding transition, he suggested and the Planning Board agreed there is not a great deal of difference between RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. Councilmember Bloom asked about the conditions on uses that were imposed with the first rezone. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 9 to Exhibit 1, the 1999 ordinance that established the current zoning. That ordinance stated the primary permitted use was single family dwellings and associated parking and that community facilities, boarding houses and rooming houses and bus stops and shelters were not allowed uses on the site. Several other uses would be allowed on the site that were not mentioned in the ordinance. He agreed many of the allowed uses would not fit on the site due to its size. He referred to Attachment 14 of Exhibit 1 that contains a list of allowed uses in the RM zone. Allowed uses include retirement homes, group homes for the disabled, etc. He acknowledged the parking requirements for those uses would be difficult to meet on this small site. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the applicant's request for RM-2.4 would allow retirement homes, group homes, daycare centers, etc. Mr. Clugston agreed, and said those are already allowed uses under the existing contract. Councilmember Bloom asked whether additional uses would be allowed under RM-2.4. Mr. Clugston answered yes, the uses that were restricted in the 1999 ordinance — bus shelters, community facilities, and boarding houses and rooming houses. All the RM uses allowed in Chapter 16.30 are currently allowed and would be allowed in RM-2.4. Councilmember Bloom observed allowing retirement homes, group homes, offices, daycare, etc. in a transitional zone between multi -family and single family could potentially be a bigger issue for the surrounding residents. Mr. Clugston advised those uses are already allowed; the size of the site would be a limiting factor. Other uses could be established on the site under its current zoning or if the parcel is rezoned. Councilmember Bloom observed since those uses were already allowed, the only difference via the rezone was the applicant could establish an additional dwelling unit. Mr. Clugston answered that is the applicant's intent in the current proposal. Mr. Cohn advised it was unlikely other uses would occur on the site due to parking requirements. Council Deliberation and Action Council President Petso said she would be unable to approve the rezone, finding the Planning Board's consideration was an effort to apply the criteria to the proposal for one additional unit; yet the Planning Board admitted the additional unit does not work under Criteria E. If the intent is one additional unit, a contract rezone to allow the additional unit would be a preferred course. If the intent is a rezone to RM- 2.4 she preferred the staff and Planning Board's evaluation consider the loss of transition that the initial rezone provided. She was unsure the Planning Board evaluated that due to their assumption the outcome would be one additional unit which would still provide a transition. She concluded there appeared to be an error on the part of the Planning Board. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 192 Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation, pointing out their finding regarding Criteria D recognized permitting would be required. She pointed out there have been changes in the area and in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis. He referred to the amended Criteria E, pointing out if one read only the first part of the sentence, "The site is not currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit" he would agree with Council President Petso that there was an error. However, it goes on to state, "within the confines of Unit A at 403 P Avenue North. Significant alterations 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." The Planning Board was pointing out there would be work beyond this step to establish another unit. He emphasized the Planning Board did not say the site was not suitable, they said it is not suitable within the confines of Unit A. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BLOOM VOTING NO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended Mayor Earling not vote to break the tie as the ultimate action is an ordinance and the Mayor cannot break a tie on an ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONE. MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BLOOM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson relayed his understanding that the Mayor cannot vote to break a tie on an ordinance; this action is not an ordinance. If the Mayor broke the tie, the ordinance would return to the Council for a vote. Mr. Taraday relayed his advice has been if the Council is voting to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and that vote results in a 3-3 tie, that is not a passing motion. Although it is true there is not an ordinance before the Council tonight, the intent of the motion is to affect an ordinance and for that reason he would stand by his advice. Council President Petso relayed her motion did not require an ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained Council President Petso's motion was unnecessary because the applicant must demonstrate they have satisfied their burden of proof and apparently by the vote the applicant has not met their burden and by failing to meet its burden, the application fails. 6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO FUND THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION DAY FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Councilmember Johnson requested Council authorize up to $1,000 to fund the Volunteer Appreciation Picnic scheduled on August 25 at 1:30 p.m. for all boards and commissions, hosted by the Mayor and Council. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE UP TO $1,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO FUND THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION PICNIC. Council President Petso explained when the agenda packet was prepared her intent was to provide background regarding the Council Contingency Fund. The numbers in the packet and the numbers in this Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 192 afternoon's email are not entirely correct. In working with the Finance Director, it was determined if the legal fees for the Hillman Closed Record Review and this request are funded from the Council Contingency Fund as well as the Interlocal Agreement on Affordable Housing and other funding commitments made this year such as the Coal Train Study, there will be approximately $6,500 remaining in the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the amount, up to $1,000, was determined, noting that is approximately $8 a person if all board and commission members attended. Finance Director Roger Neumaier answered there is a level government is authorized to spend on such an event without a gift of funds or hosting issue. He suggested $8/person has passed the test in his previous experience with Snohomish County. The agenda for the event includes speakers and refreshments; the total cost per person would not be a material amount. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she is assisting Councilmember Johnson with this event and did not believe it will cost $1,000. She preferred to authorize $1,000 and spend less rather than ask for less and not have enough. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING THE LEGAL FEES FOR THE HILLMAN CLOSED RECORD REVIEW FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Council President Petso requested Council approval to pay Carol Morris from the Council Contingency Fund. She explained a majority of the Council approved a motion to hire Ms. Morris; a funding source was not specified at that time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO PAY CAROL MORRIS' INVOICE FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis commented professional services are different than one-time events typically funded by the Council Contingency. She feared if all the Council Contingency Fund was expended on professional services, something else could come up that the Council wanted to fund. She preferred to pay professional services from the professional services line and do a budget amendment and keep the Council Contingency Fund for one-time events such as the Coal Train Study, Interlocal Agreement for Affordable Housing, etc. Mr. Neumaier advised either approach is technically appropriate; it is a policy decision of the Council. All attorney fees are paid from a professional services line item with the exception of contingency fees. He said other cities pay legal costs from contingency reserves. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a budget amendment would be required to fund items of interest to the Council if next year there were five closed record reviews that used the entire Council Contingency. Mr. Neumaier responded if the Contingency Fund is completely expended, anything that comes later would require a budget amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the professional services budget had been used up. Mr. Neumaier answered if the Council chose to fund this from professional services, a budget amendment would be required. If Ms. Morris' legal fees were paid from the Council Contingency Fund, Councilmember Buckshnis asked that Mr. Neumaier make it clear to citizens that the funding source was the Council Contingency Fund. Mr. Neumaier assured he would. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there had been similar items paid by the Council Contingency Fund during the past two years. Councilmember Peterson did not remember hiring an outside attorney for any closed record review cases. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled there was an attorney hired for the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 192 Burnstead closed record review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether that attorney was paid from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson answered he believed it was. Council President Petso intended to budget enough money in the professional services line item next year to cover the City Attorney's fee as well as 1-2 closed record reviews. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Council President Petso agreed professional services should be paid from the professional services line and not Council Contingency. Council President Petso answered yes, if it is budgeted. In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' question, Councilmember Buckshnis explained there was no Council approval to pay the outside attorney used for the Burnstead closed record review from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson explained the Council directed that funds be allocated but did not identify the source. The Council Contingency Fund was the only available funding source without a budget amendment. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL AREAS `ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this issue was discussed with the Parks, Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committee on July 9, 2013. The issue is the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, must use "Best Management Practices" and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." This idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted that the vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO. When the language was transferred to code in the critical area regulations, the language referred to "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Two examples have come to light recently that illustrate this problem, the American Brewery silo and the City Park project. Mr. Lien identified the area where American Brewery would like to install a silo, the 200-foot CAO wetland buffer that projects onto the site. Strict interpretation of the critical area regulations that an existing structure within the critical area buffer can be altered, placing a silo is not an alteration to an existing structure, so technically cannot be allowed under the City's CAO regulations. He pointed out it is in a paved area and placing a silo in that location would not have any impact on the existing critical area. Mr. Lien explained the City Park project includes a proposal to extend the play area. He identified the remnant of Edmonds Marsh on the east side of SR 104, explaining the play area is separated by a parking lot. The proposed play area would expand within the buffer area; although not previously a developed area, it is separated from the wetland by a previously developed area. "Buffer" means the designated area Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 192 immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. The developed area is physically separated and functionally isolated. The interpretation of the CAO has impacts throughout the City particularly due to streams through the bowl such as Shellabarger, Shell Creek and Henley Stream. The buffers on those streams can encompass more than one parcel. This issue was described to the PPP Committee on July 9 who recommended forwarding it to the Planning Board. The Council packet includes a potential interim ordinance for Council consideration at a future meeting while the Planning Board conducts their review. The Planning Board is scheduled to begin their review at their August 14 meeting. Council President Petso asked whether this proposal applied to all kinds of critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or steep slopes or did it only apply to wetland. Mr. Lien answered the allowed activities provision is located in the general regulations of the CAO which apply to all critical areas. Other critical areas have their own allowed activities; there is similar language in the wetland section. Anything in the general regulations, 23.40, applies to all critical areas. With regard to the City Park project, Council President Petso asked how much additional encroachment into the buffer was proposed. She viewed it as a small area and envisioned a small redesign might solve the problem rather than a code change. Mr. Lien indicated he was unable to discuss the park design. He identified the 100 foot buffer from the wetland. In discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, she indicated any redesign would require moving the play area which would result in the loss of several large trees on the south side of the park. Council President Petso referred to the American Brewery silo, recalling there has been discussion about curing the sins of the past. She noted it was one thing to rip up a parking lot and reestablish a natural buffer; it was more difficult to remove a structure and reestablish a natural buffer. She asked whether the change from structure to developed footprint may make it more difficult to restore some critical areas. Mr. Lien answered additions and redevelopment provide an opportunity for enhancement. For allowing redevelopment within a previously developed footprint, there would be enhancement to improve the area around the wetland. Council President Petso asked if the change would allow redevelopment to occur wherever there was existing pavement. Mr. Lien answered allowed activities can happen as long as BAS are in place; these are generally things like erosion control, etc. The development must not degrade the associated critical areas. Development can be allowed within redevelopment areas but some contingents have to be met that would not impact the critical areas. He agreed it could extend to the edge of the existing parking lot if it met the other conditions. Council President Petso asked what constituted physically separated; whether a path along the edge of the wetland or a 4-foot brick wall along the edge of a steep slope would be sufficient to say it was physically separated and thus allowed to build to the existing separation. Mr. Lien answered in the draft interim ordinance, the decision regarding physically separated and functionally isolated is made by a qualified professional such as a wetland professional or stream biologist. Typically there is a road separating the property from a stream or in the case of the City Park project, the site is separated from Shellabarger from an apartment/condo complex. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the PPP Committee recommended this be reviewed by the Planning Board. She feared the Council was getting caught up in the examples when the real issue was BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance brings the CAO into consistency with the BAS report. Responding to Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the issue was scheduled for review by the Planning Board following the PPP Committee meeting; tonight's meeting did not delay the Planning Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 192 Board meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if the Planning Board wanted to amend the language in the interim ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained it was entirely possible the Planning Board could make changes to the interim ordinance such as was done with the Farmers Market interim ordinance. In that case, the Council adopted the revised version of the regulations and repealed the interim ordinance. If the Planning Board returned with revisions to the interim ordinance and the Council approved the revisions, the Council would adopt the revisions and appeal the interim regulations. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised an interim ordinance was proposed primarily due to timing. Ms. Hite is concerned with a delay because the City Park project is at 30% design and it needs to be at 60% before it goes to bid. With regard to the City Park project Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested moving the play pad onto another section. Mr. Lien explained the real issue is BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." The City Park project was an example of how that impacts potential development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not understand the urgency. Mr. Chave relayed Ms. Hite's indication that because of the configuration of the park, if the proposed location was not allowed, it would need to be shifted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) affects critical areas. Mr. Lien answered the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Growth Management Act (GMA) are two different things. Within shoreline jurisdictions, the SMA rules; outside of shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules. The CAO is an outgrowth of the GMA. Portions of the CAO have been adopted within the updated SMP which would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The Department of Ecology specifically excepts portions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline areas. The allowed activities provisions within the CAO applies within shoreline areas. The buffers may be different in shoreline areas when the SMP is adopted; but the allowed activities provisions would still apply. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the interim ordinance was not discussed at the PPP Committee meeting. Her preference was an expedited review by the Planning Board; it was possible it could be completed in the next four weeks. Councilmember Bloom clarified her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation was that BAS was not applied in the language of the CAO. Mr. Lien explained the BAS report talks about development and redevelopment within the developed footprint. The developed footprint can be considered the impervious area. When written into the critical area regulations, the language was changed to alterations to existing structures within the developed footprint. Councilmember Bloom asked if the State required the CAO to be consistent with other jurisdictions. Mr. Lien answered unlike the SMP which the State approves, the State does not approve critical area regulations. Critical area regulations must be developed in accordance with BAS. When the code language was drafted, "structures" was added which was not in the BAS report. Mr. Chave explained the Department of Ecology's general approach is with regard to existing development, there is little that can be expected to change, particularly in a city like Edmonds that is 96% developed. The approach in Snohomish County, where there are extensive areas that are undeveloped, is different than the approach in a city such as Edmonds. Edmonds' BAS report fits the circumstances in Edmonds; the focus in Edmonds is enhancement such as improving runoff control or improving the existing buffer area in exchange for allowing some additional development. Unfortunately, the code ultimately undermined that enhancement capability by being overly restrictive with regard to the existing footprint by the use of the word "structure." In response to Councilmember Johnson's comment, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board has a public hearing scheduled on August 14. It is quite possible the Planning Board's recommendation will be returned to the Council in August. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 192 Councilmember Peterson was concerned with the impact on the City Park project and potential grant fund deadlines if design percentages are not met. Public Works Director Phil Williams commented he has talked with Ms. Hite about this issue. The concern is a consultant is actively working on the design; if that work was shut down for 1-2 months, it could have an impact on the project delivery date. Another issue Ms. Hite was concerned about was moving the project from its current location would result in the loss of mature trees which she wanted to avoid. The current location seemed to be the optimum location but this issue in the code arose. The sooner this issue is resolved, the better, in order to give the design consultant the information they need to proceed. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the aerial photograph on the City Park project example is the current pad. He envisioned the new project may encroach further and likely cannot be resolved by moving the footprint a few feet. Mr. Williams agreed the new feature will encroach into the buffer. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have this reviewed by the Planning Board. As the project is in design, she suggested it be designed so that it does not encroach into the critical area. She was uncomfortable with unknown deadlines and rushing. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has seen the plans, has talked with Ms. Hite, and this is the best location. She reiterated the issue is the language from the BAS report when it was transferred to the CAO. With regard to the American Brewery silo, she pointed out both structures are physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh. Councilmember Bloom observed the Council could adopt an interim ordinance tonight or next week. She asked when the interim ordinance would be effective. Mr. Taraday answered it was up to the Council when/if they wished to adopt an interim ordinance. A public hearing is not contemplated in advance of the adoption of the interim ordinance; a public hearing is typically held within 60 days of the adoption of the interim ordinance. The Council could adopt the interim ordinance tonight; it would take effect within 5 days of publication, typically 10 days after passage. Councilmember Bloom observed the matter is already scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board. Mayor Earling explained the intent was for the Council to adopt the interim ordinance next week as a safety net in the event there was a delay in the Planning Board's review and recommendation. He relayed concern that redesign would cost more time and money. Although Ms. Hite is on vacation, he suggested Councilmembers email her any outstanding questions. Councilmember Peterson referred to the interim ordinance the Council approved regarding the farmers market. The Planning Board reviewed the ordinance and forwarded revisions to the Council. The interim ordinance resulted in something better and without it, timing, contracts, etc. may not have been addressed. The interim ordinance would ensure funds for a park project were not lost. He was willing to delay approval of the interim ordinance until next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what funds would be lost and when they would be lost. Councilmember Peterson responded there was grant funding; if certain criteria are not met, the grant funds can be lost. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if grant funds were in jeopardy of being lost. Mr. Williams advised when a consultant is working on a design, if the location shifts, all the sheets must be redone. Out of caution, the design would be shut down until the issues are resolved, creating delay and there were costs associated with the delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what that had to do with grant funding. Mr. Williams advised any money spent on a design that has to be discarded and a new design created was not using grant funds effectively. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 192 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Peterson's comment that grant funding would be lost. She was concerned that was not accurate. Councilmember Peterson explained he asked if grant funds would be lost; Ms. Hite was not here to answer that question. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed because Ms. Hite was not here, the Council did not have that information. Mr. Williams explained if the design, funded by a grant, has to be redone, the additional cost likely would come from City resources. He clarified grant funds would not be lost but they may need to be supplemented with additional City funds. With regard to BAS and physically separated and functionally isolated, Mr. Williams advised development can be physically separated by distance but still be functionally connected; in the case of the City Park project, the impervious parking lot and buildings functionally isolate the project environmentally. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Councilmembers are not park expects; Ms. Hite has worked on the City Park project for over a year. The Council is being distracted by the examples and issues such as moving the spray pad; the Council should not be micromanaging the project. She referred to revised language in paragraph 3 of the proposed interim ordinance (Attachment A). She was prepared to pass the interim ordinance next week. The goal was to ensure the language in the CAO was consistent with the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom supported voting on the interim ordinance next week. She asked for an opportunity to review one of the definitions with Mr. Taraday before next week. She relayed her understanding that it was not that grant funds were being lost, grant funds could be spent on a design that later needed to be changed. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled this was discussed most recently at the Council mini retreat; Council direction at that time was to bring it back to the Council in July. At that time the options presented by City Attorney Jeff Taraday were to adopt the plan, change the plan or deny the plan; do nothing was not presented as an option. She sought Council direction so that the next agenda item on this topic could read Discussion and Potential Action on the Harbor Square Master Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a plan could not be adopted because a plan was in the process of being created based on Council input, Exhibit 2. The Council was in the process of reviewing Exhibit 3, the Planning Board recommendation and how the issues had been addressed in Exhibit 2. Before the Council moved on with their consideration of Exhibit 3, Council President Petso asked whether the Council can adopt the original Port Master Plan by majority vote or has that plan been denied. City Attorney Jeff Taraday's recollection of prior Council action was the plan had not been denied; none of the motions to approve or deny passed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the original Port Master Plan could be adopted by a majority vote of the Council. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Port Master Plan has been withdrawn so there is no plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the plan was withdrawn but the Port's withdrawal of the application does not prevent the Council from continuing to process the Harbor Square Master Plan; it also does not foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting exactly what the Port proposed. Even though the Port has withdrawn their application, the Port began a legislative process by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 192 once that legislative process has begun, it resides at the City Council until the Council takes action. The Council could ultimately decide, 1) they like the Port's original submission, 2) they like elements of the Port's original submittal but want to revise other elements, 3) deny the plan in its entirety, or 4) acknowledge the withdrawal of the application and decide to cease processing the application as a result of that withdrawal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council has been working on a staff -developed Harbor Square Master Plan based on Council and citizen input, Exhibit 2. She reiterated the Council was still in the process of telling staff what they want in Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining because the Council has not decided exactly what they want the Harbor Square Master Plan to look like, he has not ruled out any of the possibilities. The ultimate plan could be any one of a hundred different flavors, including the original plan submitted by the Port. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled making a motion that the Council was no longer working off the Port plan which gave staff 45 days to develop a new plan. Mr. Taraday's recollection and interpretation of Councilmember Buckshnis' motion was the Council was moving forward with a different draft for the purposes of discussion; that new working draft did not permanently foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting the Port's original plan. He summarized there were many different flavors available for the Council's consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether reconsideration of her motion to not work off the Port's plan would be necessary for the Council to again consider the Port's Master Plan. Mr. Taraday said he was unsure how significant the declaration of the working draft was. Someone needs to move a draft of a Master Plan for this property. The Council is not there yet; the prior motions in the process do not matter, assuming the Council can eventually get to four votes for some version of the Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom commented the process has been very confusing. The Port has withdrawn their plan and there are major differences of opinion between what the Council wants, what citizens have expressed they want and what has been presented. In order to simplify the matter, she preferred to abandon the Port's Master Plan that was withdrawn by the Port and focus on Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan and hold a public hearing on that. She anticipated that would not take a great deal of staff time; the Council has been told there was no staff time available. Councilmember Johnson expressed her support for the Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table, Exhibit 3, for discussion purposes only. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mayor Earling indicated there was not enough staff or time to work on a Master Plan. Mayor Earling responded staff on the second floor are very busy, this is the height of the permit season. He anticipated there would need to be a discussion of staff's limitations in responding to Council requests. Acting Development Services Director Mr. Chave explained there are a lot of projects bringing in revenues that will exceed expectations causing increased workload. If a majority of Councilmembers want to continue to create a plan from Exhibit 2, Council President Petso suggested beginning with page 247, the Planning Board recommendations. Councilmember Johnson summarized the Port adopted a Master Plan for redevelopment of Harbor Square. Based on the comments from the public, there are four key areas of concern, 1) whether to have residential in redevelopment, 2) the appropriate setback from the marsh, 3) building heights, and 4) the environment. There needs to be consistency between the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for both the residential component and the marsh setback. Building heights, although a key concern, are a zoning issue and not a Comprehensive Plan issue. Environmental concerns are essentially regulatory review. She Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 192 recommended the Council focus on whether to have residential in redevelopment and the appropriate marsh setback. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan as two separate items. The SMP is strictly environmental although it does address specifics related to housing and buffer areas. The Harbor Square Master Plan in both Exhibits 1 and 2 reference the SMP. Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for Councilmember Johnson's summary, pointing out Exhibit 4 addresses all those issues. She reiterated Exhibit 4 would be a good starting point for discussion and a public hearing. Exhibit 4 is a one page summary with modifications/additions to language in the Comprehensive Plan. She summarized Council review of Exhibit 4 would be the simplest approach. Council President Petso summarized three Councilmembers have expressed interest in working on Exhibit 4. If a fourth Councilmember was interested in working on Exhibit 4, she suggested developing a finalized draft of Exhibit 4 for next week's agenda and scheduling a public hearing on whatever the Council produces next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for working on Exhibit 4. Mr. Chave pointed out Exhibit 4 was a separate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; whatever is developed would need to be referred to the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to explain the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP. Mr. Lien recalled one of the Planning Board's recommendations regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan was that the Harbor Square Master Plan and the SMP be considered together. The SMP update came to the Planning Board before the Port applied for the Harbor Square Master Plan. With the marsh designed as a shoreline and shoreline jurisdiction extending into the Harbor Square property, a new shoreline environment was developed for the Harbor Square property. When developing the SMP, all plans made and being made are to be considered. The Planning Board slowed the SMP process to allow the Port an opportunity to submit the Harbor Square Master Plan. While they are separate actions, the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan are connected with regard to types of uses. The draft SMP includes residential uses; the Harbor Square Master Plan also talks about residential uses. The setbacks are an SMP issue that any redevelopment of Harbor Square would need to comply with. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Harbor Square Master Plan's inclusion of residential has no impact on the SMP because the Urban Use III environment includes residential. She noted the Council can move forward with the SMP, Exhibit 4 would not be as specific as a Master Plan such as was presented by the Port. Mr. Lien pointed out the key aspect between the SMP and Harbor Square is residential uses. He was uncertain how Exhibit 4 addresses residential uses. If Exhibit 4 prohibited residential uses, the Urban Mixed Use III environment would need to be revised. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the language Council President Petso proposed in Exhibit 4 would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso answered there is a section that specifically addressed the near waterfront area; that is the section she changed in Exhibit 4. Councilmember Peterson asked when the SMP is on the Council agenda next. Mr. Lien answered it is not on the extended agenda; he was waiting to see what the Council did with the Harbor Square Master Plan. He anticipated two more meetings with the City Council on the SMP; first the City Council proposing changes to the draft SMP and the subsequent meeting the revised SMP that would be submitted to the Department of Ecology. He could schedule the SMP on a Council agenda next month. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan section Council President Petso revised was the section that addresses the Master Plan area that includes Harbor Square, Salish Crossing and up to Main Street. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 192 Mayor Earling commented if the Council is considering a change that affects that entire area, that is a substantial shift and would require involving an entirely different group of property owners and considerably more staff time. He urged the Council to focus on Harbor Square and not broaden the discussion to the entire waterfront. Council President Petso recalled that concern was raised when she drafted Exhibit 4 earlier this spring. She prepared a separate draft that addressed only the Harbor Square parcel and left the other parcels under their original designation. She could do that again for next week's agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why this needed to be discussed next week. Council President Petso answered next week's agenda has an hour available. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton referred to the reference of Exhibit 4 as Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan, pointing out it is not a Master Plan; it simply amends existing Comprehensive Plan language. His concern was the Council considering that language without it being reviewed by the Planning Board as is required. Council President Petso agreed with Mr. Clifton and suggested Exhibit 4 not have her name attached to it but be a generic proposed draft. If the Council decided to pursue Exhibit 4, she agreed it needed to be referred to the Planning Board for a full and proper process. Councilmember Bloom asked if any Comprehensive Plan change must first go to the Planning Board and whether the Council could develop a draft for the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Clifton explained it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board as a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment. He raised that concern in an email when Council President Petso first distributed the draft language several months ago. His specific concern was the title of Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan; it is not a Master Plan, it is language that amends the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso summarized the direction she has heard is to work on a version of Exhibit 4 next week that does not involve properties other than Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis requested specifics about what Comprehensive Plan language Exhibit 4 amends. She was concerned the Council was rushing. Councilmember Peterson relayed tonight's discussion about incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan has now turned into changing the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to ensure the Council agreed they wanted to amend the language in the Comprehensive Plan, noting this is the first time this has been discussed. If that was indeed the Council's direction, he wanted it noticed that way, not just Continued Discussion on Harbor Square. He found it odd that the topic on today's agenda memo, Continued Discussion on Harbor Square Master Plan, has morphed into changing the language in the Comprehensive Plan, two vastly different things, both with complex processes. He summarized Exhibit 4 has been part of the Council packet but this is the first time it has been discussed. Councilmember Bloom pointed out Exhibit 4 has been an attachment to the agenda for a number of meetings. She agreed it has not been discussed previously because the focus was on the staff -prepared revised Harbor Square Master Plan. It was her understanding that Exhibit 4 was a way for the Council to indicate what they wanted there. The process has allowed a number of ideas, questions and concerns to be raised and Exhibit 4 is a way to define what the Council wants. From that, a Master Plan can be developed in the future. Council President Petso advised it was her understanding a Master Plan as proposed by the Port was a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 were also proposed Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 192 amendments. Mr. Taraday agreed they are all Comprehensive Plan amendments; the question is whether Exhibit 4 can be considered an approval with modifications. He did not find that it was approval with modifications because the original Harbor Square Master Plan is a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council ended up adopting a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan called the Harbor Square Master Plan, depending on how it read, it would be an approval with modifications. Exhibit 4 is not a standalone element; it is essentially an amendment to existing text in the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason it was difficult for him to view it as approval with modifications. If the Council wanted to pursue Exhibit 4, that was inconsistent with approval of a standalone Harbor Square Master Plan element. If the Council wanted to process Exhibit 4, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember make a motion to do so and incorporate in the motion an intent to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan. If the motion passed, the Council would be initiating its own Comprehensive Plan amendment which would be sent to the Planning Board for further hearing and consideration before returning to the City Council. Council President Petso clarified that motion could be made next week or during future discussion. Mr. Taraday agreed. If the Council pursued Exhibit 4, Mr. Chave recommended the Council clarify whether they are addressing only the Harbor Square property or the entire Master Plan area. By pursuing Exhibit 4, the Council was embarking on a new Comprehensive Plan amendment that will need to be docketed. The typical process would be review by the Planning Board during the following year. GMA has fairly extensive requirements for consultation, public process, etc. The Council could hold hearings and develop language for the Planning Board to use as a starting point. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEED WITH EVALUATION OF HARBOR SQUARE BASED ON EXHIBIT 3, THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ISSUE TABLE. Councilmember Johnson recalled this is the path the Council had agreed to take. When the Port withdrew their application, the Council got sidetracked and never completed that analysis, the most important of which is the Planning Board recommendation. All the Council's concerns are embedded in the issue table and she preferred to systematically complete that process before discussing an entirely different process. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Exhibit 2 is a function of Exhibit 3. The Council can continue with discussion of Exhibit 3 but that will require staff to finish Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is a compilation of Council comments/suggestions and how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification of whether Councilmember Johnson meant Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson responded she meant Exhibit 3. She recognized that Exhibit 2 put the decisions in Exhibit 3 in a different format but that was the framework for the discussion that the Council did not complete and she preferred to complete that discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Johnson expected staff to complete Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion of Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson said her expectation was the Council would reach consensus on key issues. Council President Petso explained Exhibit 4 was based on the information available at the time which included the Planning Board's recommendation and public comments. Her expectation was the Council would not reach consensus on key issues because that has not been accomplished previously despite a variety of different meeting formats. The information in Exhibits 1 and 2 are too specific for the Council to reach consensus. Exhibit 4 is more general and the Council may be able to tweak it to reach agreement. She did not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 192 Councilmember Buckshnis did not support continuing to discuss Exhibit 3 unless staff would be directed to change Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion. Councilmember Johnson commented there were no conclusions in Exhibit 3, only statements of opinion on different subjects. For discussion purposes the Council needs to revisit and reach consensus on the key issues. Councilmember Peterson preferred Councilmember Johnson's suggestion rather than pursuing Exhibit 4. He was unsure the Council would be able to reach consensus. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Councilmember Johnson's expectation was to only discuss Exhibit 3 or would staff be directed to change Exhibit 2. Councilmember Johnson clarified her motion was for the Council to continue the discussion of Harbor Square using Exhibit 3 as the medium for the discussion. Councilmember Peterson suggested if the Council reached consensus, the Council could direct staff to change Exhibit 2. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling commented he did not expect staff to do any more work until they receive some specific direction from the Council. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported before tonight's meeting, Councilmember Johnson, Peterson, and he attended Edmonds Night Out at the Francis Anderson Center. Hundreds of kids and parents attended. The emphasis of the event was public safety but it was a great neighborhood event. He complimented staff and volunteers who made the event possible. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported Councilmember Bloom has volunteered to change from the liaison to the EDC to being the liaison to the Port. She next asked if the Council objected to her informing the EDC and the Planning Board that the Council no longer requested they hold a joint meeting to discuss retail only in the BD1 zone. There were no objections voiced. Councilmember Buckshnis reported tourism is a billion dollar business. Driving the I-90 corridor, she visited many cities the size of Edmonds. She hoped Edmonds would move forward with Roger Brooks' suggestions. For example, millions of people visit a corn palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Keely O'Connell and Jerry Shuster for their walkabout at the marsh. She also thanked Councilmember Bloom and Val Stewart for attending. WRIA 8 recommended Edmonds for a $200,000 grant and potentially an additional $50,000 if another project does not proceed. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Edmonds Police Foundation for the Edmonds Night Out event tonight. He extended special thanks to the Police Department, Fire District 1 and National Guard. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 192 Councilmember Bloom recognized Councilmember Buckshnis for her work with WRIA 8. She provided a reminder of the Salish Crossing mid -week market on Wednesdays from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Johnson reported on Edmonds Night Out, an event sponsored by the Edmonds Police Foundation. She reported a special guest tonight was K9 Officer Dash making his final appearance. K9 Officer Dash is an 8-year old German Shepherd; his handler was promoted and Officer Dash is retiring due to health problems. To help raise funds for a new K9, the Edmonds Police Foundation is selling a stuffed K9 dog wearing a City of Edmonds Police Department vest. The stuff dogs are available at the Edmonds Police Department for $20. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas apologized to Councilmember Peterson for losing her temper during tonight's discussion. She had great concerns with the erosion of critical area buffers and did not want project issues taking priority over the environment. Councilmember Peterson accepted her apology. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 9:48 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:17 p.m. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:18 p.m. No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 192 AM-5997 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrr"0+inn Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #203500 through #203613 dated August 1, 2013 for $230,524.56. Approval of reissued payroll check #60350 $610.08. Recommendation Approval of claim checks and reissued payroll check. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Year• Revenue• Expenditure• Fiscal Impact: Claims $230,524.56 2013 230,524.56 Replacement payroll check $610.08 Fiscal Impact A ffonhmnn+e Claim Checks 08-01-13 Project Numbers 08-01-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 22 of 192 Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 08/01/2013 Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 08/01/2013 01:04 PM 08/01/2013 01:06 PM 08/01/2013 02:55 PM 08/01/2013 03:23 PM Started On: 08/01/2013 08:58 AM Packet Page 23 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203500 7/29/2013 074525 GL SIMMS & ASSOCIATES 70748 Library - Door Repair Part for Library Library - Door Repair Part for Library 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,220.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 115.94 Total: 1,336.35 203501 8/1/2013 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 55107 PS - 12 V Batteries (3) PS - 12 V Batteries (3) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 78.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.41 Total: 85.41 203502 8/1/2013 074530 ACCUSTAT SPORTS TIMING INC 26-2036449 FEE FOR TIMING CONQUER THE H FEE FOR TIMING CONQUER THE H 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,000.00 Total: 1,000.00 203503 8/1/2013 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND AUGUST 2013 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 08/13 EDIT ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 08/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71 Total: 2,097.71 203504 8/1/2013 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 5216 BACKFLOW TESTING BACKFLOW TESTING 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 30.00 Total: 30.00 203505 8/1/2013 074473 AHERN, RACHEL AHERN 07292013 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDAI OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 120.00 Total: 120.00 203506 8/1/2013 074412 ANSCHELL, BILL ANSCHELL 08012013 SUMMER CONCERT HMP 0812013 SUMMER CONCERT HMP 0812013 Page: 1 Packet Page 24 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203506 8/1/2013 074412 ANSCHELL, BILL (Continued) 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203507 8/1/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6928043 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM PARKS MAINT UNIFORM 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 53.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.09 Total: 58.63 203508 8/1/2013 074399 AROUND THE SOUND COMM BAND AROUND SOUND 8042013 CONCERT IN THE PARK 08042013 CONCERT IN THE PARK 08042013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203509 8/1/2013 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 83706-0001 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL Cooling system rental 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 595.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 56.53 Total: 651.53 203510 8/1/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 70312 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.07 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.07 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.20 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 128.14 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 128.14 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.52 Page: 2 Packet Page 25 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203510 8/1/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.52 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.63 70429 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.22 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.22 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.21 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 119.57 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 119.57 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.16 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.24 70518 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 148.60 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 148.60 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 153.10 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 511.04 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 511.03 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.12 Page: 3 Packet Page 26 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203510 8/1/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.12 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.54 Total: 2,243.79 203511 8/1/2013 012005 BALLAND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O113-704 INV 20113-704 EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY SCREENING - HOWA 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 150.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 7.00 Total: 157.00 203512 8/1/2013 074526 BLANCHARD, KATIE BLANCARD 07232013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 380.00 Total: 380.00 203513 8/1/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 13803 INV#13803 - EDMONDS PD - VAN D, ACADEMY T-SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.24 APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.00 ACADEMY SWEATSHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.47 APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00 ACADEMY SHORT JERSEY 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.80 13804 INV#13804 - EDMONDS PD - CLARH ACADEMY T SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.24 APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENTS Page: 4 Packet Page 27 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 203513 8/1/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) 13820 14251 9726-02 PO # Description/Account Amount 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.00 ACADEMY SWEATSHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.47 APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.80 ACADEMYJERSEY 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21.90 INV#13820 - EDMONDS PD - CLARIN ACADEMY PANTS/TDU/RIP STOP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 107.97 ACADEMY SS SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.90 TAPER SIDES OF SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.00 HEAVY WEIGHT HAND TRAINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.79 MOUTH GUARD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.25 MESH T SHIRTS - ACADEMY 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 39.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 19.46 INV#14251 - EDMONDS PD - HAND( HANDCUFF CASE, DOUBLE, W/HS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 44.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.27 INV#9726-02 - EDMONDS PD - MCC SGTS CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.90 SEW CHEVRONS ON COGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.00 Page: 5 Packet Page 28 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203513 8/1/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) SEW NAMETAGS ON COGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.00 NAME TAGS "J.D.MCCLURE" 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.17 Total: 501.34 203514 8/1/2013 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40229033 Ped Walk Way Lease 8/1/13-7/31/14 Ped Walk Way Lease 8/1/13-7/31/14 111.000.68.542.31.45.00 1,800.00 Total: 1,800.00 203515 8/1/2013 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBUCHON 16985 JOY OF ART 16985 JOY OF ART 16985 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 220.00 Total: 220.00 203516 8/1/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12919167 MARKS MAINT IRC1030 IF MARKS MAINT IRC1030 IF 00 1. 000. 64.576.80.45. 00 36.16 Total: 36.16 203517 8/1/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12934409 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Contract charges for C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Contract charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 6 Packet Page 29 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203517 8/1/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total: 273.74 203518 8/1/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12917080 Lease Planning Div copier/printer Lease Planning Div copier/printer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 12917081 Lease/ Building printer/copier Lease/ Building printer/copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 Total: 72.32 203519 8/1/2013 073747 CHARGE NORTHWEST LLC 1325 City ChargPoint Network Svc Plan City ChargPoint Network Svc Plan 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,200.00 Total: 1,200.00 203520 8/1/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 38620527 INV#38620527 ACCT#7898305185 E FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-ROSSI 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 267.64 FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 180.42 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 4.48 Total: 452.54 203521 8/1/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE85139002 WWTP - BUILDING SECURITY - FR( WWTP- BUILDING SECURITY- FR( 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 613.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 58.31 SE85139003 WWTP - BUILDING SECURITY, PAD WWTP - BUILDING SECURITY, PAD 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 550.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 52.33 Page: 7 Packet Page 30 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203521 8/1/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC (Continued) SE85139004 WWTP - SECURITY DOOR, PADLO( WWTP - SECURITY DOOR, PADLO( 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 183.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 17.44 Total: 1,476.28 203522 8/1/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2574413 GOOD SENSE AUTO SPRAY GOOD SENSE AUTO SPRAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,388.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 131.91 W2574413-1 GOOD SENSE AUTO SPRAY GOOD SENSE AUTO SPRAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.90 Total: 1,565.42 203523 8/1/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2572183 Fac Maint - Bleach, Bocks, TT, Towel: Fac Maint - Bleach, Bocks, TT, Towel: 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 753.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 71.55 Total: 824.76 203524 8/1/2013 073759 CRITERION PICTURES USA INC 385186 OUTDOOR MOVIE JULY 26 OUTDOOR MOVIE JULY 26 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 400.00 Total: 400.00 203525 8/1/2013 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3278031 E3JB.INVITATION TO BID AD E3JB.Invitation to Bid Ad 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 296.40 3278085 E2GB.INVITATION TO BID AD Page: 8 Packet Page 31 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203525 8/1/2013 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE (Continued) E2GB.Invitation to Bid 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 399.00 Total: 695.40 203526 8/1/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3377 MINUTE TAKING 7/23 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 312.00 Total: 312.00 203527 8/1/2013 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2193.1 E3FB.TASK ORDER 13-02 SERVICE E3FB.Task Order 13-02 Services thru 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,417.81 Total: 1,417.81 203528 8/1/2013 069912 EDMONDS PFD COE-500 AS ECA RENTAL AS ECA RENTAL 117.100.64.573.20.45.00 4,281.13 Total: 4,281.13 203529 8/1/2013 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R24152 Water - Gate Valve Cards w/ Revisior Water - Gate Valve Cards w/ Revisior 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 79.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.51 Total: 86.51 203530 8/1/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W 16113 75TH PL W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 64.70 3-38565 18410 92ND AVE W 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 Total: 96.49 203531 8/1/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P Page: 9 Packet Page 32 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203531 8/1/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 48.17 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 264.34 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL V1 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL V1 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 48.17 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 67.43 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.52 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.25 6-02735 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,479.05 6-02736 CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250 5TH CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 6-02737 CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250TH 51 CIVIC CENTER FIRE LINE 250TH 51 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 353.00 6-02738 CIVIC CENTER IRRIGATION 250 5TI CIVIC CENTER IRRIGATION 250 5TI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 447.26 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY/SPRINKLER 65, SNO-ISLE LIBRARY/SPRINKLER 65, 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,652.12 6-02875 FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF Page: 10 Packet Page 33 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203531 8/1/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,755.57 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 621.34 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 SPRINK 8429 19 FIRE STATION #16 SPRINKLER 842 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 121.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 461.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 461.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 461.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 461.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 461.59 6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC' 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 1.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC Page: 11 Packet Page 34 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203531 8/1/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE DETEC' 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94 Total: 10,361.06 203532 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0897001 PARKS A6995 PARKS A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 20.94 0899301 PARKS A7027 PARKS A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 145.97 Total: 166.91 203533 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 89550 WWTP - COPIER MAINTENANCE/PI WWTP - COPIER MAINTENANCE/P/ 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 82.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 7.83 Total: 90.30 203534 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089589 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN. Maintenance for printers 07/21/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 327.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 31.12 089931 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 C Meter charges 06/30/13 - 07/30/13 Bt 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 88.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 8.36 Total: 455.12 203535 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089932 COPIER CHARGES FOR C5051 Copier charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 31.93 Page: 12 Packet Page 35 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 203535 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 203536 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0895361 0895751 0895801 PO # Description/Account Copier charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 Copier charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use - B/W 215 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use -- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water Sewer Copy Use -- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use — 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 PW Copy Use — 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use — 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use - Total Amount 31.93 31.91 3.03 3.03 3.04 104.87 1.72 0.16 9.54 9.53 0.91 0.90 16.52 9.36 9.36 Page: 13 Packet Page 36 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203536 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.61 PW Copy Use — 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.61 PW Copy Use — 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.57 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.62 Total: 83.07 203537 8/1/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 089966 METER READING 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 26.23 Meter Reading 7/30 to 8/30 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 276.14 Total: 302.37 203538 8/1/2013 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 000 ES REF # 94513310 7 Q2-2013 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.39.517.78.23.00 4,246.78 Total: 4,246.78 203539 8/1/2013 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 67025 TORO #19 TORO #19 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 198.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 14 Packet Page 37 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203539 8/1/2013 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.81 Total: 216.81 203540 8/1/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU29090 Fleet- Supplies Fleet- Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 59.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.62 Total: 64.73 203541 8/1/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 2676174 Water - Supplies - PVC Pipe Water - Supplies - PVC Pipe 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.75 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.50 Total: 17.25 203542 8/1/2013 074520 FINISH LINE HEATING & COOLING 13Id2013.0805 Online permit - duplicate permit Online permit - duplicate permit 001.000.257.620 115.00 Total: 115.00 203543 8/1/2013 071562 FORMA 4651 EDMONDS WAYFINDING SIGNS 21. EDMONDS WAYFINDING SIGNS 21. 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,827.50 Total: 1,827.50 203544 8/1/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 42.94 Total: 42.94 203545 8/1/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 407.50 Page: 15 Packet Page 38 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203545 8/1/2013 011900 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Total: 407.50 203546 8/1/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRl SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 20.78 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 27.61 Page: 16 Packet Page 39 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203546 8/1/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 27.60 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 14.45 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 72.25 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 60.69 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 60.69 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 80.90 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 56.57 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOf 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 113.14 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 169.71 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 56.76 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 55.06 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALj FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 113.80 425-776-6829 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION AI 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 113.80 Page: 17 Packet Page 40 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203546 8/1/2013 011900 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Total: 1,773.30 203547 8/1/2013 072147 GEIL, ANNE GEIL 17101 YOGA 17101 YOGA 17101 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 361.08 YOGA 17098 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 221.96 Total: 583.04 203548 8/1/2013 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 28396 E9GA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 E9GA.Services thru June 2013.Testin 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 125.00 28397 E9GA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 E9GA.Services thru June 2013.Testin 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 125.00 Total: 250.00 203549 8/1/2013 012560 HACH COMPANY 8387615 WWTP - LAB SUPPLIES, GLASS FIL WWTP - LAB SUPPLIES, GLASS FIL 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 610.54 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 41.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 61.94 Total: 713.85 203550 8/1/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13415417 WWTP - REPAIR REPLACE, FLANG WWTP - REPAIR REPLACE, FLANG 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,092.15 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 103.75 13422884 Freight Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 228.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 21.73 Page: 18 Packet Page 41 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203550 8/1/2013 010900 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) Total: 1,446.35 203551 8/1/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13415273 Water No Lead Parts - Flanges, Water No Lead Parts - Flanges, 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,193.36 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 208.37 13415274 Water - 1" Meter Adaptors sold in pair Water - 1" Meter Adaptors sold in pair 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,194.24 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 113.46 Total: 3,709.43 203552 8/1/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2303241 MESSAGE STAMP - RETURNED SE US Stamp & Sign Message Stamp 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 17.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.71 2304722 MESSAGE STAMP US Stamp & Sign message stamp 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 17.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.71 2312250 MESSAGE STAMP US Stamp & Sign Message Stamp 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -17.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -1.71 2312499 NAVIGATOR PLATINUM MULTIPURF Navigator Platinum Office Multipurpo; 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 239.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 22.79 Total: 282.40 Page: 19 Packet Page 42 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203553 8/1/2013 074411 JENSEN, BRENT JENSEN 08012013 JENSEN 08012013 JENSEN 08012013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total : 100.00 203554 8/1/2013 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD 17056 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 170,1 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 170: 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 203555 8/1/2013 074527 KOCHAROV, NATASHA KOCHAROV 07262013 CUSTOMER REQUEST REFUND CUSTOMER REQUEST REFUND 001.000.239.200 690.00 Total : 690.00 203556 8/1/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 31694 CITY PARK SPRAY AND PLAY REVI- CITY PARK SPRAY AND PLAY REVI" 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 3,245.00 Total : 3,245.00 203557 8/1/2013 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 277073 INV#277073 CUST#980012 - EDMOI SMALL DIAMETER TUBES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 19.90 SMALL DIAMETER TUBES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 39.80 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 5.21 Total : 81.80 203558 8/1/2013 074405 MARCUS, ALISON MARCUS 08062013 HMP CONCERT 08062013 HMP CONCERT 08062013 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 300.00 Page: 20 Packet Page 43 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203558 8/1/2013 074405 074405 MARCUS, ALISON (Continued) Total: 300.00 203559 8/1/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 55618577 WWTP - QUARTZ DISC - INCINERA WWTP - QUARTZ DISC - INCINERA 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 491.30 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 5.74 55704425 WWTP - BATTERIES, VARIOUS SIZI WWTP - BATTERIES, VARIOUS SIZI 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 112.22 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.10 Total: 616.36 203560 8/1/2013 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 13-1427-3 E1 GA.SERVICES THRU 6/30/13 E1 GA.Services thru 6/30/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,559.24 E1 GA.Services thru 6/30/13 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 767.99 Total: 2,327.23 203561 8/1/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0500741-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 24.04 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.28 0500896-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 4.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 0.44 Total: 31.30 203562 8/1/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 401 ADB minutetaker 7/17/13 ADB minutetaker 7/17/13 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 224.00 Page: 21 Packet Page 44 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203562 8/1/2013 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN (Continued) Total: 224.00 203563 8/1/2013 073522 NW HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC 17129 E3FB.SERVICES THRU 6/30/13 E3FB.Services thru 6/30/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 15,806.37 Total: 15,806.37 203564 8/1/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 629167 BINDERS AND BINDER CLIPS BINDERS AND BINDER CLIPS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 23.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.21 656373 REINFORCEMENTS REINFORCEMENTS 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 0.14 Total: 27.15 203565 8/1/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 518040 INV#518040 ACCT#520437 250POL 3" WHITE BINDER - FTO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.71 3" BLACK BINDERS - FTO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 31.42 3" NAVY BINDER - FTO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.71 INDEX DIVIDERS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 19.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 7.80 Total: 89.88 203566 8/1/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 533692 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 203.54 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 22 Packet Page 45 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203566 8/1/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 19.33 590185 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 56.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.38 Total: 284.85 203567 8/1/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 13-006 E1GA.SERVICES THRU 6/26/13 E1 GA.Services thru 6/26/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 7,147.42 E1 GA.Services thru 6/26/13 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 53,839.86 E1GA.Ret 1 423.000.223.400 -2,458.44 Total: 58,528.84 203568 8/1/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 4327 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 227.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.63 4368 CAUSTIC SPILL KIT CAUSTIC SPILL KIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.00 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.41 Total: 392.37 203569 8/1/2013 073987 OSMONSON, SHANNON OSMONSON 16854 LITTLE SCIENTISTS #16854 LITTLE SCIENTISTS #16854 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 528.00 Page: 23 Packet Page 46 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203569 8/1/2013 073987 073987 OSMONSON, SHANNON (Continued) Total: 528.00 203570 8/1/2013 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G813 PW - Operations Maint Contract PW - Operations Maint Contract 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,359.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 224.16 Total : 2,583.66 203571 8/1/2013 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 155841 DUMP CLEAN GREEN DUMP CLEAN GREEN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.00 155856 DUMP CLEAN GREEN DUMP CLEAN GREEN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.00 Total: 126.00 203572 8/1/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 95402303841 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 203573 8/1/2013 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 179965 INV#179965 - EDMONDS PD 200 TASER CARTRIDGES 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,998.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 190.76 Total: 2,198.71 203574 8/1/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 56.34 Page: 24 Packet Page 47 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203574 8/1/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 56.33 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST, 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 112.89 Total: 225.56 203575 8/1/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 85.55 Total: 85.55 203576 8/1/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17045 FELDENKRAIS 17045 FELDENKRAIS 17045 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 395.00 Total: 395.00 203577 8/1/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST POOL GAS YOST POOL GAS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,370.29 Total : 2,370.29 203578 8/1/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 667.32 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 37.30 200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 94.10 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 58.59 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME Page: 25 Packet Page 48 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203578 8/1/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 89.49 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 126.59 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 56.38 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 36.29 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 53.16 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 20.82 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.82 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 20.82 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 20.82 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 20.81 200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00( WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00( 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 43.27 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 38.27 Total: 1,410.33 203579 8/1/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES 21431 WWTP - ACCESS SYSTEM SERVIC Page: 26 Packet Page 49 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203579 8/1/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES (Continued) W WTP - ACCESS SYSTEM SERVIC 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 173.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 16.44 Tota I : 189.44 203580 8/1/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5026908387 Additional b/w images Ricoh MP171S Additional b/w images Ricoh MP171S 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.65 Total: 7.65 203581 8/1/2013 074528 RYAN, TIMOTHY RYAN 07252013 REFUND TRANSFER ERROR, NO A REFUND TRANSFER ERROR, NO A 001.000.239.200 10.00 Total: 10.00 203582 8/1/2013 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & 03-807 E1 FM.SERVICES THRU 7/5/13 E1 FM.Services thru 7/5/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,796.94 Total: 2,796.94 203583 8/1/2013 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 607543 INV#607543 CUST#0001733 - EDMC 40 S&W 180GR GDHP AMMO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,395.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 132.53 Total: 1,527.57 203584 8/1/2013 074083 SCHREIBER STARLING & LANE 7 FAC - ADA Improvements and Replac FAC - ADA Improvements and Replac 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 2,400.00 Total: 2,400.00 203585 8/1/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 198676 INV#198676 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1999 TOYOTA #850VMX 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 Page: 27 Packet Page 50 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203585 8/1/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 203586 8/1/2013 036955 SKY NURSERY 166510 FLOWER PROGRAM FLOWER PROGRAM 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 243.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 23.09 166657 FLOWER PROGRAM, HAZEL MILLE FLOWER PROGRAM, HAZEL MILLE 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 123.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 11.75 Total: 401.56 203587 8/1/2013 007287 SNO CO ECONOMIC DEVELOP CNCL 200002517 EASC STATE OF THE STATION State of the Station Address luncheor 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 125.00 Total: 125.00 203588 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2015-5730-3 750 15TH ST 750 15TH ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 114.86 2016-1027-6 750 15TH ST SW 750 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.43 2017-6210-1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 72.49 2021-6153-5 750 15TH ST SW 750 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 318.86 2044-6743-5 FIVE CORNERS SPRINKLER FIVE CORNERS SPRINKLER SYSTE Page: 28 Packet Page 51 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203588 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 74.56 Total: 597.20 203589 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 25,559.42 Total: 25,559.42 203590 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 94.13 2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,056.89 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 703.16 2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 116.29 2005-9295-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.86 2006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 384.21 2006-7801-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 56.67 2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 31.80 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL V1 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 286.44 Page: 29 Packet Page 52 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203590 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 33.32 2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.86 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,389.83 2015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 131.40 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.80 2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 346.29 2017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 59.77 2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 68.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 261.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 261.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 261.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 261.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 261.94 2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 Page: 30 Packet Page 53 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203590 8/1/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,570.17 2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 16.43 2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 97.05 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,400.98 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 90.22 2044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 101.11 Total: 15,442.27 203591 8/1/2013 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2013454-01 INV#2013454-01 EDMONDS PD 18" CONES W/REFLECTIVE STRIP 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 226.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 20.85 Total: 247.50 203592 8/1/2013 072562 STUD103MUSIC LLC STUDIO 17160 KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP KINDERMUSIK PRINCESS CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 605.00 Total: 605.00 203593 8/1/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSET BAY 16765 BEACH CAMP 16765 BEACH CAMP 16765 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 11,104.00 Page: 31 Packet Page 54 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203593 8/1/2013 072319 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC (Continued) Total: 11,104.00 203594 8/1/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIALLC 440011704443 C/A440001307733 07/2013 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 440011704773 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 07/02/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total: 69.90 203595 8/1/2013 074410 SYMER, CHRIS SYMER 08012013 HMP CONCERT HMP CONCERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 203596 8/1/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN 07252013 SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 52.5 HOUR SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 52.5 HOUR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 525.00 Total: 525.00 203597 8/1/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 64332 SCREENPRINTING BIRTHDAY T-SH SCREENPRINTING BIRTHDAY T-SH 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 203.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 19.36 Total: 223.11 203598 8/1/2013 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 79709 PRINTING OF BIRD FEST POSTER; Printing of Bird Fest posters 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 351.95 9.5% Sales Tax 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 33.44 Total: 385.39 203599 8/1/2013 071666 TETRATECH INC 50697668 WWTP - ON CALL SERVICES W WTP - ON CALL SERVICES 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 3,484.09 Page: 32 Packet Page 55 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203599 8/1/2013 071666 071666 TETRATECH INC (Continued) Total: 3,484.09 203600 8/1/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101826913-07172013 E3JB.INVITATION TO BID AD E3JB.Invitation to Bid Ad 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 134.16 101827233-07182013 E2GB.INVITATION TO BID AD E2GB.Invitation to Bid 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 182.32 Total: 316.48 203601 8/1/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1827581 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3932 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 22.36 1827582 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3933 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 43.00 Total: 65.36 203602 8/1/2013 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 11843419 PW Admin - 1 Yr Subscription - -- PW Admin - 1 Yr Subscription - — 001.000.65.519.91.49.00 195.00 Total: 195.00 203603 8/1/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 362854 FS 16 - Full UPgrade STD MOD 1-10 FS 16 - Full UPgrade STD MOD 1-10 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 238.24 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.57 Total: 271.60 203604 8/1/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29545799 WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI' WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI' 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 556.25 Total: 556.25 Page: 33 Packet Page 56 of 192 vchlist 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 34 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203605 8/1/2013 074529 VOROTNIKOV, ALLA VORTNIKOV 07242013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 71.68 Total: 71.68 203606 8/1/2013 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.0056126 INV#DRAN.FX00056126 EDMONDS ANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 40.00 Total: 40.00 203607 8/1/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 49178 INV#49178 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2002 BMW #B78606G 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 203608 8/1/2013 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9073 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,150.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 109.25 Total: 1,259.25 203609 8/1/2013 071359 WASSER CORPORATION INV000002953 WWTP - PAINT W WTP - PAINT 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 665.46 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 102.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 63.25 Total: 831.51 203610 8/1/2013 070180 WATAI CRASH DATA- ROTH CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL 1&2 - RO- CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL 1 &2 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 249.00 Page: 34 Packet Page 57 of 192 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/31/2013 4:05:17PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203610 8/1/2013 070180 WATAI 203611 8/1/2013 068270 WETHERHOLT & ASSOCIATES PS 203612 8/1/2013 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 203613 8/1/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 114 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 114 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) ROTH - WATAI MEMBERSHIP - ROTH - EDMONDS MEMBERSHIP PROCESSING FEE 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 20.00 2013 MEMBERSHIP 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 60.00 Total: 329.00 37859 WWTP - SITE VISIT, ROOF INSPEC WWTP - SITE VISIT, ROOF INSPEC 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,105.00 Total: 1,105.00 37348-08 E6MA.SERVICES THRU 7/14/13 E6MA.Services thru 7/14/13 129.000.24.595.70.41.00 1,592.41 Total: 1,592.41 1018 JULY-13 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Total: 13,390.00 Bank total : 230,524.56 Total vouchers : 230,524.56 Page: 35 Packet Page 58 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 59 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 60 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 61 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 62 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 63 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 64 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 65 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 66 of 192 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 8/1/2013 Packet Page 67 of 192 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Proiect Title STIR Transportation Plan Update Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c391 E2AA Revised 8/1/2013 Packet Page 68 of 192 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 69 of 192 AM-5998 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Review Committee: Type: Action Information 5. Submitted By: Robert English Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Subject Title Authorize the Mayor to sign a Conditional Settlement Agreement & Release with Gray & Osborne, Inc. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the document. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Conditional Settlement Agreement & Release (Exhibit A) with Gray & Osborne, Inc will address the dispute regarding what portion, if any, of the settlement amount paid by the City to Precision Earthworks, Inc. is related to design work provided by Gray & Osborne, Inc. on the Haines Wharf project. Attachments Exhibit A - Conditional Settlement Agreement & Release Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/01/2013 05:31 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/01/2013 05:40 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2013 08:17 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/02/2013 08:27 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2013 08:51 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/01/2013 12:53 PM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2013 Packet Page 70 of 192 CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & RELEASE THIS CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("City"), and Gray & Osborne, Inc. ("G&O"), collectively, the "Parties." I. RECITALS WHEREAS, G&O served as the design consultant for the City on a public works project commonly referred to as the 76th Avenue West / 75th Place West Walkway and 162"d Street Park Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Project, the General Contractor for the Project, Precision Earthworks, Inc. ("Precision"), commenced a lawsuit against the City claiming entitlement to additional monies; and WHEREAS, the City reached an agreed settlement of the lawsuit with Precision, but a dispute has arisen regarding what portion, if any, of the settlement amount paid by the City to Precision is related to Project design work provided by G&O; and WHEREAS, although the Parties have not reached an agreement as to the underlying facts of this dispute, the Parties recognize the risk and uncertainty of litigation or arbitration if this dispute is not settled and compromised; desire to reach an agreed final resolution of this matter; and have mutually agreed to enter into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, II. TERMS & CONDITIONS In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the Parties and each of them agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals and the definitions contained therein are incorporated into these Terms and Conditions. 2. Consideration. The consideration for this Agreement consists of the payment by G & O to the City in the amount of Thirty -Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00). 3. Release by the City. Effective upon receipt of the $35,000.00 payment and the approval of the Edmonds City Council, as set forth in Section 8 below, the City releases and forever discharges G & O and its officers, partners, employees, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, subconsultants, successors and assigns from any and all debts, demands, damages, liabilities, suits, actions, and causes of action of whatsoever kind, Packet Page 71 of 192 nature or description (including claims for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements) arising out of Project design services provided by G & O, which resulted in the City processing a change order and paying additional monies to Precision. The Parties agree that the scope of this Release does not include claims for damages relating to defects in Project construction work resulting from design services provided by G & O or its subcontractors that were not discovered prior to the date of this Agreement. 4. Underlying Representations. Except as expressly stated in this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge that no other Party or person, nor any agent or attorney of any Party or person, has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever concerning the subject matter of this Agreement to induce the other Party to execute this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge that they have not executed this Agreement in reliance on any such promise, representation, or warranty. 5. Assignments of Interest. The Parties mutually represent and warrant to each other that they have not assigned, subrogated, or otherwise transferred any interest in any claims that are related in any way to the subject matter of this Agreement. 6. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement is a compromise of a dispute and may not be construed as an admission of liability by any Party to any other Party, person, or entity. Further, this Agreement may not be construed as an admission of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation. 7. Voluntary Execution; Contract Interpretation. The Parties acknowledge that each has reviewed this Agreement in its entirety and that each Party understands the same. The Parties further acknowledge that each has had the opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel about the Agreement to the extent the Party desires. The Parties further acknowledge that the terms and conditions hereof adequately and correctly reflect each Party's respective understanding of the subject matter hereof. The Parties have generated this Agreement through equal negotiations. This Agreement should not be construed more favorably or unfavorably as to any Party hereto. 8. Authority to Execute. Each person who signs this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has the right and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom he or she signs and to bind that Party to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is conditional only in that it is subject to the approval of, and not binding upon the City unless and until approved by, the Edmonds City Council during an open public meeting. The City's representatives agree to recommend approval to the Edmonds City Council and will inform G & O of the result of the City Council's determination within forty-eight (48) hours of the Council's consideration of this Agreement. 2 Packet Page 72 of 192 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes any prior understandings or agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no other representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, verbal or written, between or among the Parties that relate to the subject matter of this Agreement. 10. Amendments to Agreement. No amendment to this Agreement or supplementation of this Agreement is valid and enforceable unless the Parties make the amendment or supplementation in writing and fully execute the same. 11. Effect of Waiver. Failure by any party to enforce a term or condition of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of that term or condition. A party may only waive a term or condition of this Agreement in writing. Waiver of a term of the Agreement does not constitute waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Agreement. Waiver of a term of the Agreement with respect to a party does not constitute waiver with respect to any other party. 12. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Party that substantially prevails in any dispute or claim arising from this Agreement will be entitled to recover its costs associated with the dispute or claim including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. 13. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington and will be construed and interpreted in accordance with Washington law. The Parties consent to personal jurisdiction in the State of Washington for any dispute or claim related to this Agreement or related to the subject matter of this Agreement. The venue for any dispute or claim related to this Agreement, arising from or related to the subject matter of this Agreement is Snohomish County Superior Court. 14. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision, or portion thereof, of this Agreement to be invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, such invalidity will not affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. The Parties will substitute the invalid provision with a valid provision that most closely approximates the intent of the invalid provision. 15. Successors and Assigns. The rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement will inure to and be binding upon the successors and assigns of each of the Parties to this Agreement respectively. 3 Packet Page 73 of 192 16. Signatures on Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in multiple counterparts, each of which will comprise an original Agreement. Signatures on faxed copies will be deemed the same as original signatures. WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby acknowledge their agreement and consent to the terms and conditions set forth above through their respective signatures below. CITY OF EDMONDS GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. DAVE EARLING, Mayor Signature DATE: ATTEST: SANDY S. CHASE, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Title DATE: 4 Packet Page 74 of 192 AM-6000 6 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Stephen Clifton Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board request to amend City Code Section 3.75.120 - Extend Deadline for Submitting Annual Work Programs and Budgets. Recommendation The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is requesting the City Council authorize the City Attorney prepare an Ordinance amending City Code Section 3.75.120 by changing the date recommended annual work programs and budgets be submitted to the City Council each year from September 1 st to October 1 st. Previous Council Action November 13, 2012 - The City Council Finance Committee expressed support for, and recommended the City Council approve, a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. November 27, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds (see attached). December 18, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to establish a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds and setting the public hearing date for January 15, 2013 (see attached). January 15, 2013 - The City Council voted to approve Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. March 12, 2013 - The City Council confirmed the appointment of eleven Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board members. March 12, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3914 amending Edmonds City Code 3.75.120 relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. June 11, 2013 - The City Council Finance Committee recommended that this item be placed on the City Council agenda as a 30 minute item. During the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting, members of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board will present information on proposed EDBID work program and budget for year 2013 in addition to bylaws. A question and answer session may follow. June 25, 2013 - The City Council approved Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Year 2013 Work Program and Budget. Packet Page 75 of 192 July 23, 2013 - The City Council approved Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Bylaws. Narrative Edmonds City Code Section 3.75.120 requires the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board to recommend and submit a work program and budget for year 2014, and annual work programs and budgets for all subsequent years, to the City Council for review and consideration by September 1 st of each year. Due to the amount of time it has taken to prepare and obtain approval of EDBID Bylaws and 2013 Work Program and Budget, there is not much time left to prepare and submit a work program and budget for year 2014 to the City Council by September 1, 2013. Finalizing annual work programs and budgets during the late summer months, just prior to September 1 of each year, will also make it challenging due to the availability of Board members and EDBID members. As such, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is requesting the City Council authorize the City Attorney prepare an Ordinance to amend City Code Section 3.75.120 by changing the date recommended annual work programs and budgets must be submitted to the City Council each year from September 1 st to October 1 st. The amendment would look like the following: ECC 3.75.120......... The interim Members Advisory Board shall submit a proposed work program and budget for 2013 to the city council within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial appointments and shall recommend a work program and budget for all subsequent years no later than.September 9 epw;nb iOctober 1 st of the year before." Background Business Improvement Districts (BIDS), also known as Business Improvement Areas (BIAS), are designed to aid general economic development and to facilitate merchant and service business cooperation. A BID is a local self-help funding mechanism that allows businesses and/or property owners within a defined area to establish a special assessment district. In Washington State, BIDS are authorized by statute, i.e., the Revised Code Washington. More specifically, the above referenced funding mechanism is an assessment collected from businesses and/or properties within defined geographic boundaries where BID sponsored/supported activities are financed through a special assessment. There are many reasons to create a BID. The most common motivations are that BIDs are conceived, designed, and managed locally by those who are paying the assessments, and everyone in the district will contribute toward funding BID activities. In other words, business owners pool their money to do things they want to do and that are best done collectively. Funds collected are used to provide services for the mutual benefit of businesses and/or properties being assessed and can be used to provide marketing, public area maintenance, security, parking, streetscape improvements, and professional management/services. Each BID typically has a member advisory board made up of members within the BID boundary. The concept of business district management funded through business community supported assessments has been around for many years and gained wide popularity during the 1990s. Under one name or another, well over 1,000 such districts exist throughout the United States, with many more in Canada and throughout the world (Business Improvement Districts in the United States - Rutgers University, 2011). In Washington State, Parking and/or Business Improvement Districts/Areas exist in Olympia, Poulsbo, Richland, Seattle (eight currently active), Spokane, Tacoma, Yakima, Auburn, Everett, Burien and Port Angeles; the City of Longview is currently in the process of working to create a BID. January 15, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #4): http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=l&get year=2013&dsp=ag&seq=767 March 12, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #5): Packet Page 76 of 192 http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=3&get year=2013&dsp=ag&seq=795 June 25, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #12): http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=6&get year=2013&dsp=ag&seq=831 July 23, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #7):http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get month=7&get year=2013&dsp=ag&seq=849 Attachments Ordinance 3909 Ordinance 3914 - Amending ECC Section 3.75.120 Ordinance 3929 - Amending ECC Section 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 08/02/2013 Form Review Date 08/01/2013 03:45 PM 08/02/2013 08:27 AM 08/02/2013 08:51 AM Started On: 08/01/2013 02:01 PM Packet Page 77 of 192 ORDINANCE NO. 3909 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; LEVYING ASSESSMENTS UPON BUSINESS OWNERS; PROVIDING FOR THE DEPOSIT OF REVENUES IN A SPECIAL ACCOUNT AND EXPENDITURES THEREFROM; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR DELINQUENCIES; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD; AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT WITH A PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR. WHEREAS, the owners and operators of businesses located within the area and representing approximately sixty percent (60%) or more of the assessments levied by this ordinance signed a petition in support of establishing an Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.87A.030, the City Council on November 27, 2012 adopted Resolution 1284 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, initiating a proposal for a Business Improvement District within a portion of the City of Edmonds"; WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.87A.040, the City Council on December 18, 2012 adopted Resolution 1285 entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Declaring the City's Intent to Establish a Business Improvement District Within a Portion of the City of Edmonds and Setting a Public Hearing Date Regarding the Same"; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District established herein is for the purpose of enhancing conditions for the owners and operators of businesses;; and {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/1 I Packet Page 78 of 192 WHEREAS, as provided by Resolution 1285, the City Council, held a public hearing on the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District on January 15, 2013 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington; and WHEREAS, the testimony received at that hearing resulted in the Council determining that establishing an Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District is in the best interest of the owners and operators of businesses within its boundaries and the public generally; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 3.75 of the Edmonds City Code entitled "Business Improvement District," is hereby adopted to read as follows: Chapter 3.75 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Sections: 3.75.010 Area Established. 3.75.020 Levy of Assessments. 3.75.030 Programs. 3.75.040 Assessment Methodology. 3.75.050 Rate Changes. 3.75.060 Deposit of Revenues. _ 3.75.070 Collection Schedule. 3.75.080 Delinquent Payments. 3.75.090 Notices. 3.75.100 Disputes. 3.75.110 Expenditures. 3.75.120 Members Advisory Board. 3.75.130 Business Improvement District Fund Oversight. 3.75.140 Contract for Program Management. ECC 3.75.010. Area Established. As authorized by Chapter 35.87A RCW, there is hereby established an Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District ("EDBID") within the following boundaries as shown on the map attached as "Exhibit A"(when a street or alley is named, {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 2 Packet Page 79 of 192 the area boundary is the centerline of the right-of-way_ including vacated portions unless otherwise specified in the description). The EDBID includes the parcels with the tax ID numbers set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein as set forth in full (for additional detail, please see the attached map). In case of a conflict between the list of parcels Exhibit B and the ma (Exhibit A), the map shall control. ECC 3.75.020. Levy of Assessments. To finance the programs authorized in Section 030, the owners and operators of businesses (collectively, "Members") in the EDBID described in Section I shall pay and be subject to a special assessment in the amount listed in Table 1 below. The Assessment shall be measured by the type and square footage of the business, subject to calculations and limitations in Section 040. Residential properties and the residential component of mixed -use properties shall not be subject to the special assessments. Commercial properties. or the portions thereof, that are vacant (do not contain a business) shall not be assessed. ECC 3.75.030. Programs. Assessment revenues may be used for any combination of the following component programs, but not for any other purpose: A. Marketing & Hospitality a. Maps/Brochures/Kiosks/Directories b. Web Site c. Social Media d. Marketing/Advertising Campaigns e. Holiday Decorations f. Street Performers/Artists g. Historic Education/Heritage Advocacy h. Special Public Events { ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} Packet Page 80 of 192 B. Safety & Cleanliness a. Maintenance b. Securijy c. Pedestrian Environment Enhancements C. Appearance & Environment a. Design Enhancements b. Neighborhood Advocacy & Communication c. Streetscapes/Lightin • urniture D. Transportation a. Transportation Alternatives b. Directional Signage c. Parking Management & Miti ag tion E. Business Recruitment & Retention a. Education/Seminars b. Market Research c. Business Recruitment F. Organization a. Contract Staff & Professional Services b. Administration Costs. ECC 3.75.040. Assessment Methodoloay. The special assessment amount shall be based on the type of business multiplied by the square footage of a business. There shall be two business classifications for the purposes of calculating the assessment: "open door" businesses (e.1?., restaurants, retailers, banks, etc.), and "by appointment" businesses (e.g., hair {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 4 Packet Page 81 of 192 salons, doctors, lawyers, nail salons, insurance providers counselors, financial advisors, etc.). Open door establishments are assessed at a higher rate than by appointment businesses due to the relatively higher benefit that open door businesses are expected to receive from the programs, Table I shows the annual assessment for both classifications of businesses based on theirs ware footage within the EDBID. Table 1 Square footage Assessment for "Open Door" Assessment for "By Appointment" 0-499 $90 quarter ($30 per month) $30 quarter ($10 per month) 500-999 $105 quarter ($35 per month) $45 quarter ($15 per month) 1000-1999 $120 quarter ($40 per month) $60 quarter ($20 per month) 2000-4999 $135 quarter ($45 per month) $75 quarter ($25 per month) 5000 and over $150 quarter ($50 per month) $90 quarter ($30 per month) The initial assessment calculation shall be based on the City of Edmonds' business license records for year 2012. Governmental entities, public utilities, nonprofits operating under Internal Revenue Code section 501 c 3 shall not be assessed. ECC 3.75.050. Rate Changes. Changes in the assessment rate shall only be made by ordinance and as authorized by state law. ECC 3.75.060. Deposit of Revenues. The City of Edmonds will create a Business Improvement District Fund within the City of Edmonds budget; a separate subaccount designated as the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Account (called "the Account"). The following monies shall be deposited in the Account: (a) All revenues from assessments levied under this ordinance; (b) Gifts, grants and donations; (c) Interest and all other income from the investment of Account deposits; 1 ERZ699840. DOC;2/00006.080052/1 Packet Page 82 of 192 (d) Reimbursements due to the Account; (e) Interest and/or penalties from delinquent accounts; and (f) Transfers from other city funds, PROVIDED THAT liabilities of the EDBID shall not be an obligation of the general fund or any other special fund of the city ECC 3.75.070. Collection Schedule. Assessments shall be paid and collected on a quarterly basis, PROVIDED THAT Members may opt to pay the full yearly assessment at the time of the billing for the first quarter. ECC 3.75.080. Delinquent Payments. If the assessment is not paid within sixty (60) days after its due date, a delinquency charge shall be added at the rate of twelve percent 12%per annum. The Finance Director is authorized to use a City of Edmonds approved collection agency to collect any unpaid assessments. Use of a collection agency will result in a business pgyigg the a enc 's fee on top of the amount of the BID assessment plus interest and penalties. ECC 3.75.090. Notices. Notices of assessment, installment payments, or delinquency. and all other notices contemplated by this ordinance shall be sent to the EDBID Member by ordinary mail to the mailing address shown on the Business License as maintained by the CiV Clerk. Failure of the Member to receive gny mailed notice shall not release the Member from the duty to pay the assessment and any interest and delinquency charges on the due date. ECC 3.75.100. Disputes. Any Member seeking to challenge the amount of an assessment or delinquency charge may submit additional information concerning the classification and/or square footage of the business to the Finance Director or designee, who may { ERZ699840. DOC;2/00006.080052/ } Packet Page 83 of 192 adiust the assessment based on Table 1 if he determines that the original classification and/or square footage was erroneous. The Finance Director shall provide a written detennination to the Member, which may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner within ten days of the Finance Director's determination bypaying an appeal fee in the amount of $250.00 and filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk that sets forth the alleged error in the Finance Director's determination. The Member has the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner to show that the assessment or delinquency fee is incorrect. ECC 3.75.110. Expenditures. Expenditures from the Account shall be made Uon vouchers drawn by the Finance Director and shall be used exclusively for the purposes defined in Section 030. ECC 3.75.120. Members Advisory Board. The Mayor shall appoint, subject to confirmation by the City Council, an interim Members Advisory Board comprised of Members from the EDBID within sixty dais of the effective date of this ordinance. The Mayor shall appoint at least seven and no more than eleven interim board members. The interim Board shall be composed of both open door and by appointment EDBID Members, respectively, in rough proportion to the dollar value of assessments to be levied on each classification of businesses. In addition., the Finance Director and the Community Services / Economic Development Director shall be non-votiniz, ex officio members of the interim board. The interim Members Advisory Board shall be responsible for proposing. bylaws and policy guidelines to the City Council that will address, among other matters, the coMposition and method ofa ointin or electing future board members. The initial Member Advisory Board shall submit their proposed bylaws to the city council within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial appointments. The interim Members Advisory Board shall { ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} Packet Page 84 of 192 also provide advice and consultation to the Finance Director, and to any individual or agency, that mqy be hired to manse the day-to-day operations of the Business Improvement District program, on all matters related to the operation of the program. The interim Members Advisory Board shall recommend a work program and budget for 2013 no later than 90 days after the effective date of this ordinance and shall recommend a work program and budget for all subsequent years no later than September 1 St of the ear before. The board shall address and discuss Member concerns and questions reizardin the EDBID and program; review all reports submitted to the Finance Department by the Member's Advisory Board or Program Administrator, if hired,• and sponsor the initial annual Members meeting. ECC 3.75.130. Business Improvement District Fund Oversight. The Finance Director shall administer the BID Fund for the City with authority to: (a) Consider adjusting the assessment amount based on an erroneous classification or square footage; (b) Collect the assessments; refund assessments when overpaid or otherwise improperly collected; extend the deadline for payment; and waive delinquencycharges and interest whenever the delinquency results from extenuating circumstances beyond the Member's control, such as a casualty loss causing premature closure of the business, bankruptcy, or the total principal payment due to the City (exclusive of penally and interest is Ten Doltars $10.U0 or less; (c) Calculate and collect the interest for late payments; and (d) Accept and deposit advance payment of assessments by Members,_ accept donations from governmental a mendpublic, and owners and operators of businesses. { ERZ699840. DOC ;2/00006.080052/ } Packet Page 85 of 192 ECC 3.75.140. Contract. for Program Management. The Community_ Services! Economic Development Director andlor Finance Director shall serve as the Program Administrator until permanent provisions are made pursuant to adopted bylaws. Section 2. Commencement of Assessments. Assessments shall commence at the beginning of the month following effective date of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TA DAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 01-11-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 01-15-2013 PUBLISHED: 01-20-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 01-25-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3909 {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 9 Packet Page 86 of 192 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3909 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 151h day of January, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3909. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA; LEVYING ASSESSMENTS UPON BUSINESS OWNERS; PROVIDING FOR THE DEPOSIT OF REVENUES IN A SPECIAL ACCOUNT AND EXPENDITURES THEREFROM; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR DELINQUENCIES; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD; AND PROVIDING FOR A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 161h day of January, 2013 i. " C � hc<-ate CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {ERZ699840. DOC;2/00006.080052/} Packet Page 87 of 192 Attachment A {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/1 11 Packet Page 88 of 192 BI D Boul in, da ry Iz Ul �wri,rc.- Cr 4 7 CL IN 2m {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 12 Packet Page 89 of 192 aQ R rf� A f A A 209 N wn t3�A►7+1 , 146 � U; W G lse Ala LAM } Downtown Business Improvement District W Parml, m�srla Cky of Edmonds - Fla M Sth Ave N k t0a, ge 91 606"ds,WA l6k101, ee9Qh finch = M feet x A Attachment B Parcel IDs Associated with Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District 00434400100601 00830800020500 27032300407700 27032300406500 00434202101600 00871500010000 00434209703702 27032300405800 00434202101800 00871500010100 00434209703700 00434212003900 00434202101900 00787600010000 00952100010100 00434212003700 00434202102100 00787600020100 00952100000201 00434212003800 00434202102300 00787600020200 00952100000301 27032300404400 00434202102600 00787600020300 00952100000001 27032300405400 00434202102800 00863300010100 00952100000002 27032300405600 00434202102900 00863300020100 00952100000003 27032300405500 00434202103000 00863300020200 00952100000004 00434401500601 00434202103100 00863300020300 00952100000005 00434401500602 00434212000302 00434401200300 00952100000006 00454800102000 00434212000500 00858900120100 00952100000007 27032300408500 00434212000600 00858900120200 00952100000008 00678200010100 00434212000700 00858900120400 00952100000009 00678200010200 00434212000900 00858900120300 00952100000010 00678200010300 00434212001100 00434400700402 00952100000011 00678200010400 00434212001200 00434400700500 00952100000012 00678200010500 00434212001500 00434400700700 00952100000013 00678200010600 00434212001700 00434400700800 00952100000014 00678200010700 00434212002100 00434400700300 00952100000015 00678200010800 00434212002400 00434400700401 00952100000016 00678200020100 00434212002600 00434400600100 00952100000017 00678200020200 00434212002800 00434400600300 00952100000018 00678200020300 00434212003300 00434400600400 00952100000019 00678200020400 00434212100100 00434400600500 00952100000020 00678200020500 00434212103700 00434400600701 00952100000021 00678200020600 00434212200100 00434400600702 00952100000022 00678200020700 00434212300100 00434400601202 00952100000023 00678200020800 00434209700100 00434400601201 00952100000024 00678200030100 00434209700300 00434400600600 00952100000025 00678200030200 00434209700900 00434400101002 00952100000026 00678200030300 00434209703100 00434400101100 00952100000027 00678200030400 00434209703400 00434400101202 00952100000028 00678200030500 00682200000100 00434400101201 00952100000029 00678200030600 00682200000200 00864100010000 00952100000030 00678200030700 00682200000300 00864100020000 00952100000031 00678200030800 00682200000400 00864100020100 00952100000202 00678200040100 00682200000500 00864100020200 00952100000203 00678200040200 00682200000600 00864100020300 00952100000204 00678200040300 00682200000700 00864100020400 00952100000205 00678200040400 {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 14 Packet Page 91 of 192 00682200000800 00864100020500 00952100000302 00678200040500 00682200000900 00864100030000 00952100000303 00678200040600 00682200001000 00864100030100 00952100000304 00678200040700 00682200001100 00864100030200 00952100000305 00678200040800 00682200001200 00864100030300 00956300010100 00454800300700 00434209803700 00864100030400 00956300010200 01070900000100 00434209803900 00454800101200 00956300020100 01070900000200 00434209804000 00454800100901 00956300020200 01070900010500 00434212100700 00434401500700 00956300020300 01070900010600 00434212203701 00887300010100 00956300020400 01070900020100 27032300409000 00887300010200 00956300020500 01070900020200 27032300408200 00887300020100 00956300030100 01070900020300 27032300405100 00887300020200 00956300030200 01070900020400 27032300405200 00887300030100 00956300030300 01070900020500 27032300405300 00887300030200 00956300030400 01070900020600 27032300404600 00887300030300 01016400010000 01070900020700 27032300405700 00887300030400 01016400020100 01070900030100 27032300404500 00887300030500 01016400020200 01070900030200 27032300404100 27032300412700 01016400020300 01070900030300 27032300403600 27032300412800 01016400020400 01070900030400 27032300403700 27032300412900 01016400030100 01070900030500 27032300404000 27032300413000 01016400030200 01070900030600 27032300407800 27032300413100 01016400030300 01070900000300 27032300407900 27032300413700 01016400030400 01070900000400 00813900000100 00434401201100 01016400000100 01070900020800 00813900000200 00434401201202 01016400000200 01070900020900 00813900000300 00434401201201 01016400000300 01070900021000 00813900000400 27032300404900 01016400000400 01070900021100 00813900010100 27032300408000 01016400000500 01070900021200 00813900010200 27032300413200 01016400000600 01070900021300 00813900020100 00434400700100 01016400000700 01070900030800 00813900020200 00858900100100 01016400000800 01070900030900 00434401600300 00454800200901 01016400000900 01070900031000 00434401601100 00434400100101 01016400001000 01070900031100 00434401600502 00434400100102 01016400001100 01070900031200 00434401600501 00434400100300 01016400001200 01070900031300 00434401600503 00434400101001 01016400001300 27032300404200 00454800100100 00434400100800 01016400001400 00434212003000 00454800100300 00434400100700 01016400001500 00434212003100 00454800100902 27032300408900 01016400001600 00434401300200 00454800101100 00924700000100 01016400001700 00434401300101 00454800101300 00924700000200 01016400001800 00434401300102 00454800101700 00924700000300 01016400001900 27032600102500 {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/} 15 Packet Page 92 of 192 00454800200400 00924700000400 01016400002000 27032600100100 00454800201000 00924700000500 27032300403800 27032300413500 00454800201100 00924700000600 27032300403900 27032300413400 00454800201700 00924700000700 27032300407100 27032600100800 00454800201900 00924700000800 27032300407000 27032600100900 00830800020100 00924700000900 27032300406900 27032600102900 00830800020200 00924700001000 00434212000101 00830800020300 00924700001100 00434212000102 00830800020400 00924700001200 00434212000301 {ERZ699840.DOC;2/00006.080052/1 16 Packet Page 93 of 192 ORDINANCE NO. 3914 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 3.75.120 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by Ordinance No. 3909 resulting in the establishment of Edmonds City Code Section 3.75; and WHEREAS, Section 3.75.120 of the Edmonds City Code requires the BID Members Advisory Board to propose bylaws and policy guidelines to the City Council that will address, among other matters, the composition and method of appointing or electing future board members, and that the initial/interim BID Member Advisory Board submit their proposed bylaws to the city council within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial appointments; and WHEREAS, Section 3.75.120 of the Edmonds City Code requires the BID Members Advisory Board recommend a work program and budget for 2013 no later than 90 days after the effective date of Ordinance 3909, and WHEREAS, the City Council now deems it appropriate to bring consistency between the timelines established for preparing bylaws/policy guidelines, and a work program/budget, for year 2013, i.e., submitting both bylaws/policy guidelines and a work program/budget for year 2013 to the city council within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial Members Advisory Board appointments; and 1 Packet Page 94 of 192 WHEREAS, on February 26, 2012, the City Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to make further revisions to chapter 3.75.120 ECC, NOW, THEREFDORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3.75.120 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through): Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. AZaAk d: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY: (?�� Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 03-08-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 03-12-2013 PUBLISHED: 03-17-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 03-22-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3914 2 Packet Page 95 of 192 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3914 Of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 12th day of March, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds passed Ordinance No. 3914. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION 3.75.120 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 131h day of March, 2013. 4852-3031-9887, v 1 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 96 of 192 Attachment A ECC 3.75.120. Members Advisory Board. The Mayor shall appoint, subject to confirmation by the City Council, an interim Members Advisory Board comprised of Members from the EDBID within sixty days of the effective date of this ordinance. The Mayor shall appoint at least seven and no more than eleven interim board members. The interim Board shall be composed of both open door and by appointment EDBID Members, respectively, in rough proportion to the dollar value of assessments to be levied on each classification of businesses. In addition, the Finance Director and the Community Services I Economic Development Director shall be non -voting, ex officio members of the interim board. The interim Members Advisory Board shall be responsible for proposing bylaws and policy guidelines to the City Council that will address, among other matters, the composition and method of appointing or electing future board members. The initial Member Advisory Board shall submit their proposed bylaws to the city council within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial appointments. The interim Members Advisory Board shall also provide advice and consultation to the Finance Director, and to any individual or agency, that may be hired, to manage the day-to-day operations of the Business Improvement District program, on all matters related to the operation of the program. The interim Members Advisory Board shall reeemniend submit a proposed work program and budget for 2013 to the city council fielater- than -within 90 days of the city council's confirmation of the mayor's initial appointments after the err a fiya date of this ordi an and shall recommend a work program and budget for all subsequent years no later than September 1st of the year before. The board shall address and discuss Member Packet Page 97 of 192 concerns and questions regarding the EDBID and program; review all reports submitted to the Finance Department by the Member's Advisory Board or Program Administrator, if hired; and sponsor the initial annual Members meeting. Packet Page 98 of 192 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 391d of the City a1 Edmonds, Washington On the 12th day of March, 2013, the Cary Council of. the Qty of 3mvnds pssaad Qrdmtutce'No. 3914. A Summary of the content said ordirtertce eargtstiV fha t11IeON ro NM as tAol�11Mil @T014, U OADIh}AIYCt� OF THE IT OF Nos, W_ _ _ _ _ _ IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THI SAME SHALL BECOME I FFECTIVE. The full text of thta Ardd1A8nCa wlll.hd maned upnn request - DATED th19 131h d9y of March.89i3 CCiTY CLERIC. SAIVDRA S. CHASE Published: March 17, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds 4 Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3914 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: March 17, 2013 and that said �aer was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. r Vnficipal Uerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day o March, 2013 �L Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 iditig at Everett Snoho:nii�h I Order Number: 0001813913 Packet Page 99 of 192 ORDINANCE NO.3929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by Ordinance No. 3909 resulting in the establishment of Edmonds City Code Section 3.75; and WHEREAS, Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 relate to the deposit and collection of revenue, delinquent payments and notification of such; and, WHEREAS, the City's Interim Finance Director has requested a change in terminology used to more accurately reflect what is to take place related to unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments and the City Council now deems it appropriate to modify the terminology; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2 0 13, the City Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to make further revisions to sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 ECC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through): -1- Packet Page 100 of 192 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY: Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06-21-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06-25-2013 PUBLISHED: 06-30-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07-05-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3929 Appr ed-. r M YOR DAVID O. EARLING -2- Packet Page 101 of 192 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3 9 2 9 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 251h day of June, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds passed Ordinance No. 3929 . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 AND 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 261h day of June, 2013. CITY CLERK SANDRA S. CHASE 4852-3031-9887, v I Packet Page 102 of 192 Attachment A ECC 3.75.060. Deposit of Revenues. The City of Edmonds will create a Business Improvement District Fund within the City of Edmonds budget; a separate subaccount designated as the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Account (called "the Account"). The following monies shall be deposited in the Account: (a) All revenues from assessments levied under this ordinance; (b) Gifts, grants and donations; (c) Interest and all other income from the investment of Account deposits; (d) Reimbursements due to the Account; (e) Interest ar."r penalties "mDe[inquency charges from delinquent accounts; and (f) Transfers from other city funds, PROVIDED THAT liabilities of the EDBID shall not be an obligation of the general fund or any other special fund of the city. ECC 3.75.070. Collection Schedule. Assessments shall be paid and collected on a quarterly basis, PROVIDED THAT Members may opt to pay the full yearly assessment at the time of the billing for the first quarter. ECC 3.75.080. Delinquent Payments. If the assessment is not paid within sixty (60) days after its due date, a delinquency charge shall be added atand calculated at ant -he interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the due amount. The Finance Director is authorized to use a City of Edmonds approved collection agency to collect any unpaid assessments. Use of a collection agency will result in a business paying the agency's fee on top of the amount of the BID assessment plus delinquent charges' enal€ie . ECC 3.75.090. Notices. Notices of assessment, installment payments, or delinquency, and all other notices contemplated by this ordinance shall be sent to the EDBID Packet Page 103 of 192 Member by ordinary mail to the mailing address shown on the Business License as maintained by the City Clerk. Failure of the Member to receive any mailed notice shall not release the Member from the duty to pay the assessment and any interest and delinquency charges on the due date. ECC 3.75.100. Disputes. Any Member seeking to challenge the amount of an assessment or delinquency charge may submit additional information concerning the classification and/or square footage of the business to the Finance Director or designee, who may adjust the assessment based on Table 1 if he determines that the original classification and/or square footage was erroneous. The Finance Director shall provide a written determination to the Member, which may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner within ten days of the Finance Director's determination by paying an appeal fee in the amount of $250.00 and filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk that sets forth the alleged error in the Finance Director's determination. The Member has the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner to show that the assessment or delinquency chargefee is incorrect. Packet Page 104 of 192 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH s AAlay Cny o �pirvANCF wa. as2sh at the a4lwdmonda, �vashirtgta on the 25th day. of Juno, 2013. the City Coilrull of Iha CiN al Eomonde passed D ajice No. 3929. A summary of V1a tan anS of said orgtnsno©. Cenoislinp of fhe title, pmykfas as I OW& 1 AN ORDINANCE of THE CITY of EDMONDS. WASHMTON. AMENDING SUMCNDS CrFV COD1r, SECTipNS 3.76.060. 3.7S.070, 3.76.Of10. 3.75,090 AND 375-100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWPITOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MIA F170NG A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Thu lull iaxi of this Ordinanca will be maiyd upon request DATED this 281n day of June, 2013. CITY CLERK SANDRA S. CHASE Published: June 30, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication 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 Summ4ry of Ordinance No. 3929 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 30, 2013 and thvas regularly distributed to i subscribers during all of said period. at S spaper nnr. WtFC rL• Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of July, 2013 C. z e2lz� Notary P.oblic in and for the State of W County Account Number: 101416 1st PL FrE��y �t.r �N1S1 e res ding v rett SDc1h misltl �? Order Number: 0001825483� Packet Page 105 of 192 AM-5991 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Bloom Department: City Council Committee: Submitted By: Jana Spellman Type: Cancel Information Subiect Title Authorization to recruit for Development Services Director. Recommendation Previous Council Action July 9, 2013 Finance Committee: The Finance Committee discussed considering a budget amendment to fund the Development Services Director position in 2013 rather than delay funding of this position until the 2014 budget (minutes attached.) Narrative The Development Services Director position has remained vacant since March 31, 2009, the former director's last day of employment. Since that time, two to three searches for a replacement have been launched, but none have resulted in filling the position. The third posting file may likely have been a combined posting file from 2010 (from the #10-15 pool) given the length of the posting: #09-15 — 45 applicants. Posted March 9, 2009. Closed April 2, 2009. #10-15 — 54 applicants (many of whom were from the 09-15 pool). Posted March 2, 2010. Closed April 30, 2009. There were also several rounds of interview — 7 interviewed from the#09-15 pool and 6 interviewed from the # 10-15 pool (with a second round of interviews of 3 from the # 10-15 pool). Planning Manager, Rob Chave, was appointed as Acting Development Services Director on March 6, 2012. The Development Services Director oversees the Development Services Department which includes 13 other positions. This key director position also oversees five chapters of our city code, and we are currently in the process of a long overdue code re -write. Only the additional pay for the acting position was included in the 2013 budget. The Development Services Director position was not funded in 2013. Mr. Chave continues to serve as the Acting Development Services Director and as Planning Manager of the Development Services Department. Council member Bloom is requesting that Council discuss recruitment for the Development Services Director to begin as soon as possible. Given the previous difficulty in recruiting a suitable candidate to fill the position, it is likely that the recruitment process will take several months. Packet Page 106 of 192 Attachments Attachl: April 7, 2009 Approved Council Minutes Attach 2: June 16, 2009 Approved Council Minutes Attach 3: Aug 31, 2010 Approved Council Minutes Attach 4: 2011 Approved Council Retreat Minutes Attach 5: April 26, 2011 Approved Council Minutes Attach 6: Nov. 6, 2011 Approved Council Minutes Attach 7: July 9, 2013 Finance Committee Minutes Attach 8: Roger Neumaier, Finance Director, Memo Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 08/02/2013 Form Review Date 08/01/2013 11:01 AM 08/02/2013 08:28 AM 08/02/2013 08:51 AM Started On: 07/31/2013 10:07 AM Packet Page 107 of 192 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate to Peggy Pritchard Olson and to Gary Haakenson, the Mayor of Edmonds. Senator Shin presented the Senate Resolution to Councilmember Olson. 8. UPDATE ON BUDGET BY MAYOR HAAKENSON. Mayor Haakenson recalled when he last updated the Council on the ending cash balance, he explained continued declines in revenue required him to make the budget cuts that he announced in mid -March that totaled over $300,000. The yearend cash balance was projected to fall as low as $250,000 at that time, $1 million less than the Council approved in the budget. He reported through a series of actions it has now been possible to increase the 2009 projected yearend cash balance to approximately $1.75 million. First, the budget cuts of $300,000 that he announced previously. Second, he planned to leave three additional positions vacant for the balance of 2009 including the Development Services Director position, creating a savings of an additional $300,000. Third, a decision was made not to make the annual contribution from the General Fund to the vehicle replacement fund, saving $300,000. Fourth, through a combination of furloughs and contract adjustments, the City's labor force has agreed to cuts totaling over $600,000. He summarized these actions would carry the City through 2009, even though the ending cash balance would be $1 million below the target. He explained that was the good news; the bad news was the City returns to a deficit position in 2010 and by 2014 would be $9 million in the red. While 2009 appears to be stable; immediate action in the form of some combination of new revenues or budget cuts would be required before the end of 2009. He advised revenue estimates had not been revised since the last update; although the trend was still downward, it was not reason enough to think the current projections were off base. He advised Finance Director Kathleen Junglov would provide a monthly update to the Finance Committee next Tuesday. He provided the Council a handout with the current forecasts. Council President Wilson asked Mayor Haakenson to describe the labor cuts that totaled $600,000. Mayor Haakenson explained each of the labor groups agreed to 3-5% pay decreases. The non -represented employees volunteered nine furlough days for the reminder of 2009. The SEIU agreed to nine furlough days. The Teamsters agreed to nine furlough days but are still working out the details. Because it is extremely difficult for the Police and Fire Unions to take furlough days and would require someone taking a furlough day to be backfilled with overtime, they agreed to give up the holiday buyback program which totals approximately $200,000 for each union. Council President Wilson recalled there had been demands by Councilmembers and citizens for the City's employees to give back. He expressed his appreciation to the City's employees for the votes they took to help the City during these difficult times. He recognized the employees did not agree to those pay cuts to support the flower program or to put new carpet in Council Chambers but to keep the lights on and the doors open. He commented on the difficult time Snohomish County was having with their labor unions, noting in Edmonds, Mayor Haakenson asked and the unions and non -represented employees gave back. He requested Mayor Haakenson invite each union and a member of the non -represented employees to speak to the Council on April 21 when the Citizens Levy Review Committee will make their presentation to the Council. Mayor Haakenson referred to Council President Wilson's comment that the employees agreed to pay cuts to keep the lights on and the doors open, clarifying the employees agreed to pay cuts and furloughs to avoid losing jobs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 7, 2009 Page 8 Packet Page 108 of 192 of items to be included in the levy and a list of starting point cuts should the levy fail. If there were items in the levy request that the Council was uncomfortable with, he anticipated they would simply be removed by the Council or other items added. With regard to a title or a name for the levy, staff deferred to the Council's wisdom. Any levy proposal taken to the voters should accurately and completely detail what voters are getting with a yes vote and that voters should have a good understanding of what is at stake if the levy fails. He pointed out it could easily be assumed that if voters were asked to reinstate certain budgeted items, a levy failure would most likely mean the continued loss of those services. The likelihood of suggested budget cuts today being the same budget cuts six months from now, should the levy fail, was very high but not a certainty. The Council will make the final decision following the levy vote. Should the levy fail, he assumed City Departments will remain at 2009 levels, underfunded and understaffed. He explained significant adjustments had been made to the 2009-2010 budget allowing the City to survive this year's budget deficit. Many of those adjustments will not be available in 2010 should the levy fail. Programmatic cuts made in March to the parks department and police department would not be reinstated to the 2010 budget should the levy fail. Therefore the return of Yost Pool, Parks Maintenance, Crime Prevention, DARE and other similar programs would be highly unlikely. Furloughs and other labor givebacks that saved the city from layoffs will not be possible in 2010. He expected many positions would be eliminated from every department in the City. He explained it may be easier to consider the deficit the City would face if the levy were to fail. The current forecast shows a surplus in 2010 due to the measures put in place this year and three other changes. He pointed out any budget cuts had a residual effect on future years. The City would quickly drop off to a $750,000 balance in 2011 and then over a million dollar deficit in 2012 with the following years spiraling downward. The 2010 forecast does not include any furloughs, wage concessions, or layoffs and does include all the budgeted items that were cut for 2009. It includes the Development Services Director position open until the results of the levy vote are known or building activity increases. Staff believes the City can go another year without funding the vehicle replacement fund from the general fund and the projection includes revenue from red light camera fines, an item on tonight's agenda. A loss of that projected revenue would equate to a similar reduction in the ending cash balance for year end 2010. He noted all the Parks and Police programs that were cut in 2009 were back in the 2010 budget and would remain if the levy passed. Conversely, should the levy fail, they would once again be eliminated from the budget. If the levy fails, an orderly budget process will begin to make many of the same cuts that were made in 2009 plus additional layoffs, the only alternative to survive 2011. Budget year 2012 will see a much bigger reduction in work force; fewer employees will result in a loss of services and programs. The Citizen Levy Review Committee did their work predicated on a levy amount of $4.3 million. The dollar amount the Council selected in their resolution, $3.75 million, will allow the City's financial picture to stabilize until budget cycle 2015-2016 at which time the same pattern of deficit occurs. The Mayor recalled Council chose to include in the levy dollars a cash infusion to the ending balance fund. He suggested Council consider placing a high and low lid on that fund and if those amounts were reached, certain predetermined actions will take place. He estimated a cash infusion from the levy of $2.2 million into the ending cash balance fund. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 11 Packet Page 109 of 192 Council President Wilson commented the course of moving toward a levy has been a lengthy one, beginning in October with the creation of a revenue work group, the Council's unanimous decision in November to include a budget note that a levy would be placed on the ballot in fall 2009 knowing that it was a terrible economic climate, the Council's affirmation in February of a timeline that culminated with a levy this fall, the formation of the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and presentations from the CLRC that unanimously supported a fall levy. He agreed the Council needed to discuss consolidation/contracting with Fire District One, anticipating the Council would not complete discussions regarding fire consolidation before the July 28 deadline to place the levy on the November ballot. He summarized there was not a great deal of time to preempt the levy decision and suggested they be considered in parallel tracks. Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmembers Plunkett and Wambolt that the Council needed more information regarding fire consolidation before moving forward with the levy. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the adjustments Mayor Haakenson made to the budget recently gave him more confidence that the City could get through 2010. Mayor Haakenson responded as a result of severe actions such as budget cuts and City employees taking furloughs, dollars saved in 2009 had an accumulative effect in 2010 which improved the ending cash balance for 2010. Councilmember Peterson agreed with the suggestion to discuss the levy and fire consolidation on parallel tracks. With the new information regarding fire consolidation, he was open to considering a levy this year or next year. Whether the levy was this year or next, the City still had very serious revenue issues. If the Council chose not to place a levy on the ballot this year, it must be for the right reasons. Council President Wilson commented he had hoped the Council would reach a preferred levy option at the next Council meeting with a final decision on July 21. He suggested a presentation and discussion on the Fire District One contracting at the July 7 meeting. Mayor Haakenson advised staff was meeting with Fire District One on June 25 and could have information to present to the Council by the July 7 meeting. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference to wait until after the fire consolidation presentation/discussion to make a decision regarding the levy. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting fire consolidation was not necessary to delay the levy until 2010. Council President Wilson pointed out although there was an adequate ending cash balance into 2010, delaying the levy means there was no Development Services Director, a short-staffed City Clerk's Office, and no clear plan to fund Yost Pool. Mayor Haakenson pointed out a levy was needed; whether it was in November 2009 or in 2010 was up to the Council. A levy was needed even if the city contracted for fire services with Fire District One; those were two separate issues. He did not anticipate a substantial increase in building activity that would require hiring a Development Services Director in the near future. With regard to Yost Pool, staff intends to issues a RFP this summer to identify parties interested in operating Yost Pool via a public/private partnership. He expressed concern the Council would shortchange themselves if they waited until July 21 to discuss the levy proposal and make a final decision July 28. He suggested discussing the levy proposal at next week's meeting including what items would be included in the levy, the levy title, etc. Alternatively he suggested the Council discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year or delay it until next year. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mayor Haakenson's suggestion to discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 15 Packet Page 110 of 192 Mr. Yarberry reviewed a comparison of building permit revenues 2005-2010 (YTD and estimate) and a comparison of single family permits 2006-2010 YTD. He reviewed proposed changes in the 2011 Development Services budget: • Reductions o Administration — reduced supplies: ($4,700) o Building — reduced professional services, repairs/maintenance: ($67,800) o Planning — reduced professional Services: ($20,000) • One time addition o Planning — Professional Services UW Study: $31,550 Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the savings in the Administration line of the Development Services 2010 budget. Mr. Chave advised the majority of the savings was the Development Services Director salary and benefits; there were also savings in professional services. He advised the 2011 budget includes the Development Services Director position. Mayor Cooper explained his plan was to discuss advertising for that position with staff within the next month. The last recruitment effort did not result in a candidate that was acceptable to the former Mayor. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mayor Cooper first confer with the Council regarding whether they wanted to fund that position. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about contracting out permitting. Mr. Chave answered Planning experimented with contracting with professional consultants during the period of high permit activity and found it was more expensive. Hiring temporary planning assistance during the peak period cost less than half the cost of contracting. Mr. Yarberry responded contracting out permitting was a model that some cities utilized and many of the standard building code inspections could be done in that manner. The difficulty in contracting for those services was obtaining the same level of service for review of items specific to Edmonds such as setbacks, height, etc. If the Council chose to use that model, the fees likely would need to be adjusted. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the graph illustrated the number of employees has tracked with the population, relaying a question that is often asked, why the City has not laid off staff in the Development Services Department during this recession. Mr. Chave answered staffing was never increased during recent peaks in development activity. Staff worked very hard to keep up during that time and it was very stressful. He concluded the department was now staffed appropriately. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Department was charging as much as it could. Mr. Chave answered it was time to do a thorough analysis of the City's fees. The City has done a good job recovering building fees but there is a great deal of room left. Planning fees legislatively have been kept somewhat lower. Councilmember Plunkett commented Seattle's expenses are covered by fees. Mr. Chave explained some services are not covered by fees such as public information, compliance with GMA, etc. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the cost of a building permit should cover the cost. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the policy has been to achieve close to 100% recovery. To maintain that recovery over time, the fees may need to be increased especially for building permits, planning permits, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether an analysis of the fees could be completed in time for the upcoming budget. Mr. Chave did not think so. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizens Levy Committee was reviewing the City's overall use of consultants. She inquired about the $350,000 for professional services for Development Services in the budget book. Mr. Chave answered Planning's professional services include Hearing Examiner and a professional minute taker for several Boards and Commissions. The Administration professional services budget is quite small. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 31, 2010 Page 13 Packet Page 111 of 192 committee or they could proceed to the end of the process and then decide they do not want to participate. The planning committee plans to meet in March. He explained Kent had an intensive 2-year planning process prior to placing the RFA on the ballot as well as a 6-month outreach/public education process before the vote occurred. Because it is a 2-3 year process, the RFA discussions are not competing with the current discussions regarding a levy. He acknowledged a RFA would result in a tax increase but the City would no longer be spending General Fund money for fire protection and it would save the City's budget approximately $3.2 million/year. He advised Councilmembers Wilson, Petso and he are participating on the RFA planning committee. Discussion continued regarding definition of a region (at least two jurisdictions with contiguous boundaries), State law regarding formation of a RFA, guarantees that individual cities could request, equivalent tax rate of jurisdictions, cities and districts interested in participating in the planning committee, ability to have an advisory vote prior to the ballot measure, and FD1's consideration of a contractual consolidation with FD7. DIRECTORS' REPORTS (Con't) City Clerk As City Clerk Sandy Chase is on vacation, Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmembers review the information in the PowerPoint slides, and direct any questions to Ms. Chase. Human Resources Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the Human Resources Department consists of Human Resources Assistant Mary Ann Hardie and herself. She briefly reviewed their backgrounds, education, and certifications. She described the Human Resources Department's responsibilities, summarizing she and Ms. Hardie are involved in all aspects of Human Resources from hiring to resignation/retirement/termination. Ms. Humann reviewed statistics since 2004 for L&I (workman's compensation), Family Medical Leave, and costs associated with the Disability Board (LEOFF 1). She emphasized the minimal staffing in Edmonds makes it difficult for staff to get their work done; this is particularly challenging in Human Resources with only two staff members. She provided a comparison of FTE to Human Resources staff in Edmonds and other cities. Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 Work Priorities/Opportunities: • Complete Hearing Examiner process • Assist Council with City Attorney process • Public Defender contract • Update City job descriptions (WCIA mandate) • Update City policies (WCIA mandate) • Recruitment for Development Services Director • Transition to new medical plans • Compensation Consultant process • Partner with PD on Corporal Assessment Center • LEOFF 1 records issues • Completion of union negotiations • Create job descriptions for new positions and negotiate with unions Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 projects that may not be completed: • Citywide accident prevention plan (OSHA requirement) • Website update • Emergency Operations Committee (EOC) Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 4-5, 2011 Page 8 Packet Page 112 of 192 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented since Mayor Cooper arrived, there had not been any reductions in staff. He cited an example in the Planning and Building Department where two inspectors compete in the field because there are too many personnel and not enough work. He relayed comments from a developer who found it very confusing to have two inspectors on a project. He suggested Mayor Cooper reduce labor as a way to trim the budget as much as possible to avoid a levy. He suggested the TBD Board pursue funding for roads. He inquired about the status of the City's finances, commenting he was uncomfortable with increasing taxes until he knew more about the City's financial situation. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested bringing in special events to generate revenue, citing the opening of Lynnwood Recreation Center. He suggested the City purchase Al Dyke's property and construct an entertainment center that would attract visitors and generate revenue. He suggested the answer may be a new pool in Edmonds. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on allegations that Development Services is over staffed and how he justified the $1.5 million paid in salaries and benefits to the 16 employees. Mayor Cooper explained the FTE in that department had been stable even during the boom years; staff was not added in that department during the boom years and the City received a lot of complaints about long lines and delays. Previous Councils and the Mayor did not reduce staffing because staff had not been added during the boom years. For at least the last 11/2 years the Council and Mayor made a conscious decision not to fill the Development Services Director position, resulting in salary savings for a job that pays in excess of $120,000/year. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on the current workload of employees in the Development Services Department; how the City was benefiting from their work if they are not processing applications for new development. Mayor Cooper offered to confer with Mr. Clifton regarding the number of FTEs in the department during the boom years and now and the workloads of each individual. During preparation of the 2011 budget, a decision was made to present a budget that left the Development Services Director position vacant for part of 2011 rather than reduce staffing elsewhere in the department. A code rewrite is needed and perhaps some reorganization is warranted to get that work done. He was uncertain the result would be fewer FTEs; it may result in employees doing different work. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the timeline for hiring a new Finance Director and possibly changing from an Administrative Assistant to a second Finance Director to assist with providing accurate and timely financials. Mayor Cooper responded the application period for a Finance Director closes Friday, April 29. On Monday, May 2, he will begin reviewing applications with the Human Resources Director and other staff members. They will narrow down the applicants and begin the interview process. If there is a pool of qualified applicants, his goal is to have the Council interview three finalists in time to make a decision in late May/early June. With regard to an Administrative Assistant, once a new Finance Director is hired, a holistic look will be given to reorganization. He has discussed reorganization citywide with other Directors. Councilmember Wilson advised the former Development Services Director Duane Bowman left April 1, 2008; the position has been vacant for over 3 years. In response to Mr. Wambolt, Councilmember Wilson explained Councilmember Buckshnis and he via the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee have been reviewing employee benefits at the direction of the City Council. It is not the Council's responsibility to renegotiate contracts with labor organizations and soliciting furloughs is the Mayor's responsibility. The Council's responsibility is the policy. Both Councilmember Buckshnis and he are up for re-election this year and he noted there was no political benefit to reviewing employee benefits. He pointed out many people, including possibly Mr. Wambolt, supported a $3.75 million levy a few years ago. The Mayor's proposal and the Council's discussions are clearly sensitive to the current economy. He agreed the financials were frustrating to everyone, but regardless of whether they were off by 5% or 10%, the City has a revenue problem not an expense problem. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 10 Packet Page 113 of 192 2. Reduced capabilities for code revisions 3. Status quo permit system, service and fee structure Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Development Services 2009, 2010 and 2011 budgets included approximately $173,000 for this position. Mr. Yarberry advised the funds had been budgeted and not used. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council could authorize not filling the position. Mayor Cooper advised the Council could decline to budget for the FIFE in the 2012 budget. He pointed out although the position had not been filled, some of the monies have been spent. Mr. Clifton explained some of the salary savings were spent on the Five Corners and Westgate plans and the Strategic Plan. Ms. Humann advised three postings have been done to fill the Development Services Director position but the responses have not resulted in an acceptable applicant. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether the position needed to be filled. She expressed her preference for budgeting in the appropriate category rather than transferring from a "salary slush fund." Mayor Cooper advised the Council approved funding for the Five Corners and Westgate Plans and the Strategic Plan during the budget process using the salary savings. His preliminary budget will have a recommendation regarding funding for this position. Councilmember Petso inquired about the other unfilled positions. Mayor Cooper listed the vacancies covered by his hiring freeze, advising the positions are included in the 2012 projection: Development Services Director — 1 Police Officer — 1 Permit Coordinator — 1 Custodian —1 Clerk's Office — 1 Seasonal Parks — 2 Councilmember Wilson asked whether it would be appropriate to combine Economic Development and Community Services into Development Services. With regard to code revisions, he suggested utilizing the City Attorney's office. Public Works Public Works Director Phil Williams provided the following information: • Projected 2012 Expenditure Budget: $3,040,367 • 2% Reduction $ 60,807 Account 2012 Projected 2012 Projected Proposed (Reductions)/ Expenses Revenue Revenue Increases Salaries & Benefits (leave one $1,762,107 ($61,100) one custodial position vacant) Professional Services — $5,000 ($ 5,000) Engineering Minor Equipment — $3,100 ($ 2,150) Engineering Miscellaneous - Engineering $9,600 ($ 4,320) Overtime $5,000 ($ 1,673) Total Budget Reduction/Increase Revenue $74,243 (2.44%) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 6, 2011 Page 12 Packet Page 114 of 192 07-09-13 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 F. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles Mr. Williams reported this is a police seizure vehicle, a 1994 Ford Explorer. Funds from the sale of the will be placed in the 511 fund. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. G. May 2013 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Neumaier reviewed the May 2013 Monthly Financial Report, explaining the City is on track to achieve the budget and slightly exceed revenues. A more thorough presentation will be made at the time of the quarterly financial report. In response to a question regarding the negative YTD trend in gas utility tax, he offered to review prior years' trends and email Finance Committee members. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. E. Discussion Regarding Budget Amendment to Fund the Development Services Director Position. Mr. Neumaier relayed Councilmember Bloom's request to fund the Development Services Director position. He reviewed the history of the Development Services Director position and options for funding the position. Anticipating there may be other items Councilmembers want funded in the 2014 budget, Mr. Neumaier encouraged the Council to make priority decisions as part of the 2014 budget. Mayor Earling explained he met with Councilmember Bloom to discuss her interest in funding the Development Services Director position. Funding that position now would cost $140,000-150,000, he preferred not to obligate those funds this late in the year but would consider it along with other potential staff additions in the 2014 budget. He anticipated a preliminary budget with revenue and expense projections would be available in 2-3 months. Councilmember Yamamoto recommended this be discussed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recommended discussion with the full Council. Action: Schedule for Public Safety & Personnel Committee. I. Park Impact Fee Ms. Hite provided an update regarding park impact fees. Mayor Earling vetoed the park impact fee ordinance; the primary concern was change of use, assessing commercial park impact fees at a different rate for retail versus office. The City Attorney has determined from an RCW that exempting change of use is not legal. Staff has worked with the City Attorney and consultant to draft an ordinance that will apply park impact fee to both resident and commercial; commercial will be defined in two categories, manufacturing and office/retail. Under the new ordinance, a park impact fee would only be assessed on new construction; a change of use would not be assessed a park impact fee. Action: Scheduled for full Council on July 23. H. Public Comments Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, referred to a miscellaneous salary expense in the amount of $33,000 and over $58,000 in attorney fees, costs and pre -imposed judgment interest payable to the law firm of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas that were approved on the June 25 Consent Agenda. No information was provided in the agenda memo. He expressed concern with the lack of transparency and said the Council owes the public a televised explanation regarding the expenditures and why attorney fees exceed the miscellaneous salary expense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the City Attorney will respond. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Witenberg's concerns. He pointed out the May 2013 Financial Report does not have projections. Councilmember Yamamoto indicated he would reach out to the city attorney to find out how much information can be released. Adjournment —The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. Packet Page 115 of 192 M E M O R A N D U M Date: July 3, 2013 To: Edmonds City Council Finance Committee From: Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Subject: Development Services Director Position Information A Councilmember has proposed that the Development Services Director be funded within the General Fund. The position is currently filled with an acting appointment. I have been asked two questions to which this memo responds. Question #1: If Council decides to fund the Development Services Director position, what alternatives for Funding Exist? Available alternatives for funding the position in the General fund include: 1) Using fund balance. 2) Reducing expenditures elsewhere to achieve funding. 3) Updating revenue projections to create new revenue that can be used to fund the position. In this instance, each of these alternatives could be utilized. Question #2: What is the history of the Development Services Director Position since vacancy in 2009? The Development Services Director position was included in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 budgets. The Salary Budget for 2010 was $292,327. The Salary Budget for 2011 was $283,421. Actual Dollars expended for 2011 were $138,622. The 2010 and 2011 budgets were under -expended for salaries in this area. On page 114 of the 2011 budget, under the Development Services Administration narrative, it states: "Development Services Administration consists of the Director, two part-time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer." The 2012 Budget narrative (page 112) states: "Development Services Administration consists of the Director, two part time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer". I believe that this statement was an oversight error because the Salary Budget for 2012 was $152,794. The Salary Budget for 2013 was $148,131. In the narrative (page 112), it states "Development Services Administration consists of the Director (vacant and not budgeted other than for acting pay), two part time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer". This states the situation that is the case in 2013 and was the case in 2012. So, the change in budgeting staffing occurred during budget development in 2012. I would be pleased to respond to any follow up questions at the Finance Committee Meeting on July 91" City of Edmonds Finance Department Packet Page 116 of 192 AM-6001 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: 30 Minutes Kemen Lien Planning Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Type: Action Information Committee Action: Subject Title Potential action regarding a proposed Interim Ordinance / critical areas 'allowed activities' provisions. Recommendation Adopt the interim ordinance as provided in Exhibit 4. 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. The full Council heard a presentation on the issue at the July 30th Council meeting and scheduled consideration of the interim ordinance for August 6th. 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. Exhibit 1: Issue Outline Memo Exhibit 2: Kernen Lien Memo Exhibit 3: PPP Minutes Exhibit 4: Potential Draft Ordinance Attachments Form Review Inbox Packet Page 117 of 192 Reviewed By Date Planning Department City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kernen Lien Final Approval Date: 08/02/2013 Rob Chave Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 08/01/2013 03:38 PM 08/01/2013 03:45 PM 08/02/2013 08:28 AM 08/02/2013 08:51 AM Started On: 08/01/2013 02:11 PM Packet Page 118 of 192 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 119 of 192 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 120 of 192 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 121 of 192 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 122 of 192 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 123 of 192 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 124 of 192 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 125 of 192 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 126 of 192 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 127 of 192 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 128 of 192 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 129 of 192 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 130 of 192 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 131 of 192 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 132 of 192 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 133 of 192 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 134 of 192 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 135 of 192 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 136 of 192 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 137 of 192 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 138 of 192 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 139 of 192 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 140 of 192 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 141 of 192 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 142 of 192 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 143 of 192 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 144 of 192 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 145 of 192 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 146 of 192 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 147 of 192 AM-5992 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: 60 Minutes Council President Petso City Council Type: Information Tnformation Submitted By: Committee Action: J Jana Spellman Subject Title Continued discussion and possible action 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 July 30, 2013 Council Meeting: This topic was discused at the July 30, 2013 meeting. Exhibit 8: 7/30/13 DRAFT Council Minutes. Narrative Packet Page 148 of 192 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. 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). 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 Exhibit 5 - Council Member Fraley-Monillas email Exhibit 6 - Port of Edmonds Application Withdrawal Letter Exhibit 7 - 5-21-13 Approved Council Minutes Exhibit 8 - 7-30-13 Draft City Council Minutes (Excerpt) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 08/01/2013 Date 08/01/2013 09:03 AM 08/01/2013 09:15 AM 08/01/2013 01:08 PM Started On: 07/31/2013 11:36 AM Packet Page 149 of 192 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 150 of 192 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 151 of 192 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 152 of 192 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 153 of 192 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 154 of 192 • 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 155 of 192 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 156 of 192 • 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 157 of 192 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 158 of 192 9 All structures above 35' in height should not diminish the "human scale" experience of pedestrians on Dayton Street or decrease sunlight on the street. To that end, all buildings over 35' should be set back at least 1' horizontally away from Dayton Street for every 1' in height above 35' above grade. (This results in in significant additional sun shading or perception of a taller building by a pedestrian on Dayton.) The schematic section below illustrates these relationships. Buildings modulated and enhanced with landscaping to provide pleasant pedestrian promenade from 104th/Dayton to the Marsh trail Buildings along All portions of buildings Dayton Avenue no (above 35' tall) set back taller than 4 from Dayton St. stories - sidewalk at least one foot horizontally for every one foot in height above 35' r: Ir.;n Vegetated setback & marsh Pedestrian oriented enhancements and boardwalk commercial activities on per Edmonds SMP ground floor along Dayton St. SCHEMATIC SECTION THROUGH HARBOR SQUARE LOOKING WEST Illustrating basic building height and setback requirements Dayton St. Furthermore, the "average building height" of all buildings on the Harbor Square site, taken as a whole shall not exceed 45'. The means of calculating "average building height" shall be as stated in the notes at the end of this Master Plan. Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading parking areas, etc. will comply with the SMP. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions. Envisioned improvements include: on -site storm water improvements per the City's Storm Water Management regulations (which will improve water quality), vegetation plantings (buffers), and a nature viewing boardwalk. Small Scale Buildings All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds. Articulation means placing emphasis on architectural elements such as windows, balconies, fagade modulation, rooflines, etc to visually break down the fagade of a building into smaller pieces. Modulation is the stepping back or projecting forward of portions of a building facade as a means of breaking up the building's apparent bulk. New or Expanded Elements of the Port of Edmonds Master Plan Packet Page 159 of 192 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 160 of 192 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 161 of 192 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 162 of 192 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 163 of 192 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 164 of 192 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 165 of 192 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 166 of 192 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 167 of 192 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 168 of 192 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 169 of 192 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 170 of 192 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 171 of 192 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 172 of 192 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 173 of 192 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 174 of 192 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 175 of 192 >> 2-23-2013 4 42 05 PM >> <2-23-2013 4_42_05 PM.pdf> Packet Page 176 of 192 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 177 of 192 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 178 of 192 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 179 of 192 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 180 of 192 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 181 of 192 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 182 of 192 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 183 of 192 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Peterson's comment that grant funding would be lost. She was concerned that was not accurate. Councilmember Peterson explained he asked if grant funds would be lost; Ms. Hite was not here to answer that question. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed because Ms. Hite was not here, the Council did not have that information. Mr. Williams explained if the design, funded by a grant, has to be redone, the additional cost likely would come from City resources. He clarified grant funds would not be lost but they may need to be supplemented with additional City funds. With regard to BAS and physically separated and functionally isolated, Mr. Williams advised development can be physically separated by distance but still be functionally connected; in the case of the City Park project, the impervious parking lot and buildings functionally isolate the project environmentally. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Councilmembers are not park expects; Ms. Hite has worked on the City Park project for over a year. The Council is being distracted by the examples and issues such as moving the spray pad; the Council should not be micromanaging the project. She referred to revised language in paragraph 3 of the proposed interim ordinance (Attachment A). She was prepared to pass the interim ordinance next week. The goal was to ensure the language in the CAO was consistent with the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom supported voting on the interim ordinance next week. She asked for an opportunity to review one of the definitions with Mr. Taraday before next week. She relayed her understanding that it was not that grant funds were being lost, grant funds could be spent on a design that later needed to be changed. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled this was discussed most recently at the Council mini retreat; Council direction at that time was to bring it back to the Council in July. At that time the options presented by City Attorney Jeff Taraday were to adopt the plan, change the plan or deny the plan; do nothing was not presented as an option. She sought Council direction so that the next agenda item on this topic could read Discussion and Potential Action on the Harbor Square Master Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a plan could not be adopted because a plan was in the process of being created based on Council input, Exhibit 2. The Council was in the process of reviewing Exhibit 3, the Planning Board recommendation and how the issues had been addressed in Exhibit 2. Before the Council moved on with their consideration of Exhibit 3, Council President Petso asked whether the Council can adopt the original Port Master Plan by majority vote or has that plan been denied. City Attorney Jeff Taraday's recollection of prior Council action was the plan had not been denied; none of the motions to approve or deny passed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the original Port Master Plan could be adopted by a majority vote of the Council. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Port Master Plan has been withdrawn so there is no plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the plan was withdrawn but the Port's withdrawal of the application does not prevent the Council from continuing to process the Harbor Square Master Plan; it also does not foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting exactly what the Port proposed. Even though the Port has withdrawn their application, the Port began a legislative process by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 184 of 192 once that legislative process has begun, it resides at the City Council until the Council takes action. The Council could ultimately decide, 1) they like the Port's original submission, 2) they like elements of the Port's original submittal but want to revise other elements, 3) deny the plan in its entirety, or 4) acknowledge the withdrawal of the application and decide to cease processing the application as a result of that withdrawal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council has been working on a staff -developed Harbor Square Master Plan based on Council and citizen input, Exhibit 2. She reiterated the Council was still in the process of telling staff what they want in Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining because the Council has not decided exactly what they want the Harbor Square Master Plan to look like, he has not ruled out any of the possibilities. The ultimate plan could be any one of a hundred different flavors, including the original plan submitted by the Port. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled making a motion that the Council was no longer working off the Port plan which gave staff 45 days to develop a new plan. Mr. Taraday's recollection and interpretation of Councilmember Buckshnis' motion was the Council was moving forward with a different draft for the purposes of discussion; that new working draft did not permanently foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting the Port's original plan. He summarized there were many different flavors available for the Council's consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether reconsideration of her motion to not work off the Port's plan would be necessary for the Council to again consider the Port's Master Plan. Mr. Taraday said he was unsure how significant the declaration of the working draft was. Someone needs to move a draft of a Master Plan for this property. The Council is not there yet; the prior motions in the process do not matter, assuming the Council can eventually get to four votes for some version of the Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom commented the process has been very confusing. The Port has withdrawn their plan and there are major differences of opinion between what the Council wants, what citizens have expressed they want and what has been presented. In order to simplify the matter, she preferred to abandon the Port's Master Plan that was withdrawn by the Port and focus on Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan and hold a public hearing on that. She anticipated that would not take a great deal of staff time; the Council has been told there was no staff time available. Councilmember Johnson expressed her support for the Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table, Exhibit 3, for discussion purposes only. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mayor Earling indicated there was not enough staff or time to work on a Master Plan. Mayor Earling responded staff on the second floor are very busy, this is the height of the permit season. He anticipated there would need to be a discussion of staff's limitations in responding to Council requests. Acting Development Services Director Mr. Chave explained there are a lot of projects bringing in revenues that will exceed expectations causing increased workload. If a majority of Councilmembers want to continue to create a plan from Exhibit 2, Council President Petso suggested beginning with page 247, the Planning Board recommendations. Councilmember Johnson summarized the Port adopted a Master Plan for redevelopment of Harbor Square. Based on the comments from the public, there are four key areas of concern, 1) whether to have residential in redevelopment, 2) the appropriate setback from the marsh, 3) building heights, and 4) the environment. There needs to be consistency between the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for both the residential component and the marsh setback. Building heights, although a key concern, are a zoning issue and not a Comprehensive Plan issue. Environmental concerns are essentially regulatory review. She Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 185 of 192 recommended the Council focus on whether to have residential in redevelopment and the appropriate marsh setback. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan as two separate items. The SMP is strictly environmental although it does address specifics related to housing and buffer areas. The Harbor Square Master Plan in both Exhibits 1 and 2 reference the SMP. Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for Councilmember Johnson's summary, pointing out Exhibit 4 addresses all those issues. She reiterated Exhibit 4 would be a good starting point for discussion and a public hearing. Exhibit 4 is a one page summary with modifications/additions to language in the Comprehensive Plan. She summarized Council review of Exhibit 4 would be the simplest approach. Council President Petso summarized three Councilmembers have expressed interest in working on Exhibit 4. If a fourth Councilmember was interested in working on Exhibit 4, she suggested developing a finalized draft of Exhibit 4 for next week's agenda and scheduling a public hearing on whatever the Council produces next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for working on Exhibit 4. Mr. Chave pointed out Exhibit 4 was a separate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; whatever is developed would need to be referred to the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to explain the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP. Mr. Lien recalled one of the Planning Board's recommendations regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan was that the Harbor Square Master Plan and the SMP be considered together. The SMP update came to the Planning Board before the Port applied for the Harbor Square Master Plan. With the marsh designed as a shoreline and shoreline jurisdiction extending into the Harbor Square property, a new shoreline environment was developed for the Harbor Square property. When developing the SMP, all plans made and being made are to be considered. The Planning Board slowed the SMP process to allow the Port an opportunity to submit the Harbor Square Master Plan. While they are separate actions, the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan are connected with regard to types of uses. The draft SMP includes residential uses; the Harbor Square Master Plan also talks about residential uses. The setbacks are an SMP issue that any redevelopment of Harbor Square would need to comply with. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Harbor Square Master Plan's inclusion of residential has no impact on the SMP because the Urban Use III environment includes residential. She noted the Council can move forward with the SMP, Exhibit 4 would not be as specific as a Master Plan such as was presented by the Port. Mr. Lien pointed out the key aspect between the SMP and Harbor Square is residential uses. He was uncertain how Exhibit 4 addresses residential uses. If Exhibit 4 prohibited residential uses, the Urban Mixed Use III environment would need to be revised. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the language Council President Petso proposed in Exhibit 4 would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso answered there is a section that specifically addressed the near waterfront area; that is the section she changed in Exhibit 4. Councilmember Peterson asked when the SMP is on the Council agenda next. Mr. Lien answered it is not on the extended agenda; he was waiting to see what the Council did with the Harbor Square Master Plan. He anticipated two more meetings with the City Council on the SMP; first the City Council proposing changes to the draft SMP and the subsequent meeting the revised SMP that would be submitted to the Department of Ecology. He could schedule the SMP on a Council agenda next month. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan section Council President Petso revised was the section that addresses the Master Plan area that includes Harbor Square, Salish Crossing and up to Main Street. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 186 of 192 Mayor Earling commented if the Council is considering a change that affects that entire area, that is a substantial shift and would require involving an entirely different group of property owners and considerably more staff time. He urged the Council to focus on Harbor Square and not broaden the discussion to the entire waterfront. Council President Petso recalled that concern was raised when she drafted Exhibit 4 earlier this spring. She prepared a separate draft that addressed only the Harbor Square parcel and left the other parcels under their original designation. She could do that again for next week's agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why this needed to be discussed next week. Council President Petso answered next week's agenda has an hour available. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton referred to the reference of Exhibit 4 as Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan, pointing out it is not a Master Plan; it simply amends existing Comprehensive Plan language. His concern was the Council considering that language without it being reviewed by the Planning Board as is required. Council President Petso agreed with Mr. Clifton and suggested Exhibit 4 not have her name attached to it but be a generic proposed draft. If the Council decided to pursue Exhibit 4, she agreed it needed to be referred to the Planning Board for a full and proper process. Councilmember Bloom asked if any Comprehensive Plan change must first go to the Planning Board and whether the Council could develop a draft for the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Clifton explained it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board as a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment. He raised that concern in an email when Council President Petso first distributed the draft language several months ago. His specific concern was the title of Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan; it is not a Master Plan, it is language that amends the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso summarized the direction she has heard is to work on a version of Exhibit 4 next week that does not involve properties other than Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis requested specifics about what Comprehensive Plan language Exhibit 4 amends. She was concerned the Council was rushing. Councilmember Peterson relayed tonight's discussion about incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan has now turned into changing the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to ensure the Council agreed they wanted to amend the language in the Comprehensive Plan, noting this is the first time this has been discussed. If that was indeed the Council's direction, he wanted it noticed that way, not just Continued Discussion on Harbor Square. He found it odd that the topic on today's agenda memo, Continued Discussion on Harbor Square Master Plan, has morphed into changing the language in the Comprehensive Plan, two vastly different things, both with complex processes. He summarized Exhibit 4 has been part of the Council packet but this is the first time it has been discussed. Councilmember Bloom pointed out Exhibit 4 has been an attachment to the agenda for a number of meetings. She agreed it has not been discussed previously because the focus was on the staff -prepared revised Harbor Square Master Plan. It was her understanding that Exhibit 4 was a way for the Council to indicate what they wanted there. The process has allowed a number of ideas, questions and concerns to be raised and Exhibit 4 is a way to define what the Council wants. From that, a Master Plan can be developed in the future. Council President Petso advised it was her understanding a Master Plan as proposed by the Port was a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 were also proposed Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 187 of 192 amendments. Mr. Taraday agreed they are all Comprehensive Plan amendments; the question is whether Exhibit 4 can be considered an approval with modifications. He did not find that it was approval with modifications because the original Harbor Square Master Plan is a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council ended up adopting a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan called the Harbor Square Master Plan, depending on how it read, it would be an approval with modifications. Exhibit 4 is not a standalone element; it is essentially an amendment to existing text in the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason it was difficult for him to view it as approval with modifications. If the Council wanted to pursue Exhibit 4, that was inconsistent with approval of a standalone Harbor Square Master Plan element. If the Council wanted to process Exhibit 4, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember make a motion to do so and incorporate in the motion an intent to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan. If the motion passed, the Council would be initiating its own Comprehensive Plan amendment which would be sent to the Planning Board for further hearing and consideration before returning to the City Council. Council President Petso clarified that motion could be made next week or during future discussion. Mr. Taraday agreed. If the Council pursued Exhibit 4, Mr. Chave recommended the Council clarify whether they are addressing only the Harbor Square property or the entire Master Plan area. By pursuing Exhibit 4, the Council was embarking on a new Comprehensive Plan amendment that will need to be docketed. The typical process would be review by the Planning Board during the following year. GMA has fairly extensive requirements for consultation, public process, etc. The Council could hold hearings and develop language for the Planning Board to use as a starting point. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEED WITH EVALUATION OF HARBOR SQUARE BASED ON EXHIBIT 3, THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ISSUE TABLE. Councilmember Johnson recalled this is the path the Council had agreed to take. When the Port withdrew their application, the Council got sidetracked and never completed that analysis, the most important of which is the Planning Board recommendation. All the Council's concerns are embedded in the issue table and she preferred to systematically complete that process before discussing an entirely different process. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Exhibit 2 is a function of Exhibit 3. The Council can continue with discussion of Exhibit 3 but that will require staff to finish Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is a compilation of Council comments/suggestions and how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification of whether Councilmember Johnson meant Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson responded she meant Exhibit 3. She recognized that Exhibit 2 put the decisions in Exhibit 3 in a different format but that was the framework for the discussion that the Council did not complete and she preferred to complete that discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Johnson expected staff to complete Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion of Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson said her expectation was the Council would reach consensus on key issues. Council President Petso explained Exhibit 4 was based on the information available at the time which included the Planning Board's recommendation and public comments. Her expectation was the Council would not reach consensus on key issues because that has not been accomplished previously despite a variety of different meeting formats. The information in Exhibits 1 and 2 are too specific for the Council to reach consensus. Exhibit 4 is more general and the Council may be able to tweak it to reach agreement. She did not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 188 of 192 Councilmember Buckshnis did not support continuing to discuss Exhibit 3 unless staff would be directed to change Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion. Councilmember Johnson commented there were no conclusions in Exhibit 3, only statements of opinion on different subjects. For discussion purposes the Council needs to revisit and reach consensus on the key issues. Councilmember Peterson preferred Councilmember Johnson's suggestion rather than pursuing Exhibit 4. He was unsure the Council would be able to reach consensus. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Councilmember Johnson's expectation was to only discuss Exhibit 3 or would staff be directed to change Exhibit 2. Councilmember Johnson clarified her motion was for the Council to continue the discussion of Harbor Square using Exhibit 3 as the medium for the discussion. Councilmember Peterson suggested if the Council reached consensus, the Council could direct staff to change Exhibit 2. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling commented he did not expect staff to do any more work until they receive some specific direction from the Council. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported before tonight's meeting, Councilmember Johnson, Peterson, and he attended Edmonds Night Out at the Francis Anderson Center. Hundreds of kids and parents attended. The emphasis of the event was public safety but it was a great neighborhood event. He complimented staff and volunteers who made the event possible. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported Councilmember Bloom has volunteered to change from the liaison to the EDC to being the liaison to the Port. She next asked if the Council objected to her informing the EDC and the Planning Board that the Council no longer requested they hold a joint meeting to discuss retail only in the BD1 zone. There were no objections voiced. Councilmember Buckshnis reported tourism is a billion dollar business. Driving the I-90 corridor, she visited many cities the size of Edmonds. She hoped Edmonds would move forward with Roger Brooks' suggestions. For example, millions of people visit a corn palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Keely O'Connell and Jerry Shuster for their walkabout at the marsh. She also thanked Councilmember Bloom and Val Stewart for attending. WRIA 8 recommended Edmonds for a $200,000 grant and potentially an additional $50,000 if another project does not proceed. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Edmonds Police Foundation for the Edmonds Night Out event tonight. He extended special thanks to the Police Department, Fire District 1 and National Guard. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 189 of 192 AM-6003 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 08/06/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: 10 Minutes Robert English Engineering Action Information Committee Action: 10. Subject Title Report on bids opened for the 5th Ave Overlay Project and possible award of contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. in the amount of $732,732.25. Recommendation Staff will review the bids received on July 31, 2013 and provide a recommended action with regard to contract award at the City Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative On July 31, 2013, the City received two bids for the 5th Ave Overlay project between Elm Way to Walnut St. Interwest Construction, Inc. (ICI) provided the low bid of $732,732.25 and the Engineer's Estimate was $547,842. The bid tabulation and a summary of project costs are attached. Additional funds are needed to award the project. If the project is awarded to ICI, the total estimated project cost (design, construction and 10% management reserve) is $1,002,532. Below are the proposed funding sources and amounts to award the contract and complete the project. Proposed Funding Federal Grant $551,000 Water Utility $301,500 Stormwater Utility $20,000 REET $130,532 Total $1,002,532 Staff is also conducting a review of the construction bid documents to determine compliance with federal contracting requirements. The review is coordinated with WSDOT and the results will be provided to the City Council. Attachments Project Budget Packet Page 190 of 192 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/02/2013 11:55 AM Public Works Phil Williams 08/02/2013 11:56 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2013 11:56 AM Mayor Sandy Chase 08/02/2013 11:57 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/02/2013 11:57 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/02/2013 11:05 AM Final Approval Date: 08/02/2013 Packet Page 191 of 192 City of Edmonds 5th Avenue S. Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut Street Decision Numbers 8/1 /2013 Engineers Estimate ICI Low Bid Item Description Unit Quantity Oty (Reduced Work Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Construction Surveying LS 1 1 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 2 Record Drawings (Min. Bid $2,000) LS 1 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Mobilization LS 1 1 $ 38,000.00 $ 38,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 4 SPCC Plan LS 1 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 5 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 170 170 $ 40.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 120.00 $ 20,400.00 6 HMA for Trench Patch Cl 1/2" PG 64-22 TON 70 51 $ 160.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 250.00 $ 17,500.00 7 HMA for Overlay Cl 1/2" PG 64-22 TON 1,700 1,700 $ 78.00 $ 132,600.00 $ 95.00 $ 161,500.00 8 Planing Bituminous Pavement SY 12,200 12,200 $ 6.00 $ 73,200.00 $ 3.85 $ 46,970.00 9 Pavement Fabric SY 900 0 $ 24.00 $ 21,600.00 $ 12.50 $ 11,250.00 10 Adjust Catch Basin EA 8 8 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 550.00 $ 4,400.00 11 Adjust Sewer Manhole Cover EA 5 5 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 800.00 $ 4,000.00 12 Adjust Water or Gas Valve EA 37 37 $ 200.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 325.00 $ 12,025.00 13 Adjust Monument Case EA 4 4 $ 200.00 $ 800.00 $ 325.00 $ 1,300.00 14 Cement Concrete Traffic Curb and Gutter LF 1,418 1,039 $ 33.00 $ 46,794.00 $ 50.00 $ 70,900.00 15 Cement Concrete Driveway Entrance Type A SY 110 0 $ 70.00 $ 7,700.00 $ 85.00 $ 9,350.00 16 Cement Concrete Driveway Entrance Type B SY 280 0 $ 70.00 $ 19,600.00 $ 85.00 $ 23,800.00 17 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp SY 470 470 $ 120.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 150.00 $ 70,500.00 18 Pedestrian Refuge Island LS 1 1 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 19 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 1 $ 37,000.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 91,514.00 $ 91,514.00 20 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 HUND 0.11 0.11 $ 800.00 $ 88.00 $ 7,775.00 $ 855.25 21 Recessed Pavement Marker HUND 0.64 0.64 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,560.00 $ 5,175.00 $ 3,312.00 22 Permanent Signing LS 1 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 21,000.00 23 Plastic Stop Line LF 190 190 $ 5.00 $ 950.00 $ 10.25 $ 1,947.50 24 Plastic Crosswalk Line SF 3,650 3,650 $ 3.00 $ 10,950.00 $ 6.25 $ 22,812.50 25 Paint Line LF 5,000 5,000 $ 0.70 $ 3,500.00 $ 0.60 $ 3,000.00 26 Plastic Sharrow EA 25 25 $ 400.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 7,500.00 27 Inlet Protection EA 36 36 $ 100.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 70.00 $ 2,520.00 28 Wattles LF 250 250 $ 6.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 5.50 $ 1,375.00 29 Property Restoration EST 1 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 30 Ovner Directed Work EST 1 1 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 31 Relocate Light Pole EA 2 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000.00 32 Reimbursement for Third Party Damage EST 1 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 33 Cntract Bond Extension - Non- Participating LS 1 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 34 1 Protable Changeable Message Sin WK 5 5 $ 400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 NOTES: bee note 1 Subtotal $547,842.00 Subtotal $732,732.25 1 Unit .It error, was 1.00, supposed to be $2000 min `WSST (9.5%) $0.00 -WSST (9.5%) $0.00 Total $547,842.00 Total $732,732.25 `does not incl ROW work Other Costs, Estimated Contract Contract Contingency, 10% 55,000.00 73,000.00 Total Contract Budget 602,842.00 805,732.25 Agency (Staff Time) Design 15,000.00 15,000.00 Consultant, P&E 66,000.00 66,000.00 Total Desiqn Budqet 81,000.00 81,000.00 Construction State Costs (ROM) 1,000.00 1,000.00 Agency (Staff Time) Construction 20,000.00 20,000.00 Consultant, Design Support 12,000.00 12,000.00 Consultant, Materials Testing 17,800.00 17,800.00 Consultant, Construction Mgt & Inspection 65,000.00 65,000.00 Total Construction $115,800.00 $115,800.00 Project Totals $799,642.00 $1,002,532.25 Water Dept contribution, based on original City -funded single -lane overlay (-30 % of engineer's estimate dated 4/26/2012 ) Stormwater contribution BEET Federal Dollars Total Funding $222,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $551,000.00 $773,500.00 $301,000.00 $20,000.00 $130,532.00 $551,000.00 $1,002,532.00 8/2/2013 S:\ENGR\Rob\Projects\Transportation\5th Ave Overlay\Project Budget 080213.xls Packet Page 192 of 192